ie8 fix
madison

Microsoft removes Custom XML features from Office 2007

By | December 22, 2009, 12:21pm PST

Summary: As my colleague Mary Jo Foley reported earlier today, Microsoft has lost a crucial court judgment over technology used in Office 2007. Registered OEM partners got a tip-off that the judgment was on its way Monday afternoon, when Microsoft sent an e-mail notifying them of a “new supplement requirement for Office 2007.” It’s a minor headache for OEMs but should have little or no effect on retail customers.

As my colleague Mary Jo Foley reported earlier today, Microsoft has lost a crucial court judgment over technology used in Office 2007:

Microsoft is going to have to cease providing Custom XML as part of its Office suite, as it has lost its appeal to overturn a patent-infringement verdict awarded to Toronto-based i4i for that technology.

I’ve read several scare headlines today claiming that Office and Word sales will grind to a halt on January 11, when the injunction takes effect. They’re wrong. The OEM channel is already gearing up to switch to Office versions that don’t contain the infringing code. Registered OEM partners got a tip-off that the judgment was on its way Monday afternoon, when Microsoft sent an e-mail notifying them of a “new supplement requirement for Office 2007.” The message, which was sent to the US OPC Newsletter mailing list, reads as follows:

Microsoft Releases 2007 Office Supplement
A new supplement for the 2007 Microsoft Office system is required for the United States. After the supplement is installed, Microsoft Office Word will no longer read Custom XML elements contained within .docx, .docm, or .xml files. The files will open, but any Custom XML elements will be removed.

The web page that contains download links includes similar wording, with the word “required” in bold type. As the e-mail and accompanying download page make clear, this is a mandatory patch for OEMs that preinstall Office software on new PCs. It strips away the infringing functionality, which is used primarily by large corporate customers and does not affect files that use the standard Office formats.

And what about shrink-wrapped copies of Office sold at retail? In a prepared statement, Microsoft noted that the injunction affects only copies sold on or after the injunction date of January 11, 2010, and expressed confidence that it would be able to meet that deadline and replace retail stock with boxed Office copies that don’t infringe on the patents:

With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature from these products. Therefore, we expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date.  In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction.

While we are moving quickly to address the injunction issue, we are also considering our legal options, which could include a request for a rehearing by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals en banc or a request for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an e-mail statement, Michel Vulpe, founder and co-inventor of i4i, said, “This ruling is clear and convincing evidence that our case was just and right, and that Microsoft willfully infringed our patent.” The statement also contained an invitation for corporate customers who plan to use this feature in the future: ”We will continue to fully and vigorously enforce our rights and we invite all potential customers interested in custom xml to contact us.”

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
63
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft removes Custom XML features from Office 2007
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
a victory for FOSS
Linux Geek 22nd Dec 2009
?We will continue to fully and vigorously enforce our rights and we invite all potential customers interested in custom xml to contact us.?
Or better yet, switch to Open Office!
0 Votes
+ -
There's no victory for FOSS here.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux Geek was dropped on his head
MSFTWorshipper 22nd Dec 2009
blame his mother, he doesn't know what he does.
Wah! Yamada cried. T_T Thanks a lot for this! happy hermes birkin bag 35cm
0 Votes
+ -
Dump XML garbages!
meusterer 22nd Dec 2009
For good!
0 Votes
+ -
You can thank i4i for needlessly wasting Microsoft's time
and money to remove these unnecessary changes. The whole
ruling seems bogus to me. I hope there is an
investigation into it because there is no other reason
why the court would rule against Microsoft unless they
were paid under the table by i4i. This is the start of
many more lawsuits to come, every big company needs to be
aware of this.
Most people would say too much over the top , others would say complete nonsense or complete and utter idiocy .

Not me!

Not today.

I decided that today I'll stick to political correctness and act in compliance with that decision. That means I will not say
that you are a complete idiot (which you are) or a stupid moron (which you are too.)

Nope! Today I'm not saying nothing like that, I could say it but I won't.

Merry Christmas Donovan.
0 Votes
+ -
He may not reply, so let me say: Merry Christmas, -3.
Hallowed are the Ori 22nd Dec 2009
You are our favorite ankle-biter
0 Votes
+ -
It could be worse you know...
zkiwi 22nd Dec 2009
Microsoft might have written such cruddy code that they couldn't have disabled/removed it by Jan 11, in which case there'd be no more Word sales. So, be happy.

