ie8 fix
Click Here

Microsoft loses its appeal in $200-million-plus Custom XML patent infringement case

By | December 22, 2009, 9:48am PST

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.

The plaintiffs were seeking $200 million for patent infringement. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is awarding i4i more than $290 million, plus an added $40 million for intentional infringement, according to a Bloomberg report about the December 22 court verdict. Microsoft has until January 11 to remove the cease selling copies of Office which include Custom XML functionality — a date which is five months after the original late August 2009 ruling date, the Bloomberg report said.

According to what I had heard previously, Microsoft already has figured a way to disable the Custom XML feature and could address the court order via a release of a Word 2007 version with a patch that will disable that functionality. I’d assume the same fix will be applied to Office 2010 between now and its final release by June 2010. See Microsoft response below: Officials say Custom XML isn’t in the Office 2010 beta and that they only have to remove the offending technology from copies of Word 2007 and Office 2007 that are sold on or after January 11.

According to Microsoft, Custom XML is the support for custom-defined schemas. It enables integration of documents with business processes and business data.

I’ve asked Microsoft for further information about what the company is planning, as a result of today’s ruling. I’ll add an update to this post once I hear back.

Update 1: Here’s Microsoft’s official response regarding today’s loss of its appeal from spokesperson Kevin Kutz:

“This injunction applies only to copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007 sold in the U.S. on or after the injunction date of January 11, 2010.  Copies of these products sold before this date are not affected.

“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. “

Update 2: Thanks to Reader “Bitzie,” we now know .Microsoft already has released a patch that disables Custom XML In fact, it looks like this patch went to OEMs in October 2009.

The “supplemental” release for Office 2007 in the U.S. includes a patch, that once, installed, makes sure “Word will no longer read the Custom XML elements contained within DOCX, DOCM, or XML files. These files will continue to open, but any Custom XML elements will be removed. The ability to handle custom XML markup is typically used in association with automated server based processing of Word documents. Custom XML is not typically used by most end users of Word.”

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

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
191
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft loses its appeal in $200-million-plus Custom XML patent infringement case
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
It is usually an exceptionally decent publish. nfl football jerseys Can I use this on my website?
0 Votes
+ -
There was no special treat for Christmas, the courts duly serve up this little gem.

Mebbe Microsoft might have to resolve for the new year, "Guys, let's not steal others' IP from here on in, ok?"
0 Votes
+ -
Or maybe...
njoho 22nd Dec 2009
Or maybe the we'll get back to the notion that a frankly obvious idea is not some property that can be owned by a single corporate entity.
0 Votes
+ -
That being said, the case history shows that Microsoft knew of the product, knew of its being patented, and still infringed anyway.

Now, regardless of the rights or wrongs of software patents, that's just plain lame/wrong/illegal behaviour on the part of Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Be careful, this is bad for all...
LiquidLearner 22nd Dec 2009
as OOo and ODF violate the same patents. As does CSS. This is a really stupid patent and being happy MS lost this is about the only thing that tops it in stupidity.
0 Votes
+ -
No, it isn't...
zkiwi Updated - 22nd Dec 2009
If Microsoft (and others) truly thought that this patent was invalid they have had plenty of time and opportunity to get it revoked.

This case has been around for a not inconsiderable time, and as I have stated, Microsoft knew of the patent, knew they were infringing and infringed anyway. That is wrong.

Oh, and i4i have (I believe) stated that they believe that ODF does not infringe on their patent

And don't try to excuse it on a "patents are bad" or "but there's a bigger picture" stupidity. If Microsoft (and others) thought patents were a bad thing, they've got/had the time and the money to get that part of the system changed. However, they haven't, and won't.
0 Votes
+ -
your biased
pcguy777 Updated - 23rd Dec 2009
Im just trying to use common sense.

...To help innovation and to not stiffle it with multimillion dollar lawsuits.

