The judge should have banned IE6 while he was at it.
dsko
· 3 months ago
ROTFLMAO champagne comedy from txtblanks
MarkBad311
· 3 months ago
Couldn't agree more.
Chris Sylvester
· 3 months ago
Amen to that!!!!
Arun
· 3 months ago
Yeah, I wish I could stop developing for IE. Here in India, around 30% of my visitors use IE6. Thats a lot to ignore. I wonder when I can totally give up IE. Sigh!!!
David
· 3 months ago
check their version status and ask them to update? imho it's less painful to create a "How to upgrade any browser" than fixing CSS in IE6 =/
Tweeminence
· 3 months ago
hahaha well played sir...
jack262626
· 3 months ago
Ditto!
Wade Hammes
· 3 months ago
hahahahahaha. touche.
webthreads
· 3 months ago
This doesn't mention that they were also awarded $290m in damages for patent infringement. Is this a legit patent? Bizarre. I think I'll go patent some custom CSS nonsense.
Chris Sylvester
· 3 months ago
Anything that prevents Microsoft from inflicting techno-pain on the rest of the world is a positive step forward for humanity IMHO :)
Richard
· 3 months ago
Yes, forcing them to return to a poorly documented proprietary binary doc format is a positive step for people everyone.
Nick
· 3 months ago
This was exactly my reaction! It doesn't make any sense at all to force Microsoft back to a format that everybody hated and couldn't understand because the damn specification was like a 1000 pages of binary gibberish.
Glass
· 3 months ago
There's always the OpenOffice format, which is an ISO Standard and very easy to understand...
Actually, the fact that the current Word XML was denied by ISO to become a standard last year makes this VERY GOOD news.
Paul OFlaherty
· 3 months ago
And that statement is about as bad as this decision and if an agreement is not reached or the appeal not won, will result in the return to proprietary formats which will make life for developers everywhere a pain in the arse.
Mark Menard
· 3 months ago
Chris I hope you don't make your living in software development, because if software patents are allowed to continue sooner or later, and probably sooner than you might think, you or your company are going to be hit by a patent troll.
This appears to be nothing but a simple play to extract money from MS for what looks like a simple method patent.
If you'd like to learn more about the dangers of software patents take a look at: http://endsoftpatents.org/
Chris Sylvester
· 3 months ago
GUYS! Grow a sense of humour! :D sheeez - I'll file this one under "how to annoy the crap out of a bunch of Microsoft fan boys"
Chandler
· 3 months ago
Wow. That's all I have to say.
Josh
· 3 months ago
I agree! I will be curious to see where this goes....
bertilhatt
· 3 months ago
Sense. This news makes none. I knew judges were clueless about tech, and the patent system was crooked, but preventing Word because someone patented XML?
shawn
· 3 months ago
actually, i think the judge that ruled on this case was a former programmer...
Grig
· 3 months ago
I bet he was a Linux programmer :)
baekdal
· 3 months ago
How can you patent XML? That just doesn't make any sense.
Oli
· 3 months ago
Welcome to the world of software patents.
Ben
· 3 months ago
It's more the way Word accesses and uses XML, not the XML itself. If this is as big as it could be, why are none (although I've only checked a few) of the news agencies running this?
Mattias Pehrsson
· 3 months ago
Good remark, Ben!
ROD
· 3 months ago
Its not like anybody uses DOCX anyway they should just dump the xml formating and stay with RTF and DOC
Gurt_McSquirt
· 3 months ago
this doesn't make sense.
Peter Fletcher
· 3 months ago
What's the world coming to?
alex RRR
· 3 months ago
no, no, no. whats AMERICA coming to. they are retarding up the joint all over the place
Gray McCarty
· 3 months ago
It's a Canadian company
alex RRR
· 3 months ago
ok, fair comment, didn't know that. thanks
Bill
· 3 months ago
Ignorant remark... Clueless aren't you?
alex RRR
· 3 months ago
ok, so i didn't know that i4i was canadian. then why did they take it to the american law?? surely you would all understand that i menat the american texan judge. plus i'm Australian so i don't really give a rats about any of this :P
Sam
· 3 months ago
"they are retarding up the joint all over the place" What are you trying to say dumbass? It's a canadian company...
alex RRR
· 3 months ago
not TRYING to say anything. i am SAYING that americans are silly and should sit in the corner for a while tthink about what they are and how to fix it.
Mike
· 3 months ago
How can microsoft be doing something wrong by selling something they created?
