Subscription Center
Aug 13, 2009 04:18 PM | 22
What would Microsoft be without its omnipresent Word word-processing software? If a U.S. federal court has its way (and that's a big "if"), we could see the day.
A U.S. district court in Texas ruled in favor of Toronto-based i4i Ltd in its 2007 claim that Microsoft knowingly infringed on a patented granted to i4i in 1998 (pdf) regarding the use of extensible markup language (XML) in Word 2003, Word 2007 and Windows Vista. Now Judge Leonard Davis, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, has ordered a permanent injunction (pdf) that would prohibit Microsoft within 60 days from "selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or .DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," reports Seattlepi.com. The court has also fined Microsoft $290 million, for good measure.
The World Wide Web Consortium developed XML, which debuted in 1998, to structure, store and transport information. Whereas Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) includes a set of predefined data tags—such as <i> for italics, <b> for bold, <p> for paragraph break, etc. —that dictate the format of information presented on a Web page, XML lets the programmer create customized tags for defining data.
Few are convinced that i4i's claim and the recent ruling will hold up over time. PC World, for example, points out five reasons Word will survive this patent challenge: i4i's patent is vague, Microsoft owns a patent awarded earlier this year that covers Word's use of XML, Microsoft has deep pockets and could settle the matter, Microsoft could buy i4i (and its portfolio of patents), or an appeals court could decide that Word is too important to consumers and businesses worldwide to be shut down by a lawsuit.
Microsoft says it will appeal the verdict. "We are disappointed by the court's ruling," Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz said in a statement. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid."
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Alex Slobodkin
Tags:
MIcrosoft,
XML,
i4i
More News Blog:
Next: ExxonMobil guilty in deaths of migratory birds in five states
Previous: Bizarre Planet Found to Orbit Backward
See what we're tweeting about
Dhunterauthor Cis people: Help me get a sense of the landscape out there!: http://t.co/7X5j84STGa
BoraZ Oh, Spring http://t.co/A8B86eYATp
docfreeride More proof against intelligent design: healing wound that will heal much better if you don't scratch 'em itch like nobody's business.
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
22 Comments
Add CommentThe last thing we all need is more computer problems. Besides, I think Microsoft does have the original patent. I don't understand why would a Texas Court rule for a Toronto-based company anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Microsoft patent was from earlier THIS year and the i4i patent was before 2007, so how could MS have the original patent???? And a Texas court can rule for a Toronto based company because the evidence appeared to be in their favor. Even if you think any country but the good ol' US of A is evil and bad... LOL.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBops,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason you believe that is because you don't understand law or patent law. If the i4i patent is held to be valid, then MS was absolutely in the wrong. And instead of MS licensing the technology they simply steal it. This in a nutshell is WHY we need to keep software patents....not get rid of them. If software patents did not exist then large companies would simply pirate new developments by smaller less funded companies such as i4i.
Bops,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would also add the "Texas" court is a Federal court. And i4i held a United States patent, of which MS was infringing. That is why the "Texas" court ruled on it. The Texas court is a popular federal venue for patent cases. This is run of the mill in the patent world.
DrPhysics,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement that "MS was absolutely in the wrong." shows that you do not understand law... especially patent law. It is nowhere near a clear cut as you would make it sound.
Microsoft did own an earlier patent that includes a lot of the same ideas as those included in I4i's 1998 patent. Microsoft also received a patent in 2007 for "a word-processing document in a native XML file format that may be understood by an application that understands XML, or to enable another application or service to create a rich document in XML so that the word-processing application can open it as if it was one of its own documents.
I am not saying that MS was absolutely in the right, I am just saying that there is no way they were absolutely in the wrong.
I actually believe that I4i's patent is crazy generic and will not hold up.