Prove to us that an xml reader of any sort is groundbreaking.

sounds like a basic file reader, and "tech" thats been around since the dawn of modern computing. hardly worth patenting.

greping a file and displaying the results can pay 200 million? niiiiiice !!!!

if it was a sat nav system engineering and utilizing gps convergence data with a multitute of carrier waves and their.. etc etc... maybe we would all understand that sort of lawsuit (you get the idea here)

but then again...
0 Votes
+ -
Common sense however...
zkiwi 23rd Dec 2009
Would have looked at the case and said, "Hmmm, Microsoft knew of the product, knew it was patented. Didn't move to have the patent invalidated before it hijacked the product. Proceeded to release the hijacked code despite knowing that in doing so they would be in breach of the law." Then using common sense you'd have to conclude, "Dude, Microsoft (in this case) absolutely sucks!"
0 Votes
+ -
Common Sense?
MachineMan1 23rd Dec 2009
For one, common sense is not so common anymore. But to the point, if you believe that you can take someone's rights away because you don't feel it's " ground breaking ", you are living in the wrong country. We have rights that others can't take away just because they don't agree. A patent is a legal right, no matter how stupid it may be.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope. Software patents are bad
DonRupertBitByte 22nd Dec 2009
The tech industry was doing just fine until software patents were "enforced" thanks to the State Street decision.

When Bilski goes down in flames though, at least some of the really bad patent processing efforts will go away instantly.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree, but...
mdsock@... 23rd Dec 2009
The fact remains that MS apparently knew they were infringing. Considering they hold patents themselves and enforce them, they have to be held to the same standards.

Someone who is part of the system and benefits from it can't really complain when it comes back to bite them.
0 Votes
+ -
Not to nit pick...
LiquidLearner 24th Dec 2009
and if MS was in violation of a patent, especially knowingly, then sure they should be sued. I misunderstood the patent it seems so after doing a bit more research than yes, this seems just.

However please point me to one article where MS "enforced" a patent. They've threatened to take legal action but they've never actually done it.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
OOXML, ODF and custom XML
Mary Jo Foley 22nd Dec 2009
Hi. In spite of the "XML" in the name, this patent doesn't have any connection with OOXML. I've seen some folks try to say that this invalidates or jeopardizes OOXML but this is not the case. I asked MS for a statement about whether this case affects/involves OOXML in any way and got this back from a spokesman, fwiw:

"The decision has no implications for Open XML. There was no claim by the patent or its holder that it is essential to the Open XML standard."

Thanks. MJ
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for clearing that up
LiquidLearner 23rd Dec 2009
I remember first reading about this when the initial injunction was reached and the patent read like it included the document format itself. My mistake.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft knew of the product, knew of its being patented, and still infringed anyway.

Which makes MS liable for treble damages. MS got off easy with only a $40M fine for willful infringement.






happy
0 Votes
+ -
Criminal
MSFTWorshipper 22nd Dec 2009
You would fine MSFT $40 billion if you could.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
If the crime fits...
zkiwi 22nd Dec 2009
Why not fine them, or whoever is as guilty as they are that much? Or are you one who thinks that criminals should be given a free pass?
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
true
Al_nyc 23rd Dec 2009
Especially when you consider MS can't cry poverty. They could well afford to license this feature.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't agree...
GrizzledGeezer 23rd Dec 2009
The patent office regularly issues invalid patents for trivial or "obvious" inventions. Unfortunately, judges tend to side with the patent holder, rather than striking down the patent.

Perhaps /the/ classic example of an invalid patent is the one for an intermittent windshield wiper that its inventor eventually got a huge settlement from Ford or GM (I forget which).
think they're invalid. That's not a particularly useful approach to life imho.
0 Votes
+ -
SO TYPICAL of MSucks!
sfaid 23rd Dec 2009
Isn't this really MSucks life story? Since the days of DOS 3.1 they have used this same practice. Every new release has incorporated someone else's code. In the past it appears that when the company had enough money to bring suit against MSucks, they just bought the company. But for thousands of little guys, they just got screwed and lost their income for the utility they had come up with. Oh, think back! Gates didn't even think up DOS. It was given to him for a song. GUI, given to him by Xerox. MS doesn't really do one heck of alot, but STEAL other peoples ideas and incorporate them into their product. Not very well if you ask me. We should be getting Win7 as a bug fix for every other piece of crap OS release so far.
0 Votes
+ -
Speaking of 'obvioius'..
mejohnsn 23rd Dec 2009
yours is yet another obvious instance of a classical philosophical error: assuming that 'obvious' is purely relative.