Paul
· 3 months ago
It may be a fact that Microsoft created Word (or maybe acquired it somehow and then enhanced it). But inside of Word are hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lines of code. Microsoft is adept at stealing technology that belongs to others and making it their own. Does anybody remember the Microsoft / Sun lawsuit over Java before Microsoft and Sun agreed to play nice? Microsoft probably knew about i4i's technology and thought it would be nice addition to Word. So they included it without any consideration for i4i.
This is a clear case of the bully in the sandbox finally getting a reprimand. Or is this a case designed to increase the popularity of Microsoft Word and stimulate sales of the product in a sluggish economy? Certainly there will be many people who may have been waiting for better economic times to buy Office 2007 that may want to buy it in the next 60 days.
jillian
· 3 months ago
your conspiracy theory is utterly ridiculous.
Mark Menard
· 3 months ago
@paul As the other commenter said your conspiracy theories are ludicrous. You should take the time to read up on patent trolls and the damage they are doing to the software industry in the US.
Having recently pulled a product due to an infringement claim I have some experience in the area. The patent office approves patents for methods implementing trivial computer science concepts. The system is severely broken, and needs to be fixed. It is getting hard for anyone to implement system that don't infringe someone software method patent.
For your consideration look for the patent on the doubly linked sorted list. I don't remember the number off the top of my head.
Vivan
· 3 months ago
Only in America would something so retarded be allowed to happen.
Paul
· 3 months ago
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you created a new method of handling some aspect of a website. You think its a "whizz-bang" of an idea -- so you patent the process and copyright the idea. Now, while you're busily trying to market this new idea to software developers and web designers, the biggest software development company comes along and looks at your idea and decides that it would be a nice addition to their own software, but instead of buying rights to your patented process, they just use it and claim it as their own.
Now you've poured hundreds of hours of development time into this process, and spent tens of thousands of dollars on the patent process, and this giant of a company has just made your work worthless.
Do you sue?
Do you have a right to expect that giant of a company should pay you for your patented process? Or is this a right that only exists in America?
Nathan45
· 3 months ago
Paul:
i'm a programmer and i can tell you that XML is not complicated stuff: "Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML, .DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;"
This is not whiz-bang functionality, what they're talking about is a very simple and strait-forward task. A monkey could code this.
^^^this is not complicated stuff. You just have to know what the tags mean for this particular variety of XML, which would be public information.
An XML file is just a text file that stores text data in it in a certain format, and it's not compressed or encrypted or anything like that... this is the programming equivalent of me trying to patent the ability to read Italian.
Second it would be something microsoft would need to have implemented in word, since what good is a word processor if it can't open a variety of file formats?
But what i4i is saying is that word shouldn't be allowed to 'read italian'--so to speak--without paying them to read it to them outloud... because somehow they've patented the ability to open this particular XML format.
i think the basic problem is that the people who are giving out and enforcing patents have no clue about anything.
Michael
· 3 months ago
Or, let us say, for the sake of argument, that you knew before you started that you wouldn't have an opportunity to grab an artificially created monopoly on techniques you might have added some sliver of newness to, but understood ahead of time that the progress of science is a collective endeavor that each contributes to and each can take from. Would you still bother to create?
shawn
· 3 months ago
or let us say, that you realize that open source/free software is the absolute BEST way form a good, honest product. let go of the greed and create software that everyone can collaborate on. if it weren't for collaboration, we would be no where
Good to see Microsoft getting a taste of their own medicine, they have long been one of the worst offenders for registering stupid software patents. The sooner they sort out the software patent mess, the better.
Mark Menard
· 3 months ago
I'm not a MS defender but MS has to file patents to be able to defend themselves in the market place of ideas. Patent law is heavily tilted in favor of patent holders no matter how dubious the patent might seem. Once someone files an infringement claim the typical defense costs around $1.5 million. To defend against this MS patents things that are in their products.
Patent portfolio agreements are common in the software industry and MS has several of them. Now MS is not a patent paragon of virtue, but they are far from being a patent troll.
Koao
· 3 months ago
Microsoft is ABSOLUTELY a patent troll. Have you paid no attention to what they've been saying about linux for years? They're constantly threatening that "Linux infringes on many MS patents, by running linux you put your corporation at risk".
Microsoft is getting EXACTLY what they deserve.
technicalfault
· 3 months ago
What effect might this have on compatible products that can open DOCX etc files produced by Word? E.g. OpenOffice?
Jon
· 3 months ago
OpenOffice is free and the verdict relates to selling the product, so OpenOffice is unaffected.
