A US Court of Appeals panel has upheld a judgement that Microsoft infringed on another company's patent with its custom XML tags in Word 2003 and Word 2007.
The judges were asked to reconsider a 2009 ruling regarding i4i's patent, which covers a "method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other". Microsoft lost its first appeal in December, and then lodged a second appeal for a panel hearing and for an 'en banc review' before the full appeals court. The Texas federal circuit panel's decision on Wednesday is part of that process.
"The appeals court has again upheld the lower court's decision in its entirety," i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement. "In addition, it issued a more detailed analysis in concerning the finding of wilfulness in this case. The determination that Microsoft wilfully infringed i4i's patent stands."
In May 2009, a Texas jury ordered Microsoft to pay $200m (£128m at the time) to i4i for infringing on the patent. Then, in August, a Texas judge granted i4i an injunction against Microsoft that prohibited the software maker from carrying out US sales or imports of any Word products that can open XML, DOCX or DOCM files containing custom XML.
Microsoft issued an US-only update to Word 2007 in January this year, removing the functionality that the lower court found infringed on i4i's patent. In February, i4i released a product, x4w V 1.0, which it said returns custom XML functionality to Word 2007 documents.
Custom XML is used in business process applications such as inventory systems, and Microsoft's stripping-out of the tagging feature means that companies will no longer be able to use Microsoft Office-based applications that use it, i4i said.
Toronto-based i4i began its infringement suit against Microsoft in 2007. The suit centres on US Patent No. 5,787,449, which i4i was granted in 1998.
The Court of Appeals is still considering the petition by Microsoft for its appeal via 'en banc review', a rarely-granted form of review that involves gathering the entire Court of Appeals in a circuit. En banc review is the last step before taking a case to the Supreme Court.
Talkback
This article really cheered me up, and not because of any anti-MS sentiment.
It's good to see the proper process of law being applied against a large bully in defense of a smaller innovator. It wouldn't matter who the parties involved are, as long as "right" holds more sway that "fatness of wallet". It reminds me of the guy we read about recently here at ZDNet and on the bloke's own web article who knew enough about Microsoft's and Apple's likely patent infringements to be able to fend off those giants' bully-boy tactics.
Like everything else in this world, the original intention behind the inception of an idea, process or law is often forgotten and the process, in this case patents, gets used in a way very contrary to the original idea - "patents to prevent stifling of invention". In the case of MS v i4i, at least the patent laws are actually being used as per the original idea and are (so far) helping i4i to not be totally ripped off.
Now I wonder which ideal I could twist to attempt getting a reduction in my latest tax bill. Maybe I'll say I thought the government are trying to boost small businesses in the recession so I held back some cash flow . . . ?
Gosh, what a huge surprise. NOT.
<i>"In addition, it issued a more detailed analysis in concerning the finding of wilfulness in this case. The determination that Microsoft wilfully infringed i4i's patent stands."</i>
So, the court found that not only did Microsoft infringe the patent in question, they did it willfully and knowingly. How does Microsoft react? They continue the appeals, plant hints in the press about possibly taking this to the Supreme Court, and stop sales of the infringing software only in the markets where they absolutely have to. All this, for what they have publicly derided as a "little-used feature"?
It makes me sick. The company, the people managing it, the people who work for it, and their scum bag lawyers who propagate this kind of disgusting behavior. I honestly don't know how any of them look at themselves in the mirror in the morning.
jw
@J.W, it is pretty obvious they are going to try to get the Supreme court to hear this case. Maybe they one of the justices. It seems they really don't care if it belongs to someone else, they will use it, and not expect to have to pay. It's called arrogance, simply because of who they are. Nice to see something done right for a change.
@ Do Wop, I can send you a couple of bob, for your tax bill, if it will help. : )