I4i says not out to destroy Microsoft Word
Summary
Topics
The chairman of the company that has won a landmark injunction against Microsoft says his goal is not to see Microsoft Word pulled from store shelves.
In fact, I4i Chairman Loudon Owen said he is one of the hundreds of millions of people who uses Word and the otherMicrosoft Office tools every day.
I4i Chairman Loudon Owen
(Credit: McLean Watson)"We're not seeking to stop Microsoft's business and we're not seeking to interfere with all the users of Word out there," Owen said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. He added that this week's ruling orders an injunction only against Word shipping in a form that uses I4i's custom XML technology.
As noted earlier, Microsoft has several options, including legal appeals, pursuing a settlement, or recrafting Word in a way so that it doesn't infringe on I4i's technology.
Although he couldn't comment on such a technical workaround, Owen said he would be happy to see Microsoft come out with a version of Word that removes the infringing technology.
"The injunction is not saying there is no more Word for the world," Owen said. "That is not our intention and that would not be a sensible remedy."
The judge's ruling, in addition to upholding a $200 million monetary award from May, does issue an injunction against Microsoft that would bar Word in its current form, though. The ruling would go into effect in 60 days, unless Microsoft wins a stay as part of an appeal, which is currently in the works.
As for the size of the monetary verdict in the Word case, Owen wouldn't say how it compares to the company's annual revenue, but noted it is a big deal.
"It's obviously a material verdict by US patent verdict (standards), but we think it is fair," he said.
But Owen said I4i's focus is on its products, not on the courts. Owen said I4i's mission is trying to make database-ready all of the world's unstructured information. Only about 10 percent of data today is structured, but XML can change that.
The company, which has about 30 employees and has been running since 1993, has products in use by a number of large companies, including many large pharmaceutical names such as Amgen, Bayer and Biogen.
Interestingly, though, one of the company's biggest projects was its 2001 overhaul of the US Patent and Trademark Office's own Web site for patent submissions. The patent involved in its suit against Microsoft, though, was filed in 1994 and granted in 1998.
Owen said he couldn't comment on whether there have been any recent settlement talks. Asked whether there might be room for some sort of partnership between the two companies, Owen quipped: "Microsoft is too big for us to buy at this point."
He then added that the company's goal is to help structure the world's information and it will do whatever it takes to reach that goal. "We are always ready willing and able to partner with any good partner, whoever that is."
Owen, who is co-founder of the Mclean Watson venture capital firm that backs i4i, does have some experience negotiating with Microsoft. According to his bio on that firm's Web site, he helped finance and advice 3D animation firm Softimage, which was sold to Microsoft in 1994.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. Talkback Most Recent of 24 Talkback(s)
-
"but we think it (the verdict) is fair"
Well yeah, the winner usually does.
Hallowed are the Ori12th Aug 2009 -
RE: I4i says not out to destroy Microsoft Word
This guy is a liar. Microsoft needs to appeal the ruling otherwise any office suite may be in jeopardy. Not only that but i4i just immediately gave itself a bad name. I'm behind Microsoft 100% on this and see those fines are just obscenely ridiculous. Time to reevaluate the software and see who else i4i is going to try to scam or who they do business with so I can stop using those products.
Loverock Davidson12th Aug 2009 -
You're kidding right?
A company patents software in the 90's, MS uses
patented processes and you knock the the guy for
protecting his IP?? MS does, and has every right,
to protect their IP and should respect the IP of
others too.
Software patents are extremely expensive and
difficult to acquire, and provide protections
under the law that ALL companies and people should
respect.
f.schu12th Aug 2009 -
Not kidding at all
Just think of how this is going to affect the industry. It may affect your favorite piece of software. You got to look at this beyond just Microsoft.Loverock Davidson12th Aug 2009 -
you cannot make a omelette without craking a few eggs
in the case of microsoft i will be willing to stop using all the software at all just to see MS roth
Quebec-french12th Aug 2009 -
this is going to affect the industry in the same way
when microsoft sued tomtom about fat...
no more no less... the only difference is now microsoft is the looser or guilty one.
benitodarder13th Aug 2009 -
Software patents should not exist.
As a holder of several of those "extremely expensive and difficult to
acquire", they are mostly stupid.
This one is no different. If you can't see the patent system is broken at a
fundamental level, you just need to read United States Patent 5443036.
Bruizer13th Aug 2009 -
Happy days...
In the land of Loverock it's ok for Microsoft to have patents and threaten/litigate on them, but it's not ok for other companies to have them (if they affect Microsoft).
Note the bit in the ruling against them that says Microsoft was willfully infringing. That's a whole lot different than a screw up and not knowing they were infringing.
zkiwi12th Aug 2009 -
He's not lying at all
He's definitely not out to destroy Word. Why would he want to destroy his meal ticket?