Other than that, you're usually just lame and wrong, why the lying about i4i this time? Are you that pathetic?
0 Votes
+ -
Other than...
UsernameRequired Updated - 23rd Dec 2009
"...because there is no other reason why the court would rule against
Microsoft unless they were paid under the table by i4i."
So you are
making that accusation? Really? That is a serious allegation and if
you are right a heinous crime has been committed. I suggest that you
take what ever evidence that you may have and give it to the
supreme court. Wait. You don't have any evidence do you? You
are upset because your beloved Microsoft lost. They got caught
stealing. They broke the law. Again.

"You can thank i4i for needlessly wasting Microsoft's time and
money to remove these unnecessary changes"
Fanboy! Although
how anyone could be a fanboy of such a soulless, tasteless and
criminal enterprise is beyond me...
0 Votes
+ -
1.0...
jasonp@... 23rd Dec 2009
Sorry chum, you're still no Mike Cox even after years of trying.
0 Votes
+ -
I'll take the bait and bite (again)...
randysmith@... 23rd Dec 2009
You are really becoming a parody of a parody of yourself! As "UsernameRequired" noted, hey, you are accusing Federal Courts of accepting bribes! Really now? You have this evidence? Anonymous posting on a public news site allows you to fabricate information? You are really going off the deep end with this!
0 Votes
+ -
Passionate towards MSFT
moondowner 25th Dec 2009
Microsoft knew of this flaw very long time. i4i contacted them and Microsoft didn't wanted to cooperate with them, they thought they were the big guys and they don't need to waste time with things like this. So, they were wrong. If they settled then, they would have paid much more less money to i4i.

If i4i lost, and Microsoft won, then the ruling would have been bogus. Law is law, everyone is the same in front of it.
0 Votes
+ -
It's time...
Harry Bardal 22nd Dec 2009
Is it time to set this long pattern of behavior against that of other
vendors. Microsoft's legacy includes real antitrust, IP theft, coercion,
and consumer harm. The pattern is long standing, and cannot be
explained by simple, standard issue tech overlap. Technologies have
been corralled by checkbook and by grapple hook. This has not been
a culture of creativity, or innovation. It's been a legal steamroller that
has more to do with binding language than technology.

The theft continues, and the Windows codependency continues, and
pity any dissenting voice against this happy feudal economy.

Folks are getting paid. What's the problem? No victim, no crime right?

What's missing is real leadership. It's been missing for years.

Honest folks don't admire theft but no one transgression need be a
deal breaker. The cumulative effect of this pattern however, puts the
lie to all the spin. As the pendulum swings back away from Microsoft
and their "business model", the "aggregate" opinion that had served
MS well, begins to cede ground to "personal" opinion. Those owed a
living by Microsoft economy are made to feel threatened. Tough.
Unfortunately for the status quo, the decisions are no longer being
made by tech cognoscenti. They are being made by tech's victims.
Judges number among them.
0 Votes
+ -
Translation
Hallowed are the Ori 22nd Dec 2009
"Microsoft sucks, Apple rules."

See how easy that was? No need for long-winded diatribes.
0 Votes
+ -
Not Translated Well
Harry Bardal 22nd Dec 2009
No, that's incorrect.

Here's the correct translation into caveman.

Microsoft has a disturbing pattern of illegal behavior. At any given
time Apple is no Angel either but it's been a pattern of noncooperation
rather than illegality.

The open marketplace however... the thing that contains both of
them... and isn't burdened with 1 set of shareholder's concerns, does
indeed RULE! Ya with me Krog?

(pound ground with club for emphasis)

Hope that helps you and all the other bright lights out there.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Pot kettle black
Ed Bott 23rd Dec 2009
There are "disturbing patterns of illegal behavior" in Apple land as well. From April 2009:

http://tinyurl.com/yawdl8l

"In the matter of willful infringement, the jury ruled that Apple willfully infringed OPTi's patent ... In the matter of damages, the jury awarded OPTi $19 million for Apple's infringement of OPTi's patent."
0 Votes
+ -
Add it Up
Harry Bardal 23rd Dec 2009
How useless is this? You want to play my anecdote vs your anecdote
then skulk out the back door. How many times do I have to call for
acknowledgement of the cumulative effect?

Just do yourself a favor and add it all up. Compare complete records
and not anecdotes. You can Google, hooray, I get that. Now, for
heaven's sake add it up. Understand when I talk about "patterns" of
illegality, I am not referring to the number one hit for an "Apple
lawsuits" search.

Microsoft is 3 billion and climbing for antitrust settlements alone. The
class action suits are another issue.

Here's my point. It begins to effect the user. If you fancy yourself a
consumer advocate, this is exactly where you should start to care. The
direct stuff has an effect to be sure. The instances of price gouging
etc. But increasingly it has an indirect effect. Trust is eroded.
Stockholders are made complicit, then left with stagnant property.
R&D money is redirected to the lawyers. Sound familiar?