Mark Menard
· 3 months ago
Jon, are you a patent lawyer? Just because something is free does not exempt the organization behind it, anyone who distributes it, etc. from potential infringement liability. The people with it installed on their machines could potentially be liable if they are notified.
Don't think that being open source is a defense against infringement. Why do you think many of the more modern OSS licenses have patent licensing clauses in them.
dewde
· 3 months ago
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that this is about the patent. It is not. It's about money and therefore OpenOffice will be immune.
peace | dewde
Mark Menard
· 3 months ago
dewde,
You're probably right, but Sun/Oracle have deep pockets. Pockets deep enough to sue. I would guess that if the patent holder prevails in this action OO will be next.
Mark
Kuswanto
· 3 months ago
This is something that supposed to be on my LOLed RSS folder. MS will definitely give i41 a huge check.
dogmatic69
· 3 months ago
hahahah... thats great.
LMFAO @ txblanks
m$ sucks
Nick
· 3 months ago
Microsoft Word for free? I'd download it. Hey Microsoft, pay attention. People actually like Word because it is actually GOOD. (2003 is my favorite, 2007 interface is wtf to me). Grammar and spelling. And quick, and reliable.
I don't care if it has opera styled ads, it would make me stop using OpenOffice for sure.
Douglas Karr
· 3 months ago
It's apparent that you've never used many of the advanced features, like table of contents, and multi-tiered bulleting. We've had 4 releases of Word that still prevent it from being used as a document editor that you're able to go to print with.
Nick
· 3 months ago
I have actually. Advanced tables, several tiered bulleted lists, etc, and always was able to print fine with it.
Σχολή Χορού
· 3 months ago
Its really unbelievable, times do change that's for sure. I am aware of at least four cases witch MS simply HAD TO lose and won them and now look at this. Simply unbelievable.
Swastik
· 3 months ago
Wow! Really.... Wow!
As someone else said, What's the world really coming to?
A Fourth World
· 3 months ago
I'm not sure how to take this, but we rely on products like Microsoft Word for our online advertising. If people keep trying to make a buck off Microsoft, then Independant ad Campaigns like this might not exist in the future which will inevitably hurt the little guy in the end. Computer software consumers often don't see how much microsoft actually does outside of the realm of selling cardboard boxes with software cd's inside. They are involved in community projects in every major city helping local businesses, communities and artists grow... and they actually do care about the little guy believe it or not.
Why is it that complete dominance is strived for in the sports and entertainment industries, and is highly praised when achieved, yet in the business world of money and politics it is seen as a greed driven monopoly... we are so strange as a society sometimes...
Reminds me of the 1970s Batman story in which the Joker tried to patent fish...
GuyClapperton
· 3 months ago
Reminds me of the 1970s Batman story in which the Joker tried to patent fish...
Jack Ellis
· 3 months ago
I thought .docx was like for all versions of Word to read. Also, who uses Word for .XML anyway.
Are i4i Inc copying Opera?
Anon
· 3 months ago
Patent law needs a reboot. Seriously... there is no innovation these days because companies are too busy suing each other to make money. The biggest looser is the customer. All existing patents should be abolished and companies should get back into the business of creating new and innovative products that stand on their own merits. Just because bob came up with a brilliant idea in his basement 10 years ago shouldn't give him the right to sue Jim for coming up with a similar idea which had better market adoption.
Jon
· 3 months ago
Without patents, many companies would not bother doing expensive R&D if their competitors can just rip it off for free. Consequently, many technologies we rely on today simply wouldn't exist at all if profits could not be protected by patents. It's sad but true.
So patents are a necessary evil but luckily they expire.
Aleksandre Asatiani
· 3 months ago
Time for MS to go with ODT :D
Jamaipanese
· 3 months ago
are you serious?
Membere
· 3 months ago
The first thing I thought of after reading this article is, "MS is about to buy something, either just the patients or the whole company". A life without MS Word is unthinkable. Also, I thought DOCX files were zip files using XML, not XML files themselves.
Little Los Angeles
· 3 months ago
interesting judgement
Cyberman
· 3 months ago
Have you ever seen somebody lick the chutney spoon in an Indian Restaurant and put it back? This would never have happened under the Tories.
dainis
· 3 months ago
fun, while back i bought microsoftesque.com ha, i don't even know if i still own the domain! :-)
robe1221
· 3 months ago
Hmm, not sure if this is true or not, but does sound like something that the justice system would do based on precedence alone. That is still the huge issue with new technologies and the legal system, there is hardly any way of determining what is right or wrong in the eyes of the law. I am sure MS will come back and they will probably put a ton of money into this. Personally, I think they should just open up Office all together and run with it on the open source scene.