It is not, nor can it be. There are some fundamental truths that must be obvious to anyone who takes even a modicum of mental effort to think about it, such as "the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts".

Now of course, the path from such fundamental truths to the issues of this patent case is long and full of many gaps. But you are spreading a different kind of FUD by pretending that there is no indubitable knowledge.
0 Votes
+ -
On obvious...
zkiwi 23rd Dec 2009
And your failure in philosophy.

First, it is well established amongst philosophers and the rest of the human population that what is obvious to one person can be (and often is) completely non-obvious to another. There is no indisputably obvious anything.

Secondly, the issue apparently isn't obvious to you. Perhaps you have failed to apply a modicum of thought to it all. The issue is that Microsoft knew there was a patented product, and that they proceed to hijack it for their own profit. They have made no reported effort at all to have the patent invalidated before their blatant hijacking.
If they had done so in 1980 I could have let it go, but two years ago?
0 Votes
+ -
And?
Sleeper Service 23rd Dec 2009
The end result will be a settlement or a rewrite. It'll cost MS but it's not as if they can't afford it.

Open Source in the meantime will continue to limp along quietly in the shadow of its proprietary rivals.
0 Votes
+ -
OpenSource?
UsernameRequired 23rd Dec 2009
WTF has this got to do with open source? Will you ever actually read
an article or comment before passing judgment on it? Didn't think so.
The only mention of the term "Open Source" is from you.

"Open Source in the meantime will continue to limp along quietly in the
shadow of its proprietary rivals."
What, in the same way that Apache
"limps" in the shadow of IIS? You're a shill and a troll. Your beloved
Microsoft broke the law, AGAIN! They got caught, AGAIN. Be a good sport
and suck it up! There's a good chap...
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Wow, one example...
LiquidLearner 24th Dec 2009
of a Linux app that is more popular than its MS counterpart. You're right, Linux is WAY better than Windows because of... Apache. Which, btw, also runs on Windows.
@zkiwi

There exist hence lot of grounds in favour of xanax online in the direction of not acquiesce with you.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess old habits are hard to break!
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know the details of this case, but it's possible that i4i isn't even willing to license the technology. If they are, it is likely for more than the $290M that Microsoft is being ordered to pay now. Combine that with the scarceness of customer demand for the feature, and it's best to just pay, remove, and move on.

In the Eolas case ("click to activate this activex control"), I remember reading that Eolas refused to even allow Microsoft a license, only allowing "non-commercial" entities like Mozilla licenses. In the end they must have changed their minds, since MS ended up licensing it for $500M I believe.
0 Votes
+ -
It has been reported...
UsernameRequired Updated - 23rd Dec 2009
and admitted in court that i4i were in negotiations for a license
agreement for Microsoft. Microsoft just decided that they'd got all the
information they needed in the negotiations an thought "What are a
tiny Canuck company gonna do about it?" Oops...
0 Votes
+ -
Re: License
Arm A. Geddon 22nd Dec 2009
Hard to say from this article.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-330887.html
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft is playing patents and is paying the
price for that (live by the sword, die by the
sword).

This patent is ridiculous (like most software
patents). i4i's win is a win for the dark forces
of greed and regression.

As a programmer, I am deeply worried about the
implication of this and similar software
patents. I hope i4i and other patent trolls
(like Microsoft itself with respect to TomTom)
will find themselves loosing much more than they
gain in court.
And I still ask myself how anyone can patent something like that. Do they have a piece of source code and can they prove that Microsoft is using that code? Or is it merely the "idea" of doing this, in which case I don't see how that can be patented. The whole patent system is in dire need of reform. And what is the benefit of this? Businesses lose a useful (or so I assume) feature in Office, and no one (except i4i of course) benefits...
Okay, MS now must disable Custom XML in MS Office past, present,
and not have it in MS Office of the future. How will this effect
companies that have created hundreds/thousands of
documents using Custom XML? Will those documents need to be
reworked? If so, ouch, i4i wins everyone that relied on Custom XML
loses.

