Microsoft ordered to stop selling Word!!!

[deadrats]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10308013-75.html

a judge has issued a ruling that effectively tells microsoft 'Word to your mother'! (<--sorry, couldn't resist the pun).

seriously, how long does anyone think it's going to take microsoft to get this ruling overturned?

on a side note, i wonder what i4i plans on doing about open office, it also opens xml files and it's open source, do they really think they can stop them from supporting said files even with a court order?

[rhegedus]

a judge has issued a ruling that effectively tells microsoft 'Word to your mother'! (<--sorry, couldn't resist the pun).

Must be this version:

[JohnnyMalaria]

Hmmm. Reading the claims of the patent (the stuff that counts), you could describe Apple's QuickTime file format that way. The claims lack detail, too, which makes the patent easy to get around.

[hech54]

One word....Fraunhofer.

[RLT69]

you could describe Apple's QuickTime file format that way.

Assuming Quicktime does this:

"...open an XML file containing custom XML."

"Custom XML refers to content within the file that is of a different XML format, with a separate "custom schema" to describe that content."

Solution:

"This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text."

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090812144154814

So, no, Quicktime is not in trouble.

[orsetto]

Not gonna happen. Word has something like 90% worldwide market share in word processors, Windows and Mac OS combined, its the de facto standard in business. The MS lawyers can tear this one down in five minutes: whatever a judge thinks of the merits, he or she would be an idiot to assume the global business market is simply going to stop using Word after betting the farm on it more than ten years ago. Seen any new WordPerfect or WordStar installations since 1996? Thought not.

[RLT69]

@orsetto

Is there a legal argument in there? Reading through your ramblings I could not find a legal argument.

The judge in question does not have to give a flying fig what the business community does with Word. The question at hand is whether or not Microsoft is violating a patent held by i4i. The judge agreed:

"Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) is found to have unlawfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449 (the “‘449 patent”)."

The judge also gave Microsoft an out:

"This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text."

So Microsoft can easily move around this.

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090812144154814

[ocgw]

Not gonna happen. Word has something like 90% worldwide market share in word processors, Windows and Mac OS combined, its the de facto standard in business. The MS lawyers can tear this one down in five minutes: whatever a judge thinks of the merits, he or she would be an idiot to assume the global business market is simply going to stop using Word after betting the farm on it more than ten years ago. Seen any new WordPerfect or WordStar installations since 1996? Thought not.

I have a older version of Word Perfect (which came bundled w/ a new Dell Laptop), and if I bother to install it, it will continually nag me to upgrade to a newer version which I did for a while

After 3 or 4 free uprades the upgrades stopped working, If I wanted a latest version of Word Perfect I would have to pay for a new version lol

To hell w/ them all anyway, I have Microsft Office Corporate Edition Blue Book 2007, but all I need is Wordpad, or my old Microsoft Office 2000 lol

Every new version of Word is bigger and more bloated than the last, and takes even longer to load, just to write a text document, who are these ppl that need the latest reiteration of Microsoft Word?

ocgw

peace

[jman98]

@orsetto - RTL69 is correct and you are, no offense, a bit naive if you really think that's how it works.

A few years ago Blackberry lost a patent infringement case in the USA and the court ruling said that they had to stop infringing on the patent immediately. They had no workaround, so essentially that would have shut down Blackberry to comply. High ranking people in the US government freaked out and put pressure on the patent office. I thought for sure that within a short period of time the US Patent Office would miraculously find that the patent in question was invalid, but that didn't happen. The US government continued to intervene in the court case, begging the judge to not shutdown RIM (parent company of Blackberry), but to no avail. Finally a financial settlement was reached. Dude, if the US government couldn't save Blackberry's rear in a patent case, I can guarantee you that Microsoft does not have what it takes to "tear this one down in five minutes".

[Supreme2k]

On the other hand, what was that "settlement"?

I often hear of these cases where it was "settled out of court, the details not to be disclosed". For all anyone on the outside knows, the "settlement" was a bullet in the back of someone's skull.

I've been involved in several court cases where where the so-called "winning" party settled out of court just to save face. They only looked like the victor, with the status quo remaining the same.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I expect Microsoft to release an Office update that removes Custom XML, similar to what they did with Java.

[JohnnyMalaria]

you could describe Apple's QuickTime file format that way.

Assuming Quicktime does this:

"...open an XML file containing custom XML."

"Custom XML refers to content within the file that is of a different XML format, with a separate "custom schema" to describe that content."

Solution:

"This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text."

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090812144154814

So, no, Quicktime is not in trouble.

The patent's claims say nothing whatsoever about XML.

[RLT69]

The patent's claims say nothing whatsoever about XML.

Technically correct the patent does not mention XML specifically but it does mention SGML specifically, repeatedly.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2F...9&RS=5,787,449

XML is an extension of SGML.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML#History

So I'm assuming that's where XML is coming into this. XML is mentioned in every article about this and in the Judge's.

But then Microsoft is trying to pull the same crap with this XML patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fneta...S=PN/7,571,169

Neither one should have been granted.