Spencer Stead
· 3 months ago
Could this be why Microsoft said that Word would be an online software?
Paul
· 3 months ago
Awesome!
A couple of years ago, the US Patent Office granted me a patent on, "the filing and monetization of spurious US patents based on obvious uses for existing technologies."
Hey Canadian patent trolls, expect a call from my lawyers...
Josh Marowitz
· 3 months ago
NYT reports that they'll just have to pay $290 million. Seems like Microsoft could afford that.
rnbarker
· 3 months ago
WOW!! that is one of the dumbest lawsuits that i have ever heard of! someone has nothing else to do but find something to complain about to find a way to obtain some cash. I can not believe that Microsoft cant win this one
igcompany
· 3 months ago
Surprisingly decision!
igcompany
· 3 months ago
Surprisingly decision!
philena
· 3 months ago
Can't help but scratch my head on this one.
Gaby
· 3 months ago
The fact that i4i have sold XML products for Word shows they've known about this for a long time. That makes me find it hard to believe they're doing this for anything but money in a settlement with Microsoft.
Socialcidal
· 3 months ago
How is Microsoft going to survive without selling word? I needed it for my laptop looks like I'm going to have to stick with OpenOffice
Michael Assad
· 3 months ago
Respect!
Marcia Workman
· 3 months ago
I don't think that they should ban Microsoft from selling word. Before I updated my computer I used it and it was awesome!
Matthew Lowery
· 3 months ago
What are companies going to give their employees to work on? OpenOffice? This is a bad idea, the money isn't worth it...
Marcia Workman
· 3 months ago
I don't think that they should ban Microsoft from selling word. Before I updated my computer I used it and it was awesome!
Justin Thompson
· 3 months ago
Banning Word outright is a little harsh. They'll come to some sort of agreement.
Mike
· 3 months ago
A company based in Toronto sued a company based in Seattle in Texas courts. Why not?Texas courts have long been hyper-hostile to big companies (other than big oil of course). Looks like a case of judge shopping by the plaintives.
Darin Carter
· 3 months ago
Thats funny but it won't fly. Good try thought ... LOL
Steve Jobs
· 3 months ago
Waiting for whoever patented the stupid box it comes in to sue them next. Or did I miss that one?
Paolo
· 3 months ago
Sounds like this is just in terms of open source document formats (which hasn't been around as long as Microsoft's own doc formats thats been around way before). Just snake in some proprietary format with them knowing that over half of PCs run Windows and voila another hold on people.
EvanW
· 3 months ago
Does that mean my wife, whose computer DIDN'T come with Word, can download it from somewhere once these shenanigans settle?
chuckboycejr
· 3 months ago
MSFT lawsuit w/ i4i reminded me of the excellent film "Flash of Genius" re: Ford stealing a patent. AWESOME movie http://bit.ly/JwtP2
Paolo Sanchez
· 3 months ago
Sounds like this is just in terms of open source document formats (which hasn't been around as long as Microsoft's own doc formats thats been around way before). Just snake in some MS proprietary format with them knowing that over half of PCs run Windows and voila another hold on people (and Im sure majority wouldn't know what .XML, .DOCX or DOCM formats are). MS knows this.
Paolo Sanchez
· 3 months ago
Sounds like this is just in terms of open source document formats (which hasn't been around as long as Microsoft's own doc formats thats been around way before). Just snake in some MS proprietary format with them knowing that over half of PCs run Windows and voila another hold on people (and Im sure majority wouldn't know what .XML, .DOCX or DOCM formats are). MS knows this.
Paolo Sanchez
· 3 months ago
Sounds like this is just in terms of open source document formats (which hasn't been around as long as Microsoft's own doc formats thats been around way before). Just snake in some MS proprietary format with them knowing that over half of PCs run Windows and voila another hold on people (and Im sure majority wouldn't know what .XML, .DOCX or DOCM formats are). MS knows this.
Mary Winkenwerder
· 3 months ago
Mind blowing.
MSolution
· 3 months ago
Perhaps i should start making XML products around word!
Amy
· 3 months ago
This is what happens when bureaucrats, lawyers, and juries (carefully filtered to remove anyone with actual knowledge of the technologies, lest they be "biased") make the decisions on tech policy.