It seems to me sometimes MS "ain't-right-bright".
0 Votes
+ -
Erm...
zkiwi Updated - 22nd Dec 2009
i4i has not requested, nor the courts either, a removal of the feature from existing copies of Word. I believe i4i has stated that they feel the judgment amount, and removal from future versions is sufficient in terms of a remedy.

Note also, that before Microsoft jacked i4i's thing that it was available as a plugin to Word. So, as far as I know, those who want the functionality can still get it from i4i if it's essential to what they do.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you for your reply.
BubbaJones_ Updated - 22nd Dec 2009
Here's what I read at MSNBC.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34525426/ns/business-
us_business/

Quote: Microsoft said it has been preparing for such a judgment since
August. Copies of Word and Office sold before Jan. 11 aren't affected
by the court's decision. And Microsoft said it has "put the wheels in
motion to remove this little-used feature" from versions of Word 2007
and Office 2007 that would be sold after that date. Unquote.

So, MS will remove that feature in World 2007, maybe as an update to
Word. That's why I asked the question of how it may effect existing
documents.

Then I read:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1600&tag=wrapper;col1
Microsoft Releases 2007 Office Supplement. The files will open, but
any Custom XML elements will be removed.
Oh-well, we will have to wait and see.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, thanks...
zkiwi 22nd Dec 2009
Note that there's a number of places where you get commentary about this thing. Most of them are "sensationalist" which doesn't do anyone any good.

As far as people using Microsoft's version of the i4i thing, they're not affected directly. It's just that Microsoft have to get rid of their version of it from Jan 11 onwards. I guess if people end up upgrading Word and need to use this thingy then they'll have to get the original i4i product that people used to have to get back in the day as a plug-in.
Verizon is the true looser in this case. Let Microsoft in the door, and they start stealing your technical data to use in their own products.

No company partners with Microsoft and survives.
0 Votes
+ -
The award seems a bit high IMO.
0 Votes
+ -
a well deserved verdict
Linux Geek 22nd Dec 2009
this is the price paid by M$ for not using GPL and stealing inventor's hard work!
0 Votes
+ -
Everything in Linux is stolen/infringed
MSFTWorshipper 22nd Dec 2009
spare me the righteousness you idiot
0 Votes
+ -
Truth hurts, huh? [nt]
Arm A. Geddon 22nd Dec 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
For Linux losers that is...nt
transposeIT 22nd Dec 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
So sue us
Wintel BSOD 23rd Dec 2009
Sore loser

lol... grin
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah right...
zkiwi 22nd Dec 2009
Care to provide a detailed list, including who/where Linux stole from?
0 Votes
+ -
The only danger with Linux
CapitalismAteItself 23rd Dec 2009
is that idiots will go through the source code, steal some, stick it into their locked away proprietary junk and pretend it's been there for ages.
0 Votes
+ -
You just Make Things UP, Don't You?
mejohnsn 23rd Dec 2009
Have you ever held a real job? If you had, you might have figure it out: the customer really wants software unencumbered by legal disputes.

That is why one major phone vendor -- very much in the news lately -- insisted that their software vendors run a special auditing program that searches specifically for source code pilfered from Open Source.

BTW: faking it as you propose is impossible on any large project -- thanks to revision control repositories.

Your failure to notice this is what makes you look like a total amateur who has never worked on a large project.
0 Votes
+ -
Why's that?
Wintel BSOD 23rd Dec 2009
His explanation sounded plausible to me. M$'s own sleazy track record speaks for itself.
0 Votes
+ -
FUD
Linux Geek 23rd Dec 2009
Unlike windoze, nobody found stolen code or IP in Linux!
0 Votes
+ -
Gotta keep up...
0 Votes
+ -
It is usually an exceptionally decent publish. nfl football jerseys Can I use this on my website?

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

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