US Court Tells Microsoft To Stop Selling Word 403
oranghutan writes "A judge in a Texas court has given Microsoft 60 days to comply with an order to stop selling Word products in their existing state as the result of a patent infringement suit filed by i4i. According to the injunction, Microsoft is forbidden from selling Word products that let people create XML documents, which both the 2003 and 2007 versions let you do. Michael Cherry, an analyst quoted in the article, said, 'It's going to take a long time for this kind of thing to get sorted out.' Few believe the injunction will actually stop Word from being sold because there are ways of working around it. In early 2009, a jury in the Texas court ordered Microsoft to pay i4i $200 million for infringing on the patent. ZDNet has a look at the patent itself, saying it 'sounds a bit generic.'"
Does that mean... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe not. Office 2000 Word files use XML [devx.com]:
Whether or not
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Lotus Notes has done this for years (Score:5, Informative)
From the patent abstract:
"A system and method for seperate manipulation of the archicture and content of a document particularly for data representation and transformations. The systems for use by the computer software developers removes the dependency on the document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced an provided and stored seperately from the document. The map indicates the locatino and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content storage efficieny of multiple versions and efficiency of operation."
Did you even read the patent? I did. (Score:4, Interesting)
--Original document--
<foo>This is a foo</foo><foo><bar>This is a foo bar</bar></foo>
--i4i patented storage--
Raw document:
This is a foo This is a foo bar
Metadata Map:
1 <foo> 0
2 </foo> 13
3 <foo> 14
4 <bar> 14
5 </bar> 31
6 </foo> 31
The idea is that you should be able to edit the raw data, or the markup, independently of one another. The patent outlines three core scenarios: 1) Taking an existing document with inline markup and separating the text and the markup, 2) Generating a "separate data and markup" document from scratch, and 3) Combining the markup and raw data of a doc generated from scenario 1 or 2 back together to produce a document with the markup inline.
So why is this neat? The patent claims that you can edit both the content and the markup independently of one another. Except that you would require a specialized editor that manipulates both components to be able to do this and still maintain the "mapping" of markup to raw data. Hate to say it, but I can already do this on normal, inline-markup documents using notepad, or any WYSIWYG HTML editor.
The other claim is that you could apply any map to any raw data. Except that, unless the character positions of semantic elements in the raw data were exactly where the "Metadata Map" expected them to be, the result would be a huge mess. Practically speaking, the application of a metadata map to multiple documents (since the map is based on character position) would most likely require additional inline tags to align the separate metadata to the content, thus defeating the whole purpose of the patent. Or maybe you could establish a "standard sentence length" in order to allow one map to be applied to different documents - that would be great.
I'm having a hard time understanding how the technology described in this patent is actually useful at all, let alone how Microsoft has infringed on it. In fact, if they *did* actually use this technology, then they deserve to be punished for using a stupid idea.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Funny)
No, they'll probably have Office Texas 2009, which is like Office 2007, except that it has the XML stuff cut out, and a new language code added: en_TX
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Funny)
new language code added: en_TX
Finally spellcheck will quit flagging "Y'all"
Good or bad? (Score:3, Informative)
This ruling will be bad for "bidnis".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Finally spellcheck will quit flagging "Y'all"
That feature is already available in Texas. When the spelling checker pops up and offers the choices "Accept, Add To Dictionary, Ignore, Ignore Once", you shoot the computer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sad thing is... I am from Ontario and I understood it perfectly.
--- Mr. DOS
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah man, bettern' havin' all them dang up danm fancy'bagger $10 spellin' correctin' red word dang 'ol squiggles itellyouwhat.
Re: (Score:2)
wooooooooo0000000000000sssssssssssjokessssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenOffice uses XML files by default, the format is openly-documented so anyone can use it, but it's XML. So, assuming i2i's patent is held up, how long before the OpenOffice injunction starts?
Microsoft can simply release a patch that forces Word back to the old proprietary DOC format they've been using variants of since Word 1.0. OpenOffice would have to make up a new document format, if i2i decided to continue their pursuit.
And if there's one thing we've learned about scum-sucking patent trollers, it's that they'll root and root for every penny they can, and don't really care about the damage they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm pretty sure the original StarOffice documents were still based on XML.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
XML good. "custom" XML, like that Microsoft proposed under OOXML is bad. It the use (basically) of a data table within the document that maps out the tags within the file. XML itself does not use this. M$ was the only company pushing for it's use. Apparently, they forgot to patent it
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Parody software is protected speech
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They could still get an injunction against distribution if the patent is upheld. Intellectual property law is primarily about intellectual property rights (free as in speech), not profits (free as in beer).