After recently serving on my first jury, which included significant medical testimony, I've begun to wonder if it isn't time for some sort of specialized courts to handle certain types of disputes. Our system was set up for determining if someone stole a machine design or elixir formula. Things have changed too much, I really don't feel like the system is effective for modern science and tech issues.
ashley
· 3 months ago
if i was microsoft id stop using XML completely and put the other company out of business doing so. why do companies bite the hand that feeds?
Mike Stenger
· 3 months ago
Man, this has got to hurt MS's ego a tad bit just before the launch of Windows 7.
Mike Stenger
· 3 months ago
Man, this has got to hurt MS's ego a tad bit just before the launch of Windows 7. How many people though use Word for .XML? I just open it up with notepad and done deal.
Tech Nerd
· 3 months ago
Wow i don't think this is a victory for Canadians =(
In these comments: People who don't understand technology or patents commenting on technology and patents.
The Binocular
· 3 months ago
This is strange.
Microsoft rock and all of you know it.
Let's hope they throw the best lawyers money can buy at the situation
Cell Phone Nut
· 3 months ago
Everyone one a piece of you when you have some thing.
DP
· 3 months ago
Corporate war!!! its funny though the company name i4i (eye for an eye)
Jeffrey Lee
· 3 months ago
All good ideas are inspired by Allah and are therefore subject to Sharia Law. Public stoning begins at 8:00.
Joe Jones
· 3 months ago
Well, welcome to America...Amazing how we allow and prevent the dumbest things to take place or not take place
Igor
· 3 months ago
It's very very bad for MS.. Why if you are big and lucky, every sick crap wants to get you in the ass?! I can't understand Americans. Democracy, Truth, Honest... but you have so many laws.. You can't do that that and that. You can't use that that blablabla and that... Is it American democracy?
Brian
· 3 months ago
Very interesting topic. I do not have any legal experience to comment on how this will play out, but I can assure you that a billion dollar corporation like Microsoft (where the name alone expresses dominance), will find a way to either get around or through this issue. http://www.computersncs.com/rd_p?p=186122&t=954...
Brian
· 3 months ago
Very interesting topic. I do not have any legal experience to comment on how this will play out, but I can assure you that a billion dollar corporation like Microsoft (where the name alone expresses dominance), will find a way to either get around or through this issue. http://www.computersncs.com/rd_p?p=186122&t=954...
raj
· 3 months ago
I wonder what Tim Bray, co-author of the original XML specs, has to say about this development.
raj
· 3 months ago
I wonder what Tim Bray, co-author of the original XML specs, has to say about this development.
Krishna Santani
· 3 months ago
At the first place how anybody can take a patent on method of reading a XML document.?
sm
· 3 months ago
very interesting story lets see how big the check will be
Geoffrey
· 3 months ago
This isn't about someone trying to make a buck off of Microsoft. MS has stolen from many companies over the years, and I have no doubt that they're guilty here. Remember, MS swindled the original writer of DOS, and copied what became Windows from the Macs they were supposed to be writing software for. After which they added a "do not reverse engineer" clause to their EULAs. MS is built on their legal and marketing departments, not on their ability to produce innovative software.
Anon
· 3 months ago
Why is this a surprising? If you are aware of a patent, pay a licensing fee and you won't get sued or get hit with a huge judgment. Patents are the only protection that small software companies have, otherwise there would be nothing stopping the Microsofts of the world from copying what other companies are doing, and wiping them out. I'm sure Microsoft had many many chances to settle this case, instead they chose to fight. Judging by the size of the verdict, there must've been some serious evidence of Microsoft's knowledge of the patent and refusal to license. Also note that this patent was filed in 1994, the very beginning of the internet, and years before XML was developed.
Gaz
· 3 months ago
All software patents should go through specialised courts who know what they're dealing with
Steve
· 3 months ago
Just another case of a company using judges who are clueless about technology to try to gain an edge over the competition by being ridiculous. What else is new? It's all about the $$.
Mica
· 3 months ago
Wow!! This seems kinda crazy. I need to research this a little...
BRian
· 3 months ago
This has nothing to do with patenting XML in and of itself this is about a module that a company made for Word to open XML documents.
Chrispy
· 3 months ago
One word PDF.
zzdinko
· 3 months ago
Wow, now there is a kangaroo court judge if I ever saw one!
so let me get this straight i4i makes an add-on for Word that allows it to read XML... and has now asked microsoft to stop selling word breaking a patent. If microsoft didn't care and could throw away the money they could discontinue word and make i4i go under ROFL
runlevel
· 3 months ago
use linux
DoubleMs
· 3 months ago
Microsoft can get out of it by including Word 'absolutely free' in Office, and reducing the price slightly...
ratdog
· 3 months ago
$$$$$$$$$$$ Microsoft laughed at this judge and will appeal. Other than keeping lawyers employed, this will not stop MSFT.