This is not pot and kettle. There is no question whatsoever, that
Microsoft compares horribly to its competitors in legal transgressions.
it has been years of recidivism. This is not just some argument about
the path through this week's patent minefield. It is about relentless,
deliberate, and global illegality.

Support the crime, support the criminal. I don't care. Just at least cop
to it. And stop projecting Microsoft's atrocious record onto their one
competitor. Get your own house in order.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Sorry, you're wrong
Ed Bott 23rd Dec 2009
Both companies are big and aggressive. And Microsoft deserved a lot of criticism for its tactics in the 1990s. But it is a changed company in this decade, whereas Apple has become as aggressive and vicious as Microsoft used to be.

And simply yelling something louder doesn't make it true, Harry. You really should get your own blog. Then at least you could develop an argument over time instead of erupting with random explosions in the Talkback section where only a handful of fellow zealots read it.
0 Votes
+ -
i4i = idiots 4 idiots [sake]
GoodThings2Life 22nd Dec 2009
This is an example of how screwed up our patent system is. How is it that a Canadian business with such a ridiculously bogus claim got a patent awarded AND managed to sue a Washington state business in the state of Texas AND get consecutive victories for said acts?

Answer: Absolute idiocy, and that's what our world panders to these days. No no, let's not do what's rational and intelligent, but let's instead do what's best for a particular group's financials, because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings along the way or hold them accountable for really dumb actions and claims.

Is the i4i claim valid? Well, it would be if their patent wasn't so ridiculous, but in this case, it's not, so there's no real harm done.

Anyone who thinks we've heard the last of i4i should go work for them, because they need more idiots.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess then...
zkiwi 22nd Dec 2009
You'll be the first idiot to cross the border and go ask them for work then.

As far as the rest of your post, well, stop whining.
0 Votes
+ -
Makes one wonder...
jasonp@... 23rd Dec 2009
how pathetic you must feel Microsoft is for having to resort to stealing technology from a group of idiots. That group of idiots appear to have made Microsoft their bi...well, you know.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually
bmonsterman 23rd Dec 2009
They didn't steal any technology. The created technology that did the same thing. Patent infringement isn't the same as corporate espionage.
based on the outcome of the fines

here was ?sufficient evidence? for the jury to reach both its verdict and damage award, the court said. It also upheld the trial judge?s decision to add $40 million to the original $200 million verdict for intentional infringement. The remaining $50 million is for post-verdict damages and interest.
0 Votes
+ -
fines don't mean that it was deliberate
bmonsterman 23rd Dec 2009
The damamge award was based on the damage to i4i's business...no because Microsoft knowingly or unknowingly did it.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
The jury said "willful infringement"
Ed Bott 23rd Dec 2009
And the appeals court upheld that determination.
0 Votes
+ -
Reading comprehension problems?
jasonp@... 29th Dec 2009
The verdict was very clear that it was deliberate. To know that, you would have had to try a novel new concept called reading the article before posting responses.
0 Votes
+ -
Open_Office is growing...
nobama_2012 22nd Dec 2009
MS Office is another Virus-ware MONEY draining
disaster.
0 Votes
+ -
Open_Office is growing...
Confused by religion 22nd Dec 2009
...up to be a Microsoft Office clone, down to the virus vulnerabilities... Says a lot when a competing product goes out of its way to look, feel, act, and infect like its idol.
0 Votes
+ -
Open Office is Free
marks055@... 22nd Dec 2009
and that's about it.
0 Votes
+ -
Open Office doesn't compete
bmonsterman 22nd Dec 2009
I like free software. When I put together my wife's last desktop, I installed Open Office on her computer in order to save some money. I'm an open minded guy...why not. My wife is in graduate school and she writes alot of papers. She is not a techie, and doesn't care about who makes what. She poked around open office and at first felt like it would work for her. After a couple of weeks she went to school and bought the student version of Office 2007. She said she couldn't make her documents look as good with Open Office. The formatting wasn't slick enough. The replacement for Powerpoint was a joke.

The truth is...this article has nothing to do with Open Office vs Office 2007. Linux pundits always get on Microsoft related talkbacks and throw out all of the anti-Microsoft rhetoric they can...even if it has nothing to do with the article.

Microsoft infringed on i4i's patent, and i4i sued them for it, because it was their only recourse. That is what the article is about, and that's all there is.
0 Votes
+ -
No, Microsoft Office is NOT virus-ware
Lerianis10 23rd Dec 2009
Sure, it has VULNERABILITIES.... but then
again, SO DOES OPENOFFICE! (Sing this with me!)

It's time to STOP with the bullplop of
"Microsoft products are virusware" that you
keep on posing on here, nobama_2012.