This happens with, for example, MP3 decoders. There is a patent on the MP3 format, it's valid, and the patent holders have monetized MP3 by charging a small fee for every player distributed.
That's "distributed", not "sold". It doesn't matter if you're making money off it, it only matters that you are d
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Google gives me this [pschmid.net].
I'm getting to like the new ribbons, but sometimes the location of a function seems a tad obscure....
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy the Ribbon in Outlook, but thats it.
Sometimes, trying to find Word Count and a couple other obscure functions is like trying to find a needle in a haystack...
Re:Does that mean... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm getting to like the new ribbons, but sometimes the location of a function seems a tad obscure....
So, instead of finding function X in obscure location Y, now you instead have to find it in obscure location Z? ;-)
Live by sword... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Live by sword... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's many things, but they're never a patent troll, so I'm not sure what you mean there beyond simple schadenfreude.
Re:Live by sword... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, they just use FUD and the threat of patents to try to scare people away from using Linux.
Re:Live by sword... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has been pro-software-patent since the mid 1990s...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Live by sword... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Live by sword... (Score:5, Informative)
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then they have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can. "
taken from the 1991 memo at http://www.std.com/obi/Bill.Gates/Challenges.and.Strategy [std.com]
Gates knows software patents are bad for the industry, but Microsoft still lobbys for software patent laws in many countries. They will win in the EU soon...
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gate's quote on the subject: "The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can." taken from the 1991 memo at http://www.std.com/obi/Bill.Gates/Challenges.and.Strategy [std.com]
This isn't a solution, it's a self-centered kludge. A solution might have been to lobby strenuously for the abolition of software techniques or for the reform of how they are granted in the U.S.
Note also that the word "solution" (what Microsoft is in the business of selling) appears exactl
Re: (Score:2)
I said: This isn't a solution, it's a self-centered kludge. A solution might have been to lobby strenuously for the abolition of software techniques or for the reform of how they are granted in the U.S.
Make that "abolition of patents on software techniques", although eliminating software entirely might be a more elegant solution...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Having huge patent exchanges was his quick way to secure as much of his company's IP from being pillaged by patent trolls"
I don't think a "patent troll" is what you think it is.
When you produce real goods you want to protect your IP through patents mainly to avoid competing companies to get your innovations without the expensive R+D process or to block your product line. These are defensive patents; they might be ludicrous but they are still defensive (if you try to sue me for violating your patent X on m
Re:Live by sword... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Live by sword... (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft's many things, but they're never a patent troll, so I'm not sure what you mean there beyond simple schadenfreude.
Look, it's a matter of trust. These silly patents obviously hold water so it's not a matter of "can" or "can't". I don't trust any corporation, not because I'm paranoid but because the whole point of trading is to gain as much profit as possible. All businesses, especially larger corporations, have one goal and that is profit. If Microsoft finds itself in a difficult position (obviously not today, but perhaps about in 10 or 20 years), you can be damn sure that they will do anything in order to regain profit. You can't blame a corporation for having this ultimate goal, it's their end purpose. But it doesn't mean you should trust them, or even encourage them. I myself work within a corporation, and anybody who has ever worked in business management knows these very simple rules of business. Morals are shit, cash is king.
If you ask me any patent holder is a potential troll. Sure they're all nice and friendly when things are going well, but when the shit hits the fan the tables will turn, it's that or bankruptcy (e.g. SCO). So you see it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". Again I'm not blaming anybody and I would have done the same thing, as would any person who knows the first thing about business. But I'm not [currently] in that position, I'm on the other end, the consumer end, so naturally I have different motives. My question to you is, in what way do you, as a consumer, benefit from their patents? Don't say lower prices because we both know that's complete and utter bullshit, at least not in MS position. So you see there are none. Then what is your motive? Is it because you enjoy their products? Well there's no shame in that, but why side with the seller? If you enjoy the product you naturally want it, and by the fundamental goals of trading you want it for as little cost as possible. In order to get this you have to show your sceptism. Is the price really fair? Are the terms fair? Am I bound to anything which will make it difficult or expense when something better and cheaper comes along? If you don't trust them they will eventually meet you in the middle (not necessarily you as an individual, this applies to groups and audiences as well, but with even more effect), as long as there's some profit for them. Naturally any business must generate profit, but for your sake it should be as low as possible. Why else would MS want to lower prices or improve terms and products? To keep you as a customer? They do that simply by gaining your trust, which you've already given away.