Brian
· 3 months ago
Very Interesting article, but the use of the word 'ecosystem' to describe the software market strikes me as a buzz word chosen in poor taste. Given the dire state of world biodiversity, co-opting this term to describe a mega industry that generates so much electronic waste (software runs on hardware after all) is flagrant green washing.
anonymous
· 3 months ago
This is a prime example why copyright and patent law should be considerably reformed. Perhaps the concept of intellectual property needs to be revisited and should result in the elimination of intellectual property protections.
I'm stumped they let a Judge in Texas make this decision. No wonder it makes no sense at all. I wonder if he even knew what XML was??? lol
Cappie
· 3 months ago
iWork 09 BABY!
Steave
· 3 months ago
This is unbelievable.
Tim Acheson
· 3 months ago
I can offer technical expertise and experience of the type of computer operation in question. I am consulting with contacts who have specialist knowledge in the other key areas, patent law and patent interpretation -- patent attorneys and editors on publications about scientific patents.
I have created a dedicated page on my web site where I will provide a simple analysis of the facts. From the analysis I will offer an informed prediction about the likely outcome of the appeal:
The case against Microsoft is spurious and highly questionable, and the court was not grossly under-qualified to make an informed judgement on the key issues.
The judge and laymen responsible for this decision lack the technical expertise required to compare the concepts described in the patent with the concepts applied in a software product such as Microsoft Word. The patent describes complex technical concepts and uses terminology that would be confusing even to somebody who does possess the technical expertise. The judge and laymen also lack the necessary expertise of patent law. In addition to the technical and legal complexities of this case, the text of the patent is not easy to follow; therefore it seems likely that the judge and laymen could not have understood the document.
Faced with a case too complex to understand, a judge and laymen could easily rule in favour of the side that they best understand, even if that side rests on flawed arguments. In this case, in a district court in Texas, we have the arguments put by technical and legal experts representing the world’s largest software corporation, against the arguments put by representatives of a local business.
If the judge and lay people involved were experts in computer science and patent law, which they were not, of course judges do make mistakes. Judges can also be incompetent, and there are numerous documented cases of persistently incompetent continuing to make bad decisions with impunity.
SensibleGuy
· 3 months ago
Come on people, this is the Internet - it has search engines. Look up "i4i" and visit their website. At least figure out what the company makes. Then you can search the United States patent office website and find out what the patent is about.
here... from the i4i website: XML Authoring in Microsoft® Word Improve the efficiency of document driven business processes by producing and collaborating on high quality business documents with x4o.
In 2003, Microsoft added the ability to edit an XML file to Word by tying the XML and optionally an XSD schema to Word. You can then plop/drop the fields from the XML anywhere in the Word document and edit within the tags. i4i claims to have the same feature. This is not the same is "patenting XML" - it is patenting a rather specific way of editing XML within Word. The i4i product works in a similar way.
Whether or not the patent infringement is valid, and whether or not the judge's decision makes sense, is another issue. But people, please, use the freakin' tools at your disposal before diving into a debate.
Joe Bubna
· 3 months ago
I read the patent and i4i does NOT have a patent on XML or the typical formatting that XML uses. i4i's patent covers a STORAGE method for ANY "mark-up language" style documents.
To sum up their patent, if you take a text file with markup, have your software read it and remove the markup tags, and then store the formatting (determined by parsing the markup) and the content in separate locations, then you've violated their patent. This is accomplished by storing the formatting in some sort of metamap.
Programmers, Web Developers, etc, are always trying to separate "content" from "design" (I.E. Model-View-Controller, CSS). Doing what they patented allows you to store the content without any markup, with the markup stored in a separate file (an example Metamap = the number of characters until the start of the markup and then the markup type in that location).
So the lawsuit was about the processing and storage method Microsoft uses for XML files, not about XML markup itself.
I read the patent and i4i does NOT have a patent on XML or the typical formatting that XML uses. i4i's patent covers a STORAGE method for ANY "mark-up language" style documents.
To sum up their patent, if you take a text file with markup, have your software read it and remove the markup tags, and then store the formatting (determined by parsing the markup) and the content in separate locations, then you've violated their patent. This is accomplished by storing the formatting in some sort of metamap.