[JohnnyMalaria]

No specific languages are mentioned in the claims and they are what count.

[orsetto]

@orsetto

Is there a legal argument in there? Reading through your ramblings I could not find a legal argument.

Oh for the love of... what IS it with some of you hairsplitters? We aren't trying the damned case ourselves here on VH, we're commenting on how it might/might not affect us. This will not, under any circumstances, affect us as consumers. No way. "Word" is not a Blackberry, there are no alternatives, whether we like it or not "Word" is the only word processor that matters. MS will take a few million from the billions its made from Office and use it to fight tooth and nail: if there is the least amount of wiggle room in this case MS can stall and drag it out for as long as it takes to drain its adversaries dry. When you go up against a behemoth like MS, the "merits" are secondary to all the other appeals and pressures MS can bring to bear. Even if MS loses utterly, it will dictate the terms of any settlement and it will barely register as a blip to most Word users. There won't be some huge "opportunity" for OpenOffice or other competitors arising from this case: Word isn't going anywhere and its functionality will not be compromised.

And BTW, my s/o happens to be a judge. You wanna talk "ramblings", try dating one for nine years.

[RLT69]

"Word" is not a Blackberry, there are no alternatives,

There won't be some huge "opportunity" for OpenOffice or other competitors arising from this case

Wow, four sentences later and you contradict yourself. Incredible.

Again, you have not put forward any legal argument where Microsoft will win on appeal.

This is what the judge said:

"On the other hand, i4i will continue to be irreparably injured absent a stay. As discussed, the evidence shows that Microsoft's presence in the custom XML market has altered the very nature of the marketplace for smaller competitors such as i4i. The fact of Microsoft's infringement causes i4i to suffer irreparable harm for every new XML customer that purchases an infringing Microsoft product. To stay any injunction would only prolong that harm without providing any remedy.
...

Microsoft argues that redesigning current and upcoming WORD products is an enormous task. Microsoft suggests that compliance with i4i's proposed injunction would take approximately five months to re-release the currently infringing products. See Tostevin Decl., Docket No. 369-7.9 While there is also some disagreement over whether Microsoft has the capability to disable the infringing functionality with a mere "software patch," the Court will assume for the purposes of this analysis that complying with i4i's injunction poses a not insubstantial burden on Microsoft. Regardless, Microsoft has not presented any evidence on alternative methods for compensating i4i for its previous and ongoing loss of customers, market share, and brand recognition. While Microsoft concedes it has the ability to comply with an injunction encompassing i4i's proposed language, i4i will be continuingly injured without it. See Tivo v. EchoStar Commc'ns Corp., 446 F. Supp. 2d 664, 669 (E.D. Tex.2006) (Folsom, J.), rev'd on other grounds, 516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that so called "sticky customers" continually shaped the market to patentee's disadvantage). Thus, the balance of hardships must favor the injured party.

With regard to the public interest, i4i does not request that Microsoft disable infringing WORD products that are sold prior to the effective date of any injunction. i4i also indicated at the hearing, that it would be amenable to Microsoft providing support to customers who purchased infringing WORD products before the effective date of its proposed injunction. Thus, i4i's proposed injunction would have little effect, if any, on the daily operations of Microsoft's current customers. In addition, where products do not relate to a significant compelling public interest, such as health or safety, this factor weighs in favor of an injunction. See Tivo, 446 F. Supp. 2d at 670 ("The public has an interest in maintaining a strong patent system. . . . The infringing products are not related to any issue of public health or any other equally key interest."). Custom XML does not relate to any of such key social interests. As a result, this factor also favors an injunction. Because all four eBay factors weigh in favor of injunctive relief, i4i's motion is granted...."

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090819083920659

It will be a tough uphill battle for Microsoft to win the appeal.

Good luck with that " Microsoft can do anything" strategy.

[JohnnyMalaria]

We aren't trying the damned case ourselves here on VH, we're commenting on how it might/might not affect us. This will not, under any circumstances, affect us as consumers.

Says who? Understanding the legalities is a perfectly valid topic for discussion here. Where does it say that this thread is only about how the ruling might affect us? Indeed, the OP asks how long it would take to get the ruling reversed. That is very much so defined by the legalities. Personally, I enjoy that side of the discussion more than the apparent boo-hooing.

[deadrats]

We aren't trying the damned case ourselves here on VH, we're commenting on how it might/might not affect us. This will not, under any circumstances, affect us as consumers.

Says who? Understanding the legalities is a perfectly valid topic for discussion here. Where does it say that this thread is only about how the ruling might affect us? Indeed, the OP asks how long it would take to get the ruling reversed. That is very much so defined by the legalities. Personally, I enjoy that side of the discussion more than the apparent boo-hooing.

i would take it one step further and say that a discussion within a thread should be allowed to evolve as the conversation progresses. one thing that has always driven me crazy is when someone, on any forum, says something to the effect of "this is getting off topic"; who cares? just like any normal conversation and/or debate may take the participants off on tangents that weren't originally anticipated so to is it natural for a discussion within a thread to also veer off in different directions, it's the way language behaves.