
Judge: Microsoft can't sell Word anymore - aj
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/176223.asp
======
yread
From a comment on CNET: _by dennisheadley August 12, 2009 1:25 AM PDT The
company in question is not a patent troll company. They actually were the
first company to develop seamless use of XML from within word. This was before
MS offered any such feature of its own in word. As a matter of fact MS at the
time completely avoided XML, refused to support it and tried to do their own
proprietary format version of it instead.

I4I the company had the world recognized top system out there for XML
implementation and management in large scale companies and was the chosen to
power such things as the, and this is ironic, the US patent system, the FDA's
new streamlined submission system, which uses a open standard chiefly
developed from two companies technologies, i4i being one of them.

While i do not usually condone these lawsuits. MS in this case realized that
its efforts to avoid using XML were going against corporate customer demands,
pretty much just took the best system available from a third party for this
purpose and almost straight up incorporated it into word. I read quite a few
articles on this when they talked about it earlier this year. And you have to
remember that XML is common use now, but this was started years ago when it
was not common in actual use and this companies solution was more than just a
save to XML function, it was not an easy accomplishment like some of you would
pretend it was.

This company made its fortune on servicing the majority of the fortune 500
companies, many of them software giants, as well as many government agencies._

Can anyone confirm?

~~~
bilbo0s
I have some insight into the FDA's submission system.

There are some inconsistencies in what the commenter here is claiming, and the
experience of my company submitting software to the FDA for approval. I would
not call their new system streamlined, and as I have been told from time to
time that their database is down I am curious how it could be using XML on the
backend. Is XML over HTTP part of their patent? If the patent is for XML in
Word, well, Word is not even in that web-based workflow. Further, and this is
just a nit-pick I realize that the guy may have misspoken. That said, assuming
there is XML on the backend, and it is using an "open standard chiefly
developed from . . ." i4i's tech, then it is not really an open standard is
it?

In short, based on my knowledge, derived from extensive involvement in
regulatory affairs in the medical imaging field, the second paragraph in that
comment is highly suspect.

~~~
cdr
Here's a reddit comment/thread on the patent:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/99utb/judge_ord...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/99utb/judge_orders_microsoft_to_stop_selling_word/c0bxyul)

------
ars
Note: this only applies to files with custom xml, not all doc files. So
Microsoft could remove that capability and keep selling word.

BTW I have to say this injunction is stunningly stupid. Usually you make an
injunction if there is harm that must be stopped _now_. But with this, it's
just monetary damages - let it go to trial - what's the rush?

But with the 60 day stay, perhaps it's a "fake" injunction, intended to be
canceled.

------
aurora72
In the article it says: "XML essentially is a programming language..." Well,
it's a markup language used for content presentation in a compact form (not so
compact as in s-expressions, though), so it's not a programming language. XSLT
is.

~~~
smithjchris
XML is definitely not a programming language. It's not turing complete.

~~~
loumf
I could write programs in XML and write a machine to run them.

<function name="main"><call function="print"><arg>Hello,
World</arg></call></function>

XML isn't a programming language in the same way ASCII isn't a programming
language -- in the same way CSV isn't a programming language. Not because of
turing completeness, but because they are a completely different thing.

------
Ben65
Oddly enough this doesn't seem to be hurting the stock price. Usually news
like this will tank a stock. I suppose it's because the current price isn't
over extended.

~~~
dundun
I think it is because nobody believes it will actually force MSFT to stop
shipping word. And with a market cap of 200+ billion, a payout to i4i wouldn't
hurt MSFT too much.

------
zandorg
Kind of ironic considering Word processes XML for 'openness'.

------
TomasSedovic
The article didn't explain: what exactly is the problem?

They say it's got something to do with how Word reads XML, so what's wrong
there?

Any ideas?

~~~
ars
It's only word files with custom XML. I think that's when companies define
structured documents with fields, which get entered into the xml.

For example if you were making a requisition form, and each fillable field has
a corresponding xml field. This becomes interesting when you then take those
word files and directly processes them, automatically extracting the info from
the xml.

It doesn't apply to regular word files. (Or even files with generic fillable
fields.)

The company that filed the lawsuit apparently makes some sort of plugin that
does something relating to this in word. I guess they want Microsoft to remove
the built in capability, and force people to buy their plugin.

Despite the title, they don't really want Microsoft to stop shipping word
altogether.

~~~
rbanffy
"Despite the title, they don't really want Microsoft to stop shipping word
altogether."

But wouldn't that be fun?

Seriously, I am divided. Part of me sees this as an abuse of the patent
system, that shouldn't allow bad patents (and I assume this is a bad one), but
another part is having a really good laugh.

