Microsoft granted stay of Word injunction
Summary
Microsoft has been granted a stay of an injunction in a patent-infringement case that would have required the software giant to stop selling Word in its current form by next month.
Topics
Microsoft has been granted a stay of a landmark injunction in a patent-infringement case that would have required the software giant to stop selling Word in its current form by next month.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday granted Microsoft's motion for a stay, pending appeal, of an injunction issued in August by a federal judge that bars sales of Word that include a custom XML code found to infringe on patents held by the plaintiff, i4i.
"We are happy with the result and look forward to presenting our arguments on the main issues on 23 September," Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz said in a statement.
In response to the court's decision, i4i expressed confidence in its position and accused Microsoft of using "scare tactics".
"Microsoft's scare tactics about the consequences of the injunction cannot shield it from the imminent review of the case by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal on the 23 September appeal," i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement.
"i4i is confident that the final judgement in favour of i4i, which included a finding of willful patent infringement by Microsoft and an injunction against Microsoft Word, was the correct decision and that i4i will prevail on the appeal."
Toronto-based i4i sued Microsoft in March 2007 alleging that the software giant violated its 1998 patent (No 5,787,449) for a document system that eliminated the need for manually embedded formatting codes.
In May, a jury ordered Microsoft to pay $200m (£120m) for infringing on a patent held by i4i.
In filing its formal appeal last week, Microsoft made a number of arguments for overturning the infringement finding, saying the judge made several procedural errors and failed to live up to his role as "gatekeeper".
In addition to pursuing its appeal, Microsoft has other options, including creating a technical workaround, removing the XML function or reaching a settlement with i4i.
i4i has said it is not seeking to torpedo Word, but does want the infringing custom XML code removed.
This article was originally posted on CNET News.
Just In
In English, that translates to "We lost, therefore somebody must have cheated." Microsoft as a company clearly believes that it simply can do no wrong. They must have attended the Richard Nixon school of business and learned that rules only apply to the little people. If someone with enough influence and power does something, that makes it legal.
Microsoft as a company clearly believes that it simply can do no wrong.
Well isn't that true?
Well isn't that true?
Wow Loverock.
I suspected it before but now I know it. You are satirical.
Best to you and I consider myself one of the many punk'd.
I suspected it before but now I know it. You are satirical.
Best to you and I consider myself one of the many punk'd.
We really don't know if i4i is really just another "patent troll" seeking to extort money out of a big multinational corporation for a technology only vaguely resembling XML which i4i has never successfully put to it's own use.
If it looks like Microsoft will lose on appeal, they will offer i4i a big check to just go away and we will still never know if Microsoft really infringed on the i4i patent or not. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.
Patent law has never quite formulated how to properly protect software as intellectual property. Until it does, telling the frivolous lawsuit from the legitimate one will continue to be impossible.
If it looks like Microsoft will lose on appeal, they will offer i4i a big check to just go away and we will still never know if Microsoft really infringed on the i4i patent or not. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.
Patent law has never quite formulated how to properly protect software as intellectual property. Until it does, telling the frivolous lawsuit from the legitimate one will continue to be impossible.
I've read enough articles on this subject to know that i4i creates software, for the hospital industry if I remember correctly. It was for that software that they applied for and got the patent. It's been awhile since I read the articles, but I believe that Microsoft has now attempted to compete against their software in their environment, prompting i4i to go after them on the patent infringement. The details escape me because this isn't my neck of the woods, but i4i was definitely defending their own patent.
I know nothing about i4i but your note suggests they have legitimate concerns - and if they stick to their guns and force Microsoft to remove the infringing code, that might be a good lesson for us all.
But I'd bet that should MS finds itself losing on appeal that i4i will buckle under and accept MS dollars in exchange for their acquiesence.
Frankly, I don't like it when any corporation in a lawsuit is allowed to "settle out of court" under undisclosed terms for undisclosed amounts of money. The public has a right to know the details.
But I'd bet that should MS finds itself losing on appeal that i4i will buckle under and accept MS dollars in exchange for their acquiesence.