Jswanstr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering I'm a patent attorney I have a feeling I have quite an adequate understanding of the law, specifically patent law. Patents, particularly software patents, have many overlapping bits of subject matter. Just because MS had a prior patent related to the 2007 patent does NOT foreclose on the ability to patent inventions in that area. Almost every single patent that is issued is issued in an area that has prior patents existing in it. The question that the patent examiners ask is a question of "obviousness." This question has been asked by the examiner and HE/SHE determined that the i4i patent application contained subject matter that was NOT obvious with respect to the MS patent. Further, the Texas court did NOT invalidate the patent. Thus, at this point, all relevant parties have held that the i4i patent WAS valid and MS WAS infringing. The point is Microsoft had knowledge of this patent by i4i. Instead of paying a licensing fee they simply infringed and the finder of fact has determined they did so willingly. Thus, from where I sit, its pretty cut and dry. MS may wiggle out of it, but it won't be because they prove they didn't infringe. It will be because they'll settle with i4i or purchase them.
so if xml can be patented. does that mean i can patent the way i store files in my file cabinet so other companies must pay me in order to store their files in a similar way? or maybe i should patent the idea of labeling items, so that way the label maker company has to pay me before they can invent and patent a tool that prints labels, that way these labels can be useful and label something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am no lover of Microsoft, in fact I'd like to see that outfit take a beating. But the article mentions that a court could decide that Word is too important to stop its sale? Hey, now wait a minute... so important that Microsoft shold be allowed to allowed to continue the infringement? And, anyway, anyone who wants a word processor has one already and there's always Open Office and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am no lover of Microsoft, in fact I'd like to see that outfit take a beating. But the article mentions that a court could decide that Word is too important to stop its sale? Hey, now wait a minute... so important that Microsoft shold be allowed to allowed to continue the infringement? And, anyway, anyone who wants a word processor has one already and there's always Open Office and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJesus Christ! ?Bops "I don't understand why would a Texas Court rule for <insert a name here> anyway?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy?....um....maybe because the courts investigated and were trying to find out the TRUTH?
Jesus F******** christ....you people scare the shit out of me....and you gang up on anyone who is not from your country. SCARY SHIT!!!!
Moronic and shows some more problems with patents . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisseeing that XML is a fee-free open standard the fight is over patenting sub uses of XML . . . Which is getting rather grey . .
Also what about other programs that use XML to save document data in a very similar way. Are other "open source/standards" going to get carved up for patents and then litigation?! Crazy . .
Relax dude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGymnp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, the court could lift the injunction, so that MS can continue using the product during litigation. But if they lose they would still have to pony of the money, and with continued infringement that would be even more money. I think its about 95% certain that this will get settled. Its in both parties' interest to do so.
JamesDavis,
No, you CAN'T patent a method for labeling things in your cupboard because that is something that has been practiced for centuries. One of the requirements for a patent is that the subject matter can't be known to the public. This area of law is very very developed and the subtleties are not at all addressed here. You are vastly oversimplifying the issue. Using your logic, I couldn't patent an device that allows me to fly from point A to point B because airplanes already have been patented. Your cupboard invention is not novel. The patent examiner determined that the i4i invention was.
Taerog,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAir is free. Does that mean I can't patent a system for compressing air? Or a system for creating an high compression air gun of some kind? Or a new wing that creates more lift? Certainly, there are "sub-uses" of air that I can't patent, but those uses that are useful, novel and are not obvious I can. The fact that XML is "free" (in your words) doesn't matter. The subject matter that i4i patented was NOT open source. They have no rights over XML. They only have rights over their sliver of subject matter related to sub-uses of XML, in fact MS can more than likely work around it.