~~~
doki_pen
Does MS have a history of patent abuse? AFAIK they don't. They talk about it a
lot, but I don't think they actually engage much. I hate MS as much as the
next Linux loving commie, but this is stupid.

~~~
jimbokun
"Does MS have a history of patent abuse?"

One well known case:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics>

"Stac, in an effort led by attorney Morgan Chu, sued Microsoft for
infringement of two of its data compression patents, and won"

EDIT: So they have a history of sometimes infringing patents, but by abuse
perhaps you meant using patents as a weapon?

------
easyfrag
Is this from that "plaintiff friendly" court in Texas?
[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/21/ed-texas-no-longer-
pate...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/21/ed-texas-no-longer-patent-troll-
friendly/id=1688/)

------
jpcx01
I wonder if the upcoming Patent Reform bill has any chance of improving the
situation. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10210824-38.html>

------
chaosprophet
Seems like a new patent troll sues someone every week. Patent laws should be
modified to behave more like trademark laws. If you wanna keep it, you better
keep using it.

~~~
DougWebb
I think the point here is that i4i wanted to keep using it, but couldn't
because Microsoft took everything they had and built it into Word for free.
They destroyed i4i's business model (which happens sometimes) by stealing
their design (which isn't legal.)

~~~
JulianMorrison
A business model based on setting a toll gate in front of an imposed monopoly
is a business model that ought not to exist.

~~~
qu1j0t3
Well now, I haven't read the details of the suit, or their product, but it
sounds like the plaintiff is selling an extension to Word - not unlike many
companies (and myself) sell extensions to, say, Photoshop; or fibreglass
spoilers for Hondas. Microsoft has frequently been caught red handed stealing
other companies' ideas and converting them into Microsoft products. When a
product has enough market share to become the market leader, and beyond that
into monopoly status (Windows, Office, and Photoshop are ideal examples) then
the owner of that monopoly only needs to fart in order to asphyxiate
thousands. To roll over in bed might be a genocide. In the monopoly context,
otherwise-harmless misdemeanors become positively harmful: For example,
Adobe's passive-aggressive support for third party developers. In the
continual drive to force upgrades and meet quarterly targets (etc), where the
corporate well of originality - always rather shallow - has run dry, where
else would you take your inspiration but from third parties? Anyway, I think
"ought not to exist" is a bit strong, as the market for extensions would seem
to be very helpful to consumers. It's just inherently dangerous to be a flea
on a giant's ass.

------
kingkawn
i found this photo from of OpenOffice's afternoon meeting yesterday:
<http://bit.ly/G82b4>

~~~
Ben65
I can't believe all the down marks on this. It was kind of funny.

~~~
ars
The downmods are because of the url shorter (which is frowned on here), and
because it's a joke (and jokes are rarely liked since they don't usually add
anything).

He's lucky it's only -1, usually posts like that go much lower.

~~~
kingkawn
thank you for sparing me, sir.

------
Hoff
Bilski?

------
jacquesm
What goes around comes around.

Simple patent system reform suggestion: Companies can only be sued for patent
infringement if they hold more than 100 patents themselves.

~~~
jrockway
Sounds like there would be a lot of companies with 99 patents that all agreed
not to sue each other.

Might as well just kill off software patents all together and save everyone
the trouble.

~~~
jacquesm
Sure, that's what it would lead to eventually, but I'm quite sure that right
now the 'big' companies are using patents the way they use (armies of)
lawyers, simply to raise the bar to competition.

They can afford it, those who can't have very little choice but to give up.

Patents are weapons in the corporate arena, not something that has a net
positive effect.

I'm sure that if it became apparent that there would be lots of companies with
99 patents that would agree not to sue each other we can make it more
interesting by lowering the limit to 50 or by using that as proof that the
patent systems main function is to be used in anti-competitive ways rather
than to foster creativity.

It's a totally naive solution, but something really has to be done about this.

See elsewhere on the thread about how the EU patent system set up to stop
counterfeit materials is now used to stop generic drugs _in transit_.

I've just about had enough of these tactics.

Big companies have a way of getting what they want, if we can make them want
to get rid of the patent system then they'll use their lobbying power to make
it happen.

~~~
timwiseman
_Sure, that's what it would lead to eventually, but I'm quite sure that right
now the 'big' companies are using patents the way they use (armies of)
lawyers, simply to raise the bar to competition._

That is what they were intended to be for.

The original idea (as I understand it, obligatory IANAL) was that in order to
reward inventors, the government would _temporarily_ raise the bar on
competition to the point no one else could directly use that particular
technology to compete at all. Anyone who wanted to compete would either have
to license the technology from the inventor, or go to the point of developing
a new parallel technology that achieved the same function. This was their
reward for adding to human technology and it was meant to encourage inventors
to do this.

One key point though is that like copyright, patents are for a limited time.

~~~
jcl
_One key point though is that like copyright, patents are for a limited time._

Moreso for patents than copyrights. Number of patents that expired last week:
thousands. Number of copyrights that expired in the last decade: zero.

~~~
timwiseman
I think that is a bit of an overstatement, but it is a point well made.

Copyrights have been extended to great lengths and retroactive extensions have
been passed, so they expire at a very slow rate which is not at all fixed.

~~~
jcl
I'm not sure if you are saying that copyrights have been expiring, or if you
mean that copyrights aren't expiring now but will eventually.

If the former, you have my curiosity... Could you describe a case in which a
copyright's term could have expired in the past decade? As I understand it,
the Sonny Bono Copyright Act extended all copyright terms by twenty years, and
that was eleven years ago.