Programmers, Web Developers, etc, are always trying to separate "content" from "design" (I.E. Model-View-Controller, CSS). Doing what they patented allows you to store the content without any markup, with the markup stored in a separate file (an example Metamap = the number of characters until the start of the markup and then the markup type in that location).
So the lawsuit was about the processing and storage method Microsoft uses for XML files, not about XML markup itself.
I'm not saying this company is a patent troll or not, to be honest I don't know the specifics of the details, but I will say that there's a reason why all these patent lawsuits keep going through the Texas courts... that's all.
Name
· 3 months ago
Microsoft actually WAS sort of ripping off its customers, making them pay for a text editor.
AbiWord is free and just as good, if not better.
Wogan
· 2 months ago
1: "...containing *custom* XML".
Custom XML? Are you serious? The X stands for "eXtensible" - THE WHOLE LANGUAGE IS CUSTOM!
This is an absolutely ridiculous injunction - I don't expect anything less than the whole thing being overturned in MS' favor.
All Comments
Actually, the fact that the current Word XML was denied by ISO to become a standard last year makes this VERY GOOD news.
This appears to be nothing but a simple play to extract money from MS for what looks like a simple method patent.
If you'd like to learn more about the dangers of software patents take a look at: http://endsoftpatents.org/
whats AMERICA coming to.
they are retarding up the joint all over the place
then why did they take it to the american law??
surely you would all understand that i menat the american texan judge.
plus i'm Australian so i don't really give a rats about any of this :P
What are you trying to say dumbass? It's a canadian company...
i am SAYING that americans are silly and should sit in the corner for a while tthink about what they are and how to fix it.
This is a clear case of the bully in the sandbox finally getting a reprimand. Or is this a case designed to increase the popularity of Microsoft Word and stimulate sales of the product in a sluggish economy? Certainly there will be many people who may have been waiting for better economic times to buy Office 2007 that may want to buy it in the next 60 days.
Having recently pulled a product due to an infringement claim I have some experience in the area. The patent office approves patents for methods implementing trivial computer science concepts. The system is severely broken, and needs to be fixed. It is getting hard for anyone to implement system that don't infringe someone software method patent.
For your consideration look for the patent on the doubly linked sorted list. I don't remember the number off the top of my head.
Now you've poured hundreds of hours of development time into this process, and spent tens of thousands of dollars on the patent process, and this giant of a company has just made your work worthless.
Do you sue?
Do you have a right to expect that giant of a company should pay you for your patented process? Or is this a right that only exists in America?
i'm a programmer and i can tell you that XML is not complicated stuff:
"Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;"
This is not whiz-bang functionality, what they're talking about is a very simple and strait-forward task. A monkey could code this.
an xml file looks kindof like this:
<tagname key=randominfo>morerandominfo
<maybesomechildtagshere/></tagname>
<moretagsetc>moreinfoetc</moretagsetc>
^^^this is not complicated stuff. You just have to know what the tags mean for this particular variety of XML, which would be public information.
An XML file is just a text file that stores text data in it in a certain format, and it's not compressed or encrypted or anything like that... this is the programming equivalent of me trying to patent the ability to read Italian.
Second it would be something microsoft would need to have implemented in word, since what good is a word processor if it can't open a variety of file formats?
But what i4i is saying is that word shouldn't be allowed to 'read italian'--so to speak--without paying them to read it to them outloud... because somehow they've patented the ability to open this particular XML format.
i think the basic problem is that the people who are giving out and enforcing patents have no clue about anything.
regards
http://hoteblog.com
Patent portfolio agreements are common in the software industry and MS has several of them. Now MS is not a patent paragon of virtue, but they are far from being a patent troll.
Have you paid no attention to what they've been saying about linux for years?
They're constantly threatening that "Linux infringes on many MS patents, by running linux you put your corporation at risk".
Microsoft is getting EXACTLY what they deserve.
Don't think that being open source is a defense against infringement. Why do you think many of the more modern OSS licenses have patent licensing clauses in them.
peace | dewde
You're probably right, but Sun/Oracle have deep pockets. Pockets deep enough to sue. I would guess that if the patent holder prevails in this action OO will be next.
Mark
LMFAO @ txblanks
m$ sucks
I don't care if it has opera styled ads, it would make me stop using OpenOffice for sure.
As someone else said, What's the world really coming to?