So next time you think: "would a business do that for profit?" you should first ask yourself:
A) Is it legal?
B) Would it mean profit? (In this example it would perhaps not mean profit today, but remember that patents are valid much longer than one day)
If the answer is yes to both questions then the answer to your questions would be the same. That's how business works my friend.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Microsoft's many things, but they're never a patent troll
Maybe you forgot.
MS claiming linux violates 235 patents [cnn.com] without telling which ones, is not patent trolling? It's a textbook example, like the mentioned FAT quarrel with tomtom.
Besides, for the crybabies who keep repeating the "Slashdot hates microsoft" story. Look at the rating parent earned.
Re:Live by sword... (Score:4, Insightful)
Its mostly patent FUD designed to inhibit Linux adoption. Its only patent trolling when its used to back lawsuits or extortion of license fees (which doesn't seem to be the main use of the claim.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. So many people think like you seem to: That "patent troll" means "somebody doing something with patents that I don't like." That's not at all what it is.
Patent trolls are companies who exist to do nothing but create patents. These companies never produce anything, they just hope to either force licensing fees from people who are actually creating or, if that company is particularly rich, they wait around for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"sounds a bit generic" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like patenting the ingredients in making a soup. :-(
Re:"sounds a bit generic" (Score:4, Funny)
Fortunately, all I had to do was patent putting edible substances and food stuffs in heated water. Soup, hot chocolate, coffee, hot tubs... yeah, baby. I got 'em covered.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fortunately, all I had to do was patent putting edible substances and food stuffs in heated water. Soup, hot chocolate, coffee, hot tubs... yeah, baby. I got 'em covered.
Ahh, delicious baby in hot tub stew....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of software patents, didn't Microsoft just _get_ one for saving a word processing document as an XML file?
So how are they violating a patent on something they own a patent for?
Or is this just another example of how the USPTO is horrendously screwed up?
Re:"sounds a bit generic" (Score:4, Insightful)
USPTO is an important instance, but patents on software, music lyrics, book texts, movie scripts, pie recipe and countless other things do not belong there IMHO
Re:"sounds a bit generic" (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of software patents, didn't Microsoft just _get_ one for saving a word processing document as an XML file?
So how are they violating a patent on something they own a patent for?
Or is this just another example of how the USPTO is horrendously screwed up?
No, its another example of someone on Slashdot taking a very specific patent application (formatting hints being saved in an XML document for non-generic elements) and assuming that it applies to everything and anything related to that area (xml based documents). This happens with pretty much every patent discussion on Slashdot, especially where someone just assumes they can think up prior art based on the story summary or title, rather than actually answering the patented points.
Microsofts patent and this patent do not cover the same thing.
Lets keep patenting thoughts (Score:3, Funny)
That is moving the industry forward and creating lots of jobs for us techies. I pity the lawyers that are starving due to this innovative environment that is being created by software patents.
Re:"sounds a bit generic" (Score:5, Informative)
The patent office isn't competent to evaluate this kind of patent (which makes me wonder if they're competent about any others). There's at least two (now expired) patents on LZW compression, with Unisys's being the later of the two. There's a multiplicity of patents which cover RLE or null suppression. Change your terminology a little, and you can get a new patent on the same thing.
In this case, it appears the troll has used the term "metacode" to indicate a formatting code, whereas other patents use other terms. New term = new patent.
Furthermore, the patent isn't on saving a word processing document as an XML file. It's a number of claims around the idea of, instead of storing the "metacodes" inline with the document, storing the raw text of the document and a separate table (their "metacode map") indicating where the "metacodes" would be. Once you've got that idea (which is not at all new), the ways of manipulating it are pretty much standard stuff any decent CS student could figure out. The claims include (but aren't limited to) creating that "metacode map" from the original document with inline "metacodes", and applying the "metacode map" to the raw text to create the document with inline "metacodes".
So if Slashcode takes this message with inline formatting codes, and at any point converts it into pure text and stores the formatting codes separately as a set of pointers into the raw text, Slashdot has violated the patent. Ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if Slashcode takes this message with inline formatting codes, and at any point converts it into pure text and stores the formatting codes separately as a set of pointers into the raw text, Slashdot has violated the patent. Ridiculous.