Michael Kelly13th Aug 2009 -
You? 100% behind MS? No way! (sarcasm)
You are one particularly crazy supporter.
If any company even gives MS the stink eye you wanna boycott everyone they even do business with.
Are you Steve Ballmer's son or something?
Metronome4913th Aug 2009 -
not out to destroy ms ....Sad
they should damn it
what a better time to get a nice kick in the ball of ms so they think twice next time they tried to bully a small company.
good job i4i but put a bit of killer instinct do jump into this half cork jump all gum blazing torch everything and will seeQuebec-french12th Aug 2009 -
RE: I4i says not out to destroy Microsoft Word
This patent is just crazy. How can you possibly patent something like this? There are tons of applications that use XML for data storage (you could even argue that the internet is one of them). XML is supposed to be customizable - that is the whole point of it. So "Custom XML" is part of the XML standard and not something to be patented. And by the way - do they have a specific piece of code to show that MS actually stole their technology? You should not be able to patent some vague idea, but only a specific implementation. You should need to provide code if it is software, like you need to provide construction drawings if it is a piece of machinery.
This is just another case of someone being in need of money and Microsoft an easy one to accuse. Why else file the case with this court in Texas, which is known to always rule against Microsoft in these patent infringement cases (remember, this is the court who gave us "Click to activate" in IE - another crazy patent case). Why not file the case in Microsoft's home state?
arknu13th Aug 2009 -
Read the patent
One more time: they aren't claiming any patent over XML. Their patent recognises SMGL and RTF as prior art, there is no question about that.
What they have patented is a system to create a map essentially for where markup would have been if it was included in the content (as it is with markup and delimited content). The patent is the opposite of markup languages.
As to whether or not MS have breached the patent, I don't know. Is there any technical documentation of how MS have implemented their "custom XML" other than the very brief documentation at MSDN?
Fred Fredrickson13th Aug 2009 -
Master Joe Says...
Why are you even insulting all of the readers by publishing the statement from i4i's CEO? The only thing mroe ridiculous than this whole story unfolding is what he had to say about it. Allow me to translate what he is saying, to make sure that the root of it is in plain text.
"The injunction is not saying there is no more Word for the world," Owen said. "That is not our intention and that would not be a sensible remedy."
Translation: all Microsoft has to do is pay us a very large sum of money, more than our whole company is worth, and we will be happy to let them continue selling Word, until that money dries up. Then, we will sue them again, claiming that they have not removed the aspects of Word we sued over the first time. Let's face it. Taht retirement to an island in the Carribean isn't cheap. We have to get our money SOMEHOW.
"It's obviously a material verdict by US patent verdict (standards), but we think it is fair,"
Translation: The judge ruled in our favor, and we think that's fair. Ignore the idiot whose mouth is moving, but only spewing forth nonsense and outright stupid comments like this one.
What kind of person would stand up there and say "Well, the judge ruled in our favor, but we don't find the verdict fair. We actually think our lawsuit was wrong, and that the judge should have ruled against us. This was all just a statement against how poor the US justice system is."? Show me a single lawsuit in any point of history where that happened.
I said it yesterday, when the story was published, and I will say it again. There is one factor driving this lawsuit; money. If i4i didn't believe that they could gain a substancial cash injection here, they wouldn't bother with the alwsuit. Even if it were absolutely 100% true that Microsoft was infringing on i4i's patent, they would not sue, unless they stood to gain a large amount of money, which they do. This is also the reason taht, even if products like OpenOffice do infringe upon this patent as well, they will not bring suit against them. Even Google, with its Google Docs, could very easily be in the wrong also, but will likely not be sued either. Anyone who thinks that this lawsuit is about right and wrong, and not about money, is sorely mistaken, and only fooling themselves. Anyone who buys into what i4i's CEO said above, is just as sorely mistaken. It's as simple as that, like it or not.
--Master Joe
MasterJoe13th Aug 2009 -
Show Us The Money
I don't understand Master(?) Joe's point/rant. Of course it's about the money. Why does he think Microsoft and i4i - their tormentor in this case - and every other company in the world is in business if not to make money?
Patents are granted to give inventors a window of time in which to reap the rewards of their inventiveness. If a company steals that invention and refuses to pay then the inventing company has suffered material loss.
If the company happens to be massive with huge sales then the advantage they have gained by stealing the invention is accordingly all the larger.
Hence the payout.
Microsoft really should know better. They have been on the wrong end of corporate governance decisons so often now you'd think they would have learned the value of doing ethical business.
Then again, on the other hand, it could be that the judge is barking, i4i have made it all up and Microsoft will walk away at the end of the day owing nobody anything...
Who knows with litigation; especially American litigation.
brian.smith@...13th Aug 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
