Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
Summary: In the patent-infringement case that seems to never end, i4i announced on May 11 that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected claims on an Office-related patent that Microsoft had requested be reexamined. Is Microsoft throwing in the towel on i4i? It's not, according to Director of Public Affairs Kevin Kutz.
In the patent-infringement case that seems to never end, i4i announced on May 11 that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected claims on an Office-related patent that Microsoft had requested be reexamined.
Is Microsoft throwing in the towel on i4i? It's not, according to Director of Public Affairs Kevin Kutz.
“We are disappointed, but there still remain important matters of patent law at stake, and we are considering our options to get them addressed, including a petition to the Supreme Court," said Kutz, via an e-mailed statement.
i4i executives, in a new statement, said "i4i's '449 patented invention infuses life into the use of Extensible Mark Up Language (XML) and dramatically enhances the ability to structure what was previously unstructured data. As the magnitude of data grows exponentially, this is a critical technological bridge to controlling and managing this sprawling octopus of data and converting it into useful information."
Microsoft lost its appeal in the i4i case in December 2009. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals advocated awarding i4i close to $300 million, including $40 million for intentional patent infringement by Microsoft. In January 2010, Microsoft requested another hearing in the case, which was denied.
At the heart of the case is the Custom XML technology that was part of older versions of Microsoft Word. Since the verdict late last year, Microsoft issued a patch to remove Custom XML from Word 2003, Word 2007, Office 2003 and Office 2007. Microsoft did not include Custom XML in the beta builds of Office 2010, company officials said.
Custom XML is not related to Open XML; instead, it is technology for adding support for custom-designed schemas that is designed to integrate business data and processes with documents.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: A few things that didn't help their case...
First Prize to jasonp@...
You honstlly think they sat their and believed that? Come on there's barely enough space on this site for real posts...
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
Microsoft should consider using the Nuclear Option: FAT
Go Microsoft, do to them the same you did to Tom Tom and several others, sue them into submission because of FAT patent infringement.
Good idea. It's time for these stupid patent things to go away
I wasn't finished. Here's the rest...
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
Oh so when MSFT sues over patents
Where is NZ when you need a Double Standard Measure, oh that's right he only does it when it is Apple...
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
<a href="http://www.riseuniversity.com/schools-majors/business-and-management/">business school</a> <a href="http://www.riseuniversity.com/schools-majors/computer-science/">Computer Science school</a> <a href="http://www.riseuniversity.com/schools-majors/criminal-justice/">criminal justice school</a> <a href="http://www.riseuniversity.com/schools-majors/education/">Education school</a>
RE: Patent office upholds i4i claims against Microsoft
You can find so countless grounds in lieu of <a href="http://www.shoppharmacycounter.com/m-582-xanax-zoloft-anti-anxiety.aspx">xanax online</a> to not acquiesce and you.
This patent system is overgrowing, unsustainable & ridiculous
The explosion of patents -- for even the tiniest things, on a scale where the standard bar of innovation in a modern world should have been raised, is completely foolish.
Newton said that his scientific achievement was possible because he stood on the shoulders of giants. The same goes for engineering in the modern world.
It in the old days, it was: Wire, glass, filament, electricity -- hard to find a cause for infringement for the building elements of a light bulb.
Technological innovation is a synthesis of many ideas. This will only continue with greater complexity, as thousands of ideas will have to come together to form new innovations.
Now, there are tens of thousands of ideas that go into a modern device. And patent trolls shakedown innovators on the false presumption that one idea out of thousands is worth significant cause for a lot more money than the 9999 ideas that came along with it.
The 21st century's blind, greed driven continuation of this anachronistic system will result in system where nothing can be innovated without a lawsuit, and an ambush shakedown somewhere down the road.
It's wrong and unsustainable, but perpetuated because the big actors in the system are too invested, greedy, and profit from easy shakedowns.
It's time to abolish software patents
you communist?
It used to be that patents had a strict limit. I don't agree with patent extensions. You should have a specific amount of time to make money before the idea is open. Microsoft should not be able to sue Tom Tom over FAT, how long has FAT been around?
(Though patent limits often aren't enough for the little guy, the guy who invented television never made a cent off it because RCA sued him for so long, and then due to the world war and the rationing, he couldn't manufacture any TVs, his patent ran out. Its really hard to cover both bases.)
Working as designed
"In the patent-infringement case that seems to never end"
This is the purpose of the patent system, to establish and maintain a legal monopoly. Small patent holders can't compete as the big boys have the money to keep it in the courts indefinitely and can provide a level of protection through cross-licensing agreements.
MS talks about protecting it's intellectual property through patents, but have demonstrated what they think of other's property.
Drop the patent systems altogether, starting with software patents.
Patents do have a place, but are they effective?
Here's a guy who invented and developed the idea of creating a digital footprint for a PC and using it for the licence key in the early 1990s. He spent over a million of his own dollars getting a patent, then took it to Microsoft (among others, including IBM) to see if they wanted to buy a licence. MS said no, but later released a version of Windows that used his invention. Microsoft wilfully stole his invention after being offered a licence.
It took 9 years for Uniloc to win their patent dispute with MS. 9 years in which MS used the invention they stole in software that they sold to hundreds of millions of users. Uniloc where awarded over $300 million in damages, with punitive damages yet to be decided.
Had MS bought a licence in the first place, it would certainly have cost far less. If they were an honest company, they wouldn't have fought the charge of their obvious theft for years in the courts. They wouldn't have attempted an appeal (it was not allowed, they had no case for appeal).
It is cases like these that indicate that some form of patent protection is needed, the argument really is how to efficiently and effectively operate a patent system.