That's what Apple's TextEdit or whatever it was called then did in the late 80's, probably since 1986 or 1987. The text was stored in the data fork of a file, and the complete formatting information was stored as a 'styl' resource in the data fork.
Eastren Tx strikes again (Score:4, Insightful)
I seem to remember that this is where patent trolls are born. Wonder what they did to make this judge unhappy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Long live Eastern Tx (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO it is lovely when patent trolls hit country sized companies who themselves lobby against any change in patent system.
Imagine if MS, IBM, Sun, Apple, SAP sized companies and FSF, Redhat kind of open companies&orgs gathered in a conference, use decades of their expertise to fix the patent system and provide suggestions to US Congress. Wouldn't they be taken serious?
They are looking for the problem themselves.
This is nuts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you're not a Microsoft fan, you have to admit this is pretty frapped up.
According to the ZDNet article, Microsoft owns a patent on XML in word processor documents, but i4i owns the patent for "anything that touches custom XML formatting" in said documents.
The way i4i's patent sounds, this would also affect other things like OpenOffice.org and anything else that uses XML formatted documents. That's like, the entire current generation of word processors, isn't it?
I'm starting to wonder if patent lawyers can pick and choose who grants their patents from the Patent Office (they pick the non-tech literate ones) like they do with the courts when they sue over patent infringement (e.g. most patent cases are from east Texas).
-JJS
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is nuts. (Score:4, Insightful)
The way i4i's patent sounds, this would also affect other things like OpenOffice.org and anything else that uses XML formatted documents. That's like, the entire current generation of word processors, isn't it?
That's also how I interpreted it, and also that they're going after MS rather than OO.o for the money. It's a patent troll in my book. :-(
Re:This is nuts. (Score:5, Interesting)
To be honest, the way I understand it is that every piece of software that produces an XML stream is infringe this patent. Think every piece of webservice and XML processing out there. I'd say that pretty much every piece of software out there infringes on this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is nuts. (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why big companies like Microsoft, IBM and others are in a constant race to patent everything.
Re: (Score:2)
From the looks of it, i4i has patented what XML was created for.
It's like waiting for MPEG to create a new MPEG5 spec, then patenting "using MPEG5 to encode movies". Hope I didn't give some texan an idea here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm far from a Microsoft fan, and almost always choose other companies' software when possible because I just don't like their design philosophy. I prefer Word Perfect to word; WP's "reveal codes" is something sorely lacking in Word (we have both installed at work).
But I agree, for once I'm on Microsoft's side (snowfights in hell?). Even if they could stop sales of Word in one state and not another, I wonder how much it would cost MS? I'm thinking this will hurt Texans more than anyone else.
I can't imagine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit! Now I have to stop selling OpenOffice.org !
Re: (Score:2)
So is OOXML then no longer an 'open standard'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be a tough way to do it, but I can't see any other that might work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we give Texas back (no backsies) to Mexico now?
We could split one of the square states into a North X and South X so we don't have to change the flag.
CSS also violates that patent (Score:3, Interesting)
But MS Holds the Patent on Using XML for Docs! (Score:5, Interesting)
The circle of life:
According to This Patent [slashdot.org], they invented having the XML hold the word processing info... It's just too bad that they didn't invent a way to write the xml file itself.
So, in the current US situation, no one can create an xml word processing document, as you can't write the xml, but even if you could, you aren't allowed to store the font and page number in the file.
This is beyond ridiculous
Contact i4i (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why hasn't change come yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lately it seems that the big companies are getting affected by patent trolls more than the little guys (they have more money). And the big corps have enough political clout to push through patent reform laws. So if they are getting hammered like this, why aren't they lobbying for patent reform? Are they just not getting hit hard enough?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It may not be true for all, but it likely will be true for some, and if those "some" have the cash to support lobbying efforts...
Re:Why hasn't change come yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I reckon that the big companies are using their own very large patent portfolios to keep any new entrants from the markets they dominate. Being large and slow moving, they will also get patents upfront covering new markets to "reserve the business space" for themselves while the rest of the company slowly moves to actually do something in that business space.
For any large and slow moving behemoth company, the ability to use patents to kill any potential future Google while they're still a toddler is priceless. Having to deal with patent trolls once in a while is peanuts in comparisson.