Why is it that complete dominance is strived for in the sports and entertainment industries, and is highly praised when achieved, yet in the business world of money and politics it is seen as a greed driven monopoly... we are so strange as a society sometimes...
http://afourthworld.com/microsoft
Are i4i Inc copying Opera?
So patents are a necessary evil but luckily they expire.
A couple of years ago, the US Patent Office granted me a patent on, "the filing and monetization of spurious US patents based on obvious uses for existing technologies."
Hey Canadian patent trolls, expect a call from my lawyers...
This is a bad idea, the money isn't worth it...
After recently serving on my first jury, which included significant medical testimony, I've begun to wonder if it isn't time for some sort of specialized courts to handle certain types of disputes. Our system was set up for determining if someone stole a machine design or elixir formula. Things have changed too much, I really don't feel like the system is effective for modern science and tech issues.
http://www.adgirlandtechnerd.com
Microsoft rock and all of you know it.
Let's hope they throw the best lawyers money can buy at the situation
lets see how big the check will be
RT
www.anon-web-tools.net.tc
I have created a dedicated page on my web site where I will provide a simple analysis of the facts. From the analysis I will offer an informed prediction about the likely outcome of the appeal:
http://www.timacheson.com/blog/2009/aug/microso...
The case against Microsoft is spurious and highly questionable, and the court was not grossly under-qualified to make an informed judgement on the key issues.
The judge and laymen responsible for this decision lack the technical expertise required to compare the concepts described in the patent with the concepts applied in a software product such as Microsoft Word. The patent describes complex technical concepts and uses terminology that would be confusing even to somebody who does possess the technical expertise. The judge and laymen also lack the necessary expertise of patent law. In addition to the technical and legal complexities of this case, the text of the patent is not easy to follow; therefore it seems likely that the judge and laymen could not have understood the document.
Faced with a case too complex to understand, a judge and laymen could easily rule in favour of the side that they best understand, even if that side rests on flawed arguments. In this case, in a district court in Texas, we have the arguments put by technical and legal experts representing the world’s largest software corporation, against the arguments put by representatives of a local business.
If the judge and lay people involved were experts in computer science and patent law, which they were not, of course judges do make mistakes. Judges can also be incompetent, and there are numerous documented cases of persistently incompetent continuing to make bad decisions with impunity.
here... from the i4i website:
XML Authoring in Microsoft® Word
Improve the efficiency of document driven business processes by producing and collaborating on high quality business documents with x4o.
In 2003, Microsoft added the ability to edit an XML file to Word by tying the XML and optionally an XSD schema to Word. You can then plop/drop the fields from the XML anywhere in the Word document and edit within the tags. i4i claims to have the same feature. This is not the same is "patenting XML" - it is patenting a rather specific way of editing XML within Word. The i4i product works in a similar way.
Whether or not the patent infringement is valid, and whether or not the judge's decision makes sense, is another issue. But people, please, use the freakin' tools at your disposal before diving into a debate.
To sum up their patent, if you take a text file with markup, have your software read it and remove the markup tags, and then store the formatting (determined by parsing the markup) and the content in separate locations, then you've violated their patent. This is accomplished by storing the formatting in some sort of metamap.
Programmers, Web Developers, etc, are always trying to separate "content" from "design" (I.E. Model-View-Controller, CSS). Doing what they patented allows you to store the content without any markup, with the markup stored in a separate file (an example Metamap = the number of characters until the start of the markup and then the markup type in that location).
So the lawsuit was about the processing and storage method Microsoft uses for XML files, not about XML markup itself.
P.S. If you want to read the patent yourself, go here (scroll down a ways to get to the more readable stuff):
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1...
To sum up their patent, if you take a text file with markup, have your software read it and remove the markup tags, and then store the formatting (determined by parsing the markup) and the content in separate locations, then you've violated their patent. This is accomplished by storing the formatting in some sort of metamap.
Programmers, Web Developers, etc, are always trying to separate "content" from "design" (I.E. Model-View-Controller, CSS). Doing what they patented allows you to store the content without any markup, with the markup stored in a separate file (an example Metamap = the number of characters until the start of the markup and then the markup type in that location).
So the lawsuit was about the processing and storage method Microsoft uses for XML files, not about XML markup itself.
P.S. If you want to read the patent yourself, go here (scroll down a ways to get to the more readable stuff):
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1...
AbiWord is free and just as good, if not better.
Custom XML? Are you serious? The X stands for "eXtensible" - THE WHOLE LANGUAGE IS CUSTOM!
This is an absolutely ridiculous injunction - I don't expect anything less than the whole thing being overturned in MS' favor.