Who uses Word for XML files anyway? It's completely the wrong application...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatents aside, attorneys aside, courts aside, there is no possible way that MS will cease selling Office 2007. No way in hell. There are literally hundreds of millions of individuals and businesses that use this product. For someone this late in the game to say that MS can't sell the product in the US will be suicide to their career. There is no possible way the federal gov't will allow any sort of injunction like this to exist for any extent of time. You can't prevent businesses to use software that they're basically dependent on. I laugh at this suit. Any attempt to stop the production, sale or purchase of MS Office will be in vain. And I'm nearly a total Apple user, so it's not like I work for MS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeader,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you think that? The federal government has, on many occasion, ran against what was in the best interest of an "all powerful" company (e.g., AT&T, MS). The federal government does NOT have the authority to just run in and wipe away a federal court ruling! Further, this does NOT stop people from using Word 2007. It stops MS from selling NEW .DOCX versions of word. There is a huge huge difference there. Nothing will "collapse" if MS is not allowed to sell .DOCX capable word versions. That's especially true when you consider a very large proportion of people (me being one of them) still have not switched over to the 2007 version anyway. Its also worth noting that the order specifically mentioned that MS could and should still provide support to customers who already purchased the .DOCX version. In short, businesses will not suffer because of the injunction, only MS will. That language, in my opinion, was placed in the order specifically for the purposes of keeping MS from making a "public interest" argument on appeal in an effort to have the injunction lifted.
There is simply no reason for the federal government to rush in, and even if there were I struggle to find any authority that would allow them to. MS is not a common carrier and about the only thing the FED could do in regard to MS is via anti-trust law, which would work the other direction. Yes, on appeal a court could lift the injunction, but the Federal government can't come in an "save the day."
Ultimately, MS will settle with i4i. i4i has no interest in simply stopping MS from using the technology. The injunction has provided i4i with a lot of leverage and it will compel MS to settle. But it is in their interest to do it NOW. The closer that 60 day deadline approaches the higher dollar amount i4i will demand.
Mr. Physics,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible that an appeals court could find that the I4i patent is overly vague and invalid? If so, would you then suddenly be 100% sure that Microsoft acted completely in the right?
Jswanstr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn short, no. Patents don't get invalidated for being "overly vague." The term you are looking for, or this is what I think you're getting at, in patent law language, is non-enabling or obviousness. The examiner and the lower court have both found that i4i's patent was valid. Nothing about the patent fails to meet the technical requirements of a patent, in that it supplies a best mode and supports and enables the claims. In terms of those issues there is almost nothing the appellate court will do. The only relevant question is whether the i4i patent reads on any prior art. If Microsoft actually thought the patent was invalid then they should have challenged it prior to infringing upon it. Trust me, I will guarantee with 100% certainty they absolutely were aware of the i4i patent. So, whether or not the appellate court invalidates the patent is irrelevant in terms of whether MS was in the wrong. They were aware of the i4i patent and continued to infringe on that patent. There are other avenues available to MS other then simply infringing on a patent. They weighed the risks and continued with their actions. That act is what shows MS was in the wrong, not whether or not i4i's patent holds up. And its Dr.Physics - ha ha!
This is great. I'm disappointed that i4i only got $200mil. Consumers should be using Open Office anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer to Bops:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA texas Court as jurisdiction over the matter because the microsoft office program is sold in Texas. Since its a matter of National interest, the State ruling will have force and affect over all States.
This being said, i4i choose to bring the cases to Texas because their is a precedent of cases in which small companies with patent claims have won big money.
Hi i have som questions about this case...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Can MS just strip off the use of this xdoc files and migrate to an open source format like the one the OpenOffice Doc files? Obiusly providing it as NOT CHARGE or not selling the use of the format.?
I dont know about the pattent of i4i or the MS. But XML is a text format (open source), so basically I think the pattent covers TAGS in certain order that make the document a docx file.
2) Why MS just can't re define the TAGS and order, create a new format (this can be done in a week with the MS resources) and sell all new word versions to use it, and pattentent that new MSDOCX format. And for compatibility just release a translator plugin (free) from docx to msdocx.
3) MS released this format "covered" by his own pattent submmission, that was granted by the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" in 2007, so if they commercializated that covered by that pattent, then MS has not commited any crime. Not care if there was a previous pattent, all was legal.
4) Any way can MS SUE the USPTO, with the allegation that THEY granted a pattent that was already registered and in use? so they use it and the where sue and lost 260MD?