This is the antithesis of what patents are supposed to achieve (they're supposed to promote progress, while killing new and innovative companies does exactly the opposite).
Re:Why hasn't change come yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lately it seems that the big companies are getting affected by patent trolls more than the little guys (they have more money). And the big corps have enough political clout to push through patent reform laws. So if they are getting hammered like this, why aren't they lobbying for patent reform? Are they just not getting hit hard enough?
They have been. Microsoft has been pushing for changes that would dramatically increase the paperwork ballet that one must choreograph to get a patent. That would push independent inventors and small businesses out of the patent circle, and make it easier for companies on the scale of Microsoft, with their in-house legal departments, to use procedure to break the backs of patent trolls who get in their way. Patent trolls would be reduced to killing off independents and small businesses that are not capable of the complex legal ballet Microsoft proposes.
See, Microsoft is trying to fix the system (at least in the sense that the system will be even more fixed).
Good and bad at the same time... (Score:2, Troll)
I am glad that the courts are being stern enough to enforce their ruling, anyone not following through on a verdict should
be held accountable, that being said, I do feel very bad for M$, as the amount given for the fine is way outrageous seeing as the XML format is an open source format, and belongs to the people anyways.
The judge was misguided when he came up with a number, and I am sure needed a new courtroom, with maybe some new staff and decided that M$ should foot his bill. No IT personnel in their rig
O'Reilly "Learning XML Patents"? (Score:5, Funny)
So when does the O'Reilly "Learning XML Patents" book hit the shelves and what animal will grace the cover?
The animal will be some sort of pond life (Score:4, Funny)
To represent patent lawyers everywhere.
If they have a sense of humour & irony (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be the Dodo.
Here's hoping that software patents become as dead as the Dodo.
Re:O'Reilly "Learning XML Patents"? (Score:5, Funny)
what animal will grace the cover?
A leech.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Would anybody miss East Texas? (Score:2, Funny)
Actually having read the patent (Score:5, Informative)
At first I thought this was BS... the way they're describing this patent (in the articles about it) makes it sound like i4i's patent basically applies to any markup language (XML, SGML, HTML, etc). It does not. What they have a patent on is using a map to locate the tags, so that tags don't interfere with document content. If MS is doing this, it isn't part of standard XML, AFAIK.
Let me say it again: This patent isn't about XML, SGML, CSS, etc. It's pretty specific, and, if Microsoft is actually violating it, it's because of what they're doing differently, not because they're using XML.
All that said, IANAL, so there may well be something important I missed.
Re:Actually having read the patent (Score:5, Informative)
What do you mean by a "map" - if you mean a "map" as in "a data structure used to locate the XML tags" then that describes most every XML DOM implementation. When the XML is loaded and parsed, the tags are placed into what I would prefer to call an "index" that helps identify the location of the tags and the structure of the document. XPATH implementations use this heavily.
If I misunderstood, could you reply with a clarification? Sorry, I'm at work and I don't have time to read the patent myself right now.
Yup, that's an infringement y'all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else stop reading after they saw "a judge in a Texas court"? I'm not a Microsoft fan, but this is getting ridiculous.
Tough call (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent withdrawn? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Patent withdrawn? (Score:4, Informative)
looks like a typo you made in the patent number. Check out http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5787449.html [freepatentsonline.com] for the full text.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For those that are happy... (Score:4, Funny)
If this is held up then XML looks to be a dead format
well, every cloud....
Not a "Texas Court", a US Court (Score:5, Informative)
I'm confused (Score:3, Funny)
Who are we supposed to favor in this fight? Microsoft or the patent troll?
I can't quite figure it out myself.
RTF (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this patent not cover the same sort of things that RTF already does?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format [wikipedia.org]
Re:this makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
... unless they're both enemies, and they're really big, then you just stand back and be happy that they're not fighting you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To be clear: not just any HTML editor. WYSIWYG editors that:
So for instance, editors that display what is architecturally the title of the document, allow you to right click, and change form elements.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PENIS PENIS HAHAHA PENIS (Score:5, Funny)
If we have sunk to new depths, it is by having giants stand upon our shoulders
Re:PENIS PENIS HAHAHA PENIS (Score:4, Funny)
If we have sunk to new depths, it is by having giants stand upon our shoulders
I thought it was from standing in the footprints of giants.
If a giant tries to stand on your shoulders, you'll probably find yourself in the footprint fairly fast, albeit not standing.