Frankly, I don't like it when any corporation in a lawsuit is allowed to "settle out of court" under undisclosed terms for undisclosed amounts of money. The public has a right to know the details.
I agree, that those undisclosed terms don't serve the public well. As for the legitimacy of i4i's claim, I cannot say. People who know and understand this stuff better than I do have questioned whether the patent should have been granted in the first place. So that's what I think the courts need to consider. We all know that the patent system is broken, with patents awarded for ridiculous things and vapor-ideas. Whether this falls into that category should be the issue.
Please explain precisely on what rational or moral basis "the public"?that vast, amorphous phantom in whose name all manner of meddlesome acts occur?has any right to know anything about the resolution of a dispute over property "it" does not own.
a corp. in the U.S. then they are benefiting
from our tax dollars.
I remember reading that a corporation was a gift
from the people to allow the corp. to form in
the U.S. That initially only things like
railroads could be corporations because they benefit the people.
I disagree. We have a right to know, and if they
want to hold a corporation in our country they
should make the info public
from our tax dollars.
I remember reading that a corporation was a gift
from the people to allow the corp. to form in
the U.S. That initially only things like
railroads could be corporations because they benefit the people.
I disagree. We have a right to know, and if they
want to hold a corporation in our country they
should make the info public
Public company not private. Investors want to know that's who. duh
Since the Boycott eBay campaign started last year I have learned that one reason companies settle is then there is no judgment against them, so, they can continue doing what they were doing. In the ebay/paypal case, they settled cases, so they could continue holding funds and earn interest. Apparently holding money earns more interest than the 10 million they paid, and all the legal funds they paid.
I suppose the reason companies are allowed to not disclose the details publically, is because they were not "convicted" of any wrongdoing. I say, however, "you settle, you accept responsibility and admit guilt, automatically".
I suppose the reason companies are allowed to not disclose the details publically, is because they were not "convicted" of any wrongdoing. I say, however, "you settle, you accept responsibility and admit guilt, automatically".
Great comment. We need more like this. If MS is practicing unethical, monopolistic, predatory behaviors, nail them to the wall. If not, nail the defendant to the wall. But let's at least get to the facts of the case before entering into this "bash-mode" and forgoing intelligent, truth-seeking critical thinking. We already have enough brain-washing going on in our government-run schools. Let's finally grow up and learn to think for ourselves like big boys and girls and tell the "Nanny State" to go evaporate.
but isn't one of the pertinent facts "In May, a jury ordered Microsoft to pay $200m (?120m) for infringing on a patent held by i4i."?
The problem with that fact is that juries in cases like this tend to be populated by people with no clue about whatever it is that they're presiding over.
A trial of jury by your peers doesn't mean people exactly like you, if it did, then nobody would ever be found guilty of anything.
Think about it for a second: If you did something, and had a jury of people exactly like you (your true peers), they'd think exactly like you, act exactly like you, and so find no fault with what you did.
In this case there really are no peers of Microsoft, only competitors, and competitors will always find their competition guilty simply to get them out of the way.
So the law has to settle for second best, a jury of so called "average people" who *appear* to present no bias against the defendent.
Give that we don't have all the courtroom facts from both sides, we are all unqualified to make any kind of determination of guilt, because, after all, in America it's "innocent until proven guilty", or at least, that's the way it's supposed to be.
A trial of jury by your peers doesn't mean people exactly like you, if it did, then nobody would ever be found guilty of anything.
Think about it for a second: If you did something, and had a jury of people exactly like you (your true peers), they'd think exactly like you, act exactly like you, and so find no fault with what you did.
In this case there really are no peers of Microsoft, only competitors, and competitors will always find their competition guilty simply to get them out of the way.
So the law has to settle for second best, a jury of so called "average people" who *appear* to present no bias against the defendent.
Give that we don't have all the courtroom facts from both sides, we are all unqualified to make any kind of determination of guilt, because, after all, in America it's "innocent until proven guilty", or at least, that's the way it's supposed to be.
So I suppose you believe a jury should either be made of artificial intelligent bots or all your enemies? Trial by Jury made up of peers has worked for centuries. It's not perfect, but if instructed properly by the judge, the system works!
...And peers aren't necessarily friends and cohorts in crime. In this case, we are talking about a non-entity, MICROSOFT. Not really a warm body I think (or a warm heart even working amongst them). They are REPEAT OFFENDERS and if you study law, you'll know, repeat offenders rarely fail to repeat their wrong doing and never learn the errors of their ways.
Microsoft has always been known as STONE COLD THIEVES. Ever since they ripped off Word in the first place. Then Bill Gates Waltzed into IBM with his good buddy's disguised & renamed CPM code ripped from Seattle Computers Products for pennies. That became MS-DOS and other sundered OS's in name only (originally Quick-and-Dirty Operating System)!
Now these days, with a doctrine like "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, do you really think that's changed? Sounds to me like that jury was more aware than YOU! ....all you repeat offenders and defenders of criminals need to grow some moral fiber. Instead of criticizing a decision, just because it's not what you want in order to make you look exactly innocent on this matter!
...And peers aren't necessarily friends and cohorts in crime. In this case, we are talking about a non-entity, MICROSOFT. Not really a warm body I think (or a warm heart even working amongst them). They are REPEAT OFFENDERS and if you study law, you'll know, repeat offenders rarely fail to repeat their wrong doing and never learn the errors of their ways.
Microsoft has always been known as STONE COLD THIEVES. Ever since they ripped off Word in the first place. Then Bill Gates Waltzed into IBM with his good buddy's disguised & renamed CPM code ripped from Seattle Computers Products for pennies. That became MS-DOS and other sundered OS's in name only (originally Quick-and-Dirty Operating System)!
Now these days, with a doctrine like "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, do you really think that's changed? Sounds to me like that jury was more aware than YOU! ....all you repeat offenders and defenders of criminals need to grow some moral fiber. Instead of criticizing a decision, just because it's not what you want in order to make you look exactly innocent on this matter!
that you did not steal it first.
Think we have all seen pirates of silicon valley.
Think we have all seen pirates of silicon valley.
resort to telling the frivolous lawsuit from the legitimate one by looking at who actually won. If the plaintiff won then it clearly wasn't frivolous even if the ruling is overturned at a higher level.
When selecting a jury, attorneys avoid jurors who are well educated (especially regarding the subject at hand). This makes it difficult for a jury to make an informed decision and very easy for the jury to take sides against the party with the deep pockets.
Juries are allowed to award unrealistic damages without regard to the impact of such damages. This drives the cost of litigation in general up to the point that small entities cannot afford to file suit and large entities are encouraged to "pay-off" the plaintiff rather than go to court.
In the end, MS will "pay-off" i4i whether or not they are guilty of anything.
Juries are allowed to award unrealistic damages without regard to the impact of such damages. This drives the cost of litigation in general up to the point that small entities cannot afford to file suit and large entities are encouraged to "pay-off" the plaintiff rather than go to court.
In the end, MS will "pay-off" i4i whether or not they are guilty of anything.
Oh, you mean just because Richard Nixon was a Republican then any comments about him must be applied to all Republicans? Is that where we're at now?
Nowhere does it mention the rubbish you seem to have found and I for one await the outcome. If indeed MS have violated then of course they must abide... and that will no doubt cost the end user.
As for you, it will probably let them claim for some trivial xml code you're using and we await your bleating.
Nobody wins through these trivial claims, except the scum who portend to own some life changing script, and the lawyers. One way or another we all pay, whether we use MS or not. It's called global economics; no reason for anyone to be smug as far as I can see.
As for you, it will probably let them claim for some trivial xml code you're using and we await your bleating.
Nobody wins through these trivial claims, except the scum who portend to own some life changing script, and the lawyers. One way or another we all pay, whether we use MS or not. It's called global economics; no reason for anyone to be smug as far as I can see.
A long, distinguished list of people for whom rules only exist for other people, or for them to find ways around.
Linux is a CLONE of UNIX, pure and simple. UNIX is/was protected by copyright only and, as such, infinging code was simply re-written.
So, Linus stole nothing. Nor did anyone else in the GNU commmunity who contributed to the effort.
In the end though, Linux brings little innovation to the table. Were it truly innovative, it would have displaced UNIX as a superior alternative on its own merits, not just as a "cheap" alternative to UNIX.
In fact, were the Linux folks not so hung up on their UNIX-ness, they might be competing more effectively on the desktop.
So, Linus stole nothing. Nor did anyone else in the GNU commmunity who contributed to the effort.
In the end though, Linux brings little innovation to the table. Were it truly innovative, it would have displaced UNIX as a superior alternative on its own merits, not just as a "cheap" alternative to UNIX.
In fact, were the Linux folks not so hung up on their UNIX-ness, they might be competing more effectively on the desktop.
Were it truly innovative, it would have displaced UNIX as a superior alternative on its own merits, not just as a "cheap" alternative to UNIX.
How's that commanding view from your cubicle? Some of the biggest jumps in market share for Linux have come at the expense of Unix.
Unless there's a need for some specific Unix-based software product, I haven't run across any shops picking Unix for the heck of it. I'm sure there are some out there, but they're a pretty rare breed.
We run Ubuntu on most of our desktops and get along just fine. It provides a desktop that's entirely usable and still keeps enough of the *nix experience to make administration a breeze.
How's that commanding view from your cubicle? Some of the biggest jumps in market share for Linux have come at the expense of Unix.
Unless there's a need for some specific Unix-based software product, I haven't run across any shops picking Unix for the heck of it. I'm sure there are some out there, but they're a pretty rare breed.
We run Ubuntu on most of our desktops and get along just fine. It provides a desktop that's entirely usable and still keeps enough of the *nix experience to make administration a breeze.
of MSFT investors, this is a bad result.
The BloatFarm stock price has suffered because the BloatFarmers
have produced nothing with any innovation content in a least a
decade: Zune, Xbox, WinMo, Vista, W7, PlaysForSure, SPoT,
LiveSearch, Bing, Encarta, Money, etc. - all are product/financial
failures.
In short, there is no innovation motivation because the BloatFarm
lives off of its legacy monopolies.
Like the old AT&T, the BloatFarm must be forced to exist apart
from its monopolies. Then it will produce competitive, innovative
products instead of the sloppy, lazy, bloated, derivative junk.
Has anyone really ever seen a Zune in the wild? Why would
anyone ever buy a WinMo device (I owned 11 of them.) with others
available?
MSFT must be forced to innovate because, on its own, backed by
its monopoly hoards, it is too lazy, bloated and, given its top
management (e.g., Ballmer) too stupid to see the road forward.
Until then, MSFT is a good short. When Ballmer is pushed out,
MSFT stock price will leap 15-30% overnight.
The BloatFarm stock price has suffered because the BloatFarmers
have produced nothing with any innovation content in a least a
decade: Zune, Xbox, WinMo, Vista, W7, PlaysForSure, SPoT,
LiveSearch, Bing, Encarta, Money, etc. - all are product/financial
failures.
In short, there is no innovation motivation because the BloatFarm
lives off of its legacy monopolies.
Like the old AT&T, the BloatFarm must be forced to exist apart
from its monopolies. Then it will produce competitive, innovative
products instead of the sloppy, lazy, bloated, derivative junk.
Has anyone really ever seen a Zune in the wild? Why would
anyone ever buy a WinMo device (I owned 11 of them.) with others
available?
MSFT must be forced to innovate because, on its own, backed by
its monopoly hoards, it is too lazy, bloated and, given its top
management (e.g., Ballmer) too stupid to see the road forward.
Until then, MSFT is a good short. When Ballmer is pushed out,
MSFT stock price will leap 15-30% overnight.
Name more than the one that doesn't exist anymore.
"W7""product/financial failures"
Using a crystal ball to see the future? It hasn't even been released yet.
Please continue your rant.
"W7""product/financial failures"
Using a crystal ball to see the future? It hasn't even been released yet.
Please continue your rant.
On that note, my kid and all his friends are addicted (okay, call me a bad parent) to this XBox experience where they interactively play people all over the world, both game-wise and talking to them via headsets. It seems EVERYONE has one. It has, according to these teens experts, THE STANDARD against which all other interactive games are measured ("Halo").
MS may be a copycat, but they sure have nailed this one to the wall.
MS may be a copycat, but they sure have nailed this one to the wall.
the Xbox a failure. Sure they lose money on the console but that was expected. They more than make up for it from game revenues.
http://gizmodo.com/271487/xbox-360-failure-rate-30-says-retailers
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6215590.html
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/24/microsoft-responds-to-xbox-360-54-2-percent-failure-rate-report/
After all, from what I'm reading, it won't be long before about half of them can longer join in the fun.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6215590.html
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/24/microsoft-responds-to-xbox-360-54-2-percent-failure-rate-report/
After all, from what I'm reading, it won't be long before about half of them can longer join in the fun.
we still see that you use many words to say nothing.
The only failure we see here is you, Jeremy W. but that is understandable.
Given your past histories of failure, is there any compelling reason as to why we should think you will ever get it right in terms of your posts?
Zune in the wild? yes, I have seen them. WinMobile? I know more people with WinMobile then I do with iPhones. (I have yet to see an Android phone). XBox360? Most everybody I know has one. Windows7? I know quite a few who are waiting for it to be realeased (no one really got excited about Sonw Leopard, given the poor reviews it aquiring since)
So you really are just Tilting at windmills, Jeremy W, imaginary enemies and imaginary outcomes.
Best step back into reality if you wish to be taken seriouslly.
The only failure we see here is you, Jeremy W. but that is understandable.
Given your past histories of failure, is there any compelling reason as to why we should think you will ever get it right in terms of your posts?
Zune in the wild? yes, I have seen them. WinMobile? I know more people with WinMobile then I do with iPhones. (I have yet to see an Android phone). XBox360? Most everybody I know has one. Windows7? I know quite a few who are waiting for it to be realeased (no one really got excited about Sonw Leopard, given the poor reviews it aquiring since)
So you really are just Tilting at windmills, Jeremy W, imaginary enemies and imaginary outcomes.
Best step back into reality if you wish to be taken seriouslly.
The BloatFarm stock price has suffered because the BloatFarmers
have produced nothing with any innovation content in a least a
decade: Zune, Xbox, WinMo, Vista, W7, PlaysForSure, SPoT,
LiveSearch, Bing, Encarta, Money, etc. - all are product/financial
failures.
First of all Windows 7 is far from a failure... Hell it hasn't even been released yet. But, I'll entertain your though for a moment. If you consider the amount of positive press, the amount of people who downloaded both the beta and RC builds, and the amount of people who have already upgraded their PC to either the final RTM bits, and/or still using the RC (Like me), then I fail to see where you are coming from on this.
Xbox - I fail to see how, this too, is a failure. Sure, it has it's problems, but it seems to be that everyone and their mother have one...
Vista - It had it's problems on launch, but if you used Vista today, you would quickly realize it's right on par with Windows 7.
Bing - Seems to be going pretty well so far. I don't understand how this is a failure either.
Zune - Yes, I have seen quite a few in the wild, and come Sept 15th, I will be the proud owner of a ZuneHD.
On a final note, I'd like to see a list of companies that *don't* have a list of failures. If you can show me just *one* that doesn't, I will bow down at your feet...
have produced nothing with any innovation content in a least a
decade: Zune, Xbox, WinMo, Vista, W7, PlaysForSure, SPoT,
LiveSearch, Bing, Encarta, Money, etc. - all are product/financial
failures.
First of all Windows 7 is far from a failure... Hell it hasn't even been released yet. But, I'll entertain your though for a moment. If you consider the amount of positive press, the amount of people who downloaded both the beta and RC builds, and the amount of people who have already upgraded their PC to either the final RTM bits, and/or still using the RC (Like me), then I fail to see where you are coming from on this.
Xbox - I fail to see how, this too, is a failure. Sure, it has it's problems, but it seems to be that everyone and their mother have one...
Vista - It had it's problems on launch, but if you used Vista today, you would quickly realize it's right on par with Windows 7.
Bing - Seems to be going pretty well so far. I don't understand how this is a failure either.
Zune - Yes, I have seen quite a few in the wild, and come Sept 15th, I will be the proud owner of a ZuneHD.
On a final note, I'd like to see a list of companies that *don't* have a list of failures. If you can show me just *one* that doesn't, I will bow down at your feet...
For Microsoft this is a blip on the radar. If Microsoft determines it will be less costly to remove the infringing code, they will.
If they determine that it will be less costly to fight in court they will do that.
And, if they determine that it will be less costly to payoff i4i, they will do that.
It's just a matter of who pays the cost of making this go away.
If they determine that it will be less costly to fight in court they will do that.
And, if they determine that it will be less costly to payoff i4i, they will do that.
It's just a matter of who pays the cost of making this go away.
things like this do affect investor returns, and I think that Microsoft Investors should countersue in most cases. Whether or not infringement occurs, cases based on prior art or unused patents does cost investor something, and is a separate issue.
No dude, they do really well. One of the better
consoles. I mean google xbox sales before you make
a comment like that.
Also, to leave out all of the enterprise software
they have developed makes me believe you have no
clue
consoles. I mean google xbox sales before you make
a comment like that.
Also, to leave out all of the enterprise software
they have developed makes me believe you have no
clue
Did anyone not expect this to happen? There is no way they were going to prevent Word from being sold. This is one small victory, lets hope they have just as good luck on the appeal. I'm rooting for Microsoft all the way!
The "Law" in the United States of America has yet again FAILED the American people. Hello! This is exactly what the patent system is supposed to do! The "justice" an American gets is directly proportional to his net worth. The USA is breeding a strange form of fascism indeed.
Yes I am aware that the plaintiff if Canadian.
But it makes no difference. If one considers the bigger picture then there should be "Justice for All". I did consider that someone would point out this fact, and it really is good that you did.
But it makes no difference. If one considers the bigger picture then there should be "Justice for All". I did consider that someone would point out this fact, and it really is good that you did.
Nationalism is ugly. If a Canadian company has a valid claim on a viable business property, the fact that a maple leaf flag flies above it is irrelevant.
Didn't this sort of xenophobic bashing go out with the previous administration? You need to grow up!
Can we get back to talking about software??
Didn't this sort of xenophobic bashing go out with the previous administration? You need to grow up!
Can we get back to talking about software??
to grow up. Where did I bash Canada or Canadians? Where did I say anything against them? I just pointed out that it wasn't Americans being screwed but Canadians. Damn, I am a xenophobe. Send the Irish home.
No more fascist than Microsoft suing TomTom and others for using technology which is publicly documented for SMB/filename support.
TomTom sell a lot of kit in Europe but are small fry compared with Microsoft.
It has always been the case small organisations don't have deep enough pockets to stand up to the big boys, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the issue.
If Microsoft lose, it'll be a case of the biter bit.
TomTom sell a lot of kit in Europe but are small fry compared with Microsoft.
It has always been the case small organisations don't have deep enough pockets to stand up to the big boys, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the issue.
If Microsoft lose, it'll be a case of the biter bit.
We are a nation of laws stemming from an absolute morality (i.e., a Republic--read the "Declaration"), not a nation of "popularity contests" and mob rule, or a democracy (which is why Hollywood tends to be liberal--they like winning on looks vs. substance). We have a system where we enact laws that are supposed to line up with an external, immutable TRUTH and JUSTICE. The form of gov't of the U.S. has not failed us, just the people and the folks running it.
And I agree--since January 2009, fascism makes a scary comparison to our current state of affairs.
And I agree--since January 2009, fascism makes a scary comparison to our current state of affairs.
i gonna enjoy this
Have you ever been poor? I don't want a country
that protects big biz and forgets the poor.
As for Hollywood, who said you can't be pretty and
smart?
that protects big biz and forgets the poor.
As for Hollywood, who said you can't be pretty and
smart?
TOT (Totally off topic)
@lalogos: And I agree--since January 2009, fascism makes a scary comparison to our current state of affairs.
It seems to the rest of the world that for the prior 8 years you were sliding into fascism with all that torture stuff, rendition flights, and unprovoked invasions that only made the rich blackwater, lockheed, etc... shareholders richer and more powerful.
@lalogos: And I agree--since January 2009, fascism makes a scary comparison to our current state of affairs.
It seems to the rest of the world that for the prior 8 years you were sliding into fascism with all that torture stuff, rendition flights, and unprovoked invasions that only made the rich blackwater, lockheed, etc... shareholders richer and more powerful.
If you think that i4i is the only one who has a plug-in that allows for XML support in Word, you're wrong. So, my proposal is this. Microsoft, remove native XML support from Microsoft Word, and let the case end there. Then, when people demand the use of XML document formatting in Word, point them to a plug-in that is NOT made by i4i. Then, i4i can blame only itself for the downfall of its own company. Repeatedly, they claim that they are nto trying to "torpedo" Micrsoft Word, but that is exactly what they are trying to do. Whether the judge made procedural errors or not, and whether or not there really is a patent violation doesn't even matter, at this point. Taking functionality that aws once performed by a plug-in and making it standard functionality of a product is NTO patent infringement. If that were the case, web browsers that offer tabbed browsing as a feature would be in violation of a forme rplug-in's functionality, as applications offered tabbed browsing for browsers such as IE6. This list could be almost infinite in size, as many applications have evolved in such a way that eliminated the need for special plug-ins in previous versions to support certain file types, formatting styles, and document types. Or, better yet, just have Microsoft BUY i4i, and be done with the whole thing. After all, anyone who chooses to admit the truth in this case knows that i4i is just after the money anyway, and they believe that they will be awarded at least some of that money, even if Microsoft is permitted to continue selling Word in its current form, with the XML formatting as a native feature. And people wonder why Canada is the butt of so many jokes here in the US. =P
--Master Joe
--Master Joe
If ignorance is bliss, you must be a very happy person.
I suggest you do some homework, read the pertinant material regarding the case and check on i4i's business history. Microsoft and i4i are both major players in their respective fields. Microsoft was given a limited use of code that was developed entirely by (and patented) by i4i, for obvious renumeration to i4i. The contract was renewed between the two companies but when the renemal period came up again, Microsoft did not renew the contract with i4i BUT continued to use the code that it no longer had the rights to incorporate into its' OS's.
I am a photographer and sometimes sell my photos thru a (contracted) outlet. I supply the copyright(ed) photos to the outlet and geta commission on the sales. If the outlet decided not to get the photos from me, but instead had them copied (illegal as I have the copyrights on them), sold and keep all the profits for themselves....then I would be well within my rights to sue for lost income...right ???
There is no real difference between that senerio and the case between M$ and i4i.
Microsoft broke the rules, and now must pay the penalty !
I suggest you do some homework, read the pertinant material regarding the case and check on i4i's business history. Microsoft and i4i are both major players in their respective fields. Microsoft was given a limited use of code that was developed entirely by (and patented) by i4i, for obvious renumeration to i4i. The contract was renewed between the two companies but when the renemal period came up again, Microsoft did not renew the contract with i4i BUT continued to use the code that it no longer had the rights to incorporate into its' OS's.
I am a photographer and sometimes sell my photos thru a (contracted) outlet. I supply the copyright(ed) photos to the outlet and geta commission on the sales. If the outlet decided not to get the photos from me, but instead had them copied (illegal as I have the copyrights on them), sold and keep all the profits for themselves....then I would be well within my rights to sue for lost income...right ???
There is no real difference between that senerio and the case between M$ and i4i.
Microsoft broke the rules, and now must pay the penalty !
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