It is not virusware, it is a SOFTWARE
PACKAGE.... and like all pieces of software
MADE BY HUMANS, it's going to have some
problems.
0 Votes
+ -
The ONLY thing OpenOffice is growing
Pete "athynz" Athens 23rd Dec 2009
is more and more like the very product you hate so much. MS Office has vulnerabilities just like any other piece of software, the thing is to don't allow micros to run blindly... but that would be lost on someone who makes a post like you did nobama_2012.
0 Votes
+ -
Get rid of XLM garbages!
meusterer 22nd Dec 2009
A rare good decision!
0 Votes
+ -
Be Reasonable
bmonsterman 22nd Dec 2009
1. i4i had an add-on that did what Custom XML did for Word...and a patent. Their claim was legit. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't think of it first, and adding the functionality to Word was patent infringement and hurt i4i's business. My opinion is justice was served here.

2. This has nothing to do with FOSS or ooxml vs ODF.
0 Votes
+ -
how much do they want?
marks055@... 22nd Dec 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
The first sentence of the court's decision pretty much pins this failure squarely on the shoulders of inept counsel. Microsoft should fire them immediately:

"In this case, Microsoft has waived its right to challenge the factual findings underlying the jury?s implicit obviousness verdict because it did not file a pre-verdict JMOL on obviousness for the Rita, DeRose and Kugimiya references..."
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft and others need to check pats etc. before releasing. This could all be avoid if they did their home work.

Or did Microsoft know and didn't care? If that's the case then shame on them.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft knew.
Rick_K 26th Dec 2009
It is company policy to steal other vendor's software; incorporate it into a
Microsoft product, and tie the original owner up in appeals till the owner
goes bankrupt. This is not the first time this has happened, in the last 23
years, and it certainly will not be the last. It is the arrogant attitude of
those Redmond thieves, that turned me (and tens of millions) against
them.
0 Votes
+ -
Id tell i4i to go stuff their custom XML crap and any corporate customer interested will do so as well so kiss my shiny XML buttawks
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
The trouble is...
Ed Bott 23rd Dec 2009
You would also have to tell a United States Federal Court to do that, which is not a good idea when they have already imposed a $290 million judgment.
0 Votes
+ -
So sad
tim.hobbes 23rd Dec 2009
Aw, man. How sad to see Microsoft having to remove pirated software from their own software.

Hope everything will be alright!
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Sigh
Ed Bott 24th Dec 2009
It's not "pirated software." The code was written by Microsoft engineers, but a court decided that the algorithm and methods it used were protected by another company's patent.

Sheesh.
0 Votes
+ -
Erm...
Alan Smithie Updated - 24th Dec 2009
Technically he is right...........

Piracy:

the unauthorized publication, reproduction, or use of a copyrighted or patented work

Come on Ed, check your Websters
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
"Work." Unauthorized publication, reproduction, or use of a ... work. That implies that you are stealing the actual finished product.

As a writer, I deal with the definition of a "work" all the time. It is the finished product I deliver to the publisher. Piracy involves copying that work. If a group of engineers had copied the code from someone's finished product and reused it, then that would be piracy. But they didn't. They used a creative idea that was covered by a patent.

That is patent infringement, not piracy.
0 Votes
+ -
Nice try.
Rick_K 26th Dec 2009
Microsoft created a derivative work at best, at worse they put the pirated
material, in word unchecked. From the size of the fine and the notes
from the judge, it is very unlikely that Microsoft's hands are clean.
0 Votes
+ -
QED
Alan Smithie Updated - 28th Dec 2009
See my comment below about the lunacy of software patents, however in a strict legal sense the screwed up US system of patents allows such an ambiguity to exist where the boundaries of copyright/patent have been blurred thus creating a system where code that should be covered by copyright (verbatim copy and paste of code) as opposed patent (process or principle) now exists.

I personally do not believe that you can patent software no more than you can patent a book as they are merely a set of instructions and should be covered by copyright.

Ed, lawyers will argue this until the cows come home while getting paid an obscene amount of money to create a system that allows them to charge even more obscene amounts of money.

Have a good new year
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft should not pay then
Randalllind Updated - 24th Dec 2009
Not like US will do anything against them. The Dept of Justice just roll over in the first ant-trust suit.

EU is the only legal body that scares Microsoft cause they don't back down.

US talked tough then back down cause Gates was going to move Microsoft to Canada.
0 Votes
+ -
Defend the Hive!
Rick_K 26th Dec 2009
More than likely the code was indeed stolen. Microsoft got a copy of the
plugin and replicated it (often times poorly). Just because the copy is
bad, it does not prove it was written by Microsoft. Just keep dreaming
that Microsoft is not up to its normal tricks; maybe someday, you might
get lucky.
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix