# Microsoft Ordered to Stop Selling Word



## Irreverent (Aug 13, 2009)

This is going to get interesting....

_



			Toronto company's case halts U. S. software sales
Us$290m Awarded

Matt Hartley and Barry Critchley, National Post; With Files From Canwest News Service  
Published: Thursday, August 13, 2009 

 A tiny Canadian company has won a landmark ruling against Microsoft Corp. after a U. S. judge ordered the software giant to stop selling a number of versions of its iconic word-processing software, Word, because the company wilfully violated a patent held by Toronto's i4i.
		
Click to expand...

_
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1886893

Expect that MS will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court in the US.  I'm not sure that the ramifications to the OpenSource community with regards to XML have been fully thought through yet.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 13, 2009)

*laughs* Yeah, saw that yesterday.  Now if only they could be ordered to stop selling Windows.


----------



## Lukar (Aug 13, 2009)

Oh well, I use Wordpad anyway.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 13, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> *laughs* Yeah, saw that yesterday.  Now if only they could be ordered to stop selling Windows.



Then everyone would start buying macs. DO YOU WANT THAT? 

XD


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 13, 2009)

Eli said:


> Then everyone would start buying macs. DO YOU WANT THAT?
> 
> XD



Oh good gods... that's probably true.  We'd be no better off.


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 13, 2009)

I have to wonder how shit like this happens.  You'd think microsoft would be watching their fucking back like nobody else XD


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 13, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> I have to wonder how shit like this happens.  You'd think microsoft would be watching their fucking back like nobody else XD



It's extremely hard to know if you've violated a patent.  You might come up with a completely original idea, build it and even sell it for years (like Word) without realizing it's similar to something else someone already patented.  Then when that someone decides that they want to make a ton of money, they sue ya.


----------



## Hir (Aug 13, 2009)

This may get interesting... Hehehe.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 13, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> I have to wonder how shit like this happens.  You'd think microsoft would be watching their fucking back like nobody else XD



There's a cynical part of me that says this is all part of a very carefully orchestrated master plan by MS to cement their lock on proprietary file formats.  The world is screaming for them to go open-source, but when they implement open-source or open-like concepts, they get slapped by the legal system.  This ain't done by a long shot.



ToeClaws said:


> It's extremely hard to know if you've violated a patent.  You might come up with a completely original idea, build it and even sell it for years (like Word) without realizing it's similar to something else someone already patented.  Then when that someone decides that they want to make a ton of money, they sue ya.



And since the open-source movement uses XLM docs too.....this might also be part of MS's plan.  "If we can't use it, then neither can the open source gang."

I support and commend  i4i's desire to protect their IP, but I think (despite being awarded millions) they are the patsy here, its a setup.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> And since the open-source movement uses XLM docs too.....this might also be part of MS's plan.  "If we can't use it, then neither can the open source gang."



Well, the only salvation for the Open Source folks is that they don't profit from the decision to use it, so kinda hard to claim they're stilling your profits when no profit is exchanged.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 13, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Well, the only salvation for the Open Source folks is that they don't profit from the decision to use it, so kinda hard to claim they're stilling your profits when no profit is exchanged.



Total agreement...but that doesn't mean they get to continue using the format.  So a new file format has to be designed by committee....meantime, MS markets the hell out of their new proprietary Doc format to government and industry.  "The OpenSource guys will be a decade figuring it out, use us instead!"

See where I'm going with this?


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Total agreement...but that doesn't mean they get to continue using the format.  So a new file format has to be designed by committee....meantime, MS markets the hell out of their new proprietary Doc format to government and industry.  "The OpenSource guys will be a decade figuring it out, use us instead!"
> 
> See where I'm going with this?



Ouch.   Yeah, sounds like the sort of unethical thing M$ would do.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 13, 2009)

Patent trolling at its finest.  I'm no fan of Microsoft, but they're completely in the right in this affair, and I hope they win on appeal.  I also hope the patent in question is reexamined.

XML is a fairly old standard (predating the 1998 filing of the patent by two years and the award of the patent by more), and it was designed to encapsulate any and all types of data.  The idea that anyone could have a patent on that sort of thing specifically for XML encapsulation is laughable, and any such patents ought to be found invalid.

Wait a minute...  Is this a US patent or a Canadian patent that Microsoft are accused of infringing?  The headquarters of the company bringing suit is Toronto, Ontario, so if the patent is Canadian, then why was the case tried in the United States?



			
				National Post said:
			
		

> According to court documents, i4i claimed Microsoft infringed on a patent it filed in 1998 pertaining to the use of technology that can open documents using the *XML computer programming language* when the Redmond, Wash.-based company created its Word 2003 and Word 2007 software.  [Emphasis added.]


XML is a storage/markup format, not a bloody programming language!  >.<


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 13, 2009)

Folks, please don't lump the rest of Canada in with Toronto over this.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Total agreement...but that doesn't mean they get to continue using the format.  So a new file format has to be designed by committee....meantime, MS markets the hell out of their new proprietary Doc format to government and industry.  "The OpenSource guys will be a decade figuring it out, use us instead!"
> 
> See where I'm going with this?




Read both yours and TC's posts, and yeah...I'm going to have to agree with you on this one Irre.  It's essentally like throwing table scraps to the dogs even though they can smell the better foodstuffs on the plates.  MS still holds the monopoly while still being able to claim otherwise because some of their software is OpenSource.  Really, really shady.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 13, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Wait a minute...  Is this a US patent or a Canadian patent that Microsoft are accused of infringing?  The headquarters of the company bringing suit is Toronto, Ontario, so if the patent is Canadian, then why was the case tried in the United States?



Microsoft is based in the US, and what better way to play defence then in your home turf.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 13, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Wait a minute...  Is this a US patent or a Canadian patent that Microsoft are accused of infringing?  The headquarters of the company bringing suit is Toronto, Ontario, so if the patent is Canadian, then why was the case tried in the United States?



The suit was filed in the US, its likely a north american patent; i4i holds it in both countries.



> XML is a storage/markup format, not a bloody programming language!  >.<



Yeah, and I'll bet the judge and jurry didn't understand the difference either, so they just piled on the "We Hate Microsoft" bandwagon.  I'm convinced this is carefully orchestrated by MS.  They doth protest too much.  The price of the award is just the cost of doing business.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Aug 13, 2009)

They allow patents for the stupidest things. Seriously, there should not be patents allowed on formats and opening and/or saving them. It's like someone having the patent on writing on paper. So no one can write on paper without paying them.... Utter stupidity...


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 13, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> They allow patents for the stupidest things. Seriously, there should not be patents allowed on formats and opening and/or saving them. It's like someone having the patent on writing on paper. So no one can write on paper without paying them.... Utter stupidity...


 
Ultimately it's more like patenting a specific form of printing press.

Though the more likely issue here is that the design for said printing press was an eventual conclusion by multiple parties because that's where the research would lead them, but only the first guy to the patent office gets the 20 year exclusivity prize.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 13, 2009)

The US Patent Office is known for (and on record as) awarding bunches of invalid patents.  The process is supposed to rely on the Patent Office screening out bad patents and not awarding them.  The reality is that the Patent Office believes it's the courts' jobs to sort out which patents are valid and which aren't, while they continue to award as many patents as they possibly can.


----------



## hitokage (Aug 13, 2009)

One thing that is sort of funny about this is Microsoft just got a patent a few days before this story broke covering XML word processing documents. Story and patent.


----------



## Shino (Aug 14, 2009)

Heh. I heard about that. It's going to get overturned. They don't stand a chance. That'd be like walking up to Honda and saying "Sorry, you can't sell Civics anymore. This no-name brand claims you stole their designs." I pity that little company because they will have a tsunami of Microsoft lawyers raping them six ways from Sunday before the week is out.

If there's one thing Microsoft is good at, it's crushing the lesser competition.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 14, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> XML is a fairly old standard (predating the 1998 filing of the patent by two years and the award of the patent by more), and it was designed to encapsulate any and all types of data.  The idea that anyone could have a patent on that sort of thing specifically for XML encapsulation is laughable, and any such patents ought to be found invalid.


So what, exactly, _is_ their patent anyway...?



			
				National Post said:
			
		

> According to court documents, i4i claimed Microsoft infringed on a patent it filed in 1998 pertaining to the use of *technology that can open documents* using the XML computer programming language when the Redmond, Wash.-based company created its Word 2003 and Word 2007 software.



I don't quite get it.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 14, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> So what, exactly, _is_ their patent anyway...?



No one's saying.  No one's even giving the patent _number_, as far as I can see.

Found it.


			
				Information Week said:
			
		

> Judge Leonard Davis, of U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas, on Tuesday ruled that Wordâ€”but not Vista and .Netâ€”does indeed step on U.S. patent 5,787,449, which describes a "Method and System for Manipulating the Architecture and the Content of a Document Separately from Each Other," according to court records.





Stratadrake said:


> I don't quite get it.



Welcome to the wild and crazy world of out-of-control patents.


----------



## Traumerei (Aug 14, 2009)

The Canadian company patented some XML coding that was found in the word product, and I think Microsoft has 2 months to correct it or pay up before they have to stop using Word. The Canadian company clearly wants the money, though. I don't see the big deal.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 14, 2009)

_



Davis left an out for Microsoft. He noted that the infringing aspect of Word is its ability to open and read documents that contain custom XMLâ€”a form of the Extensible Markup Language forma that businesses create to forge links between their back office data and PC applications like Word.

Davis said any version of Word that opens documents in plain text only, or which strips a document of custom XML through a process known as a transform, would be free from his order. That leaves the door open for Microsoft to issue a patch that alters Word's functionality in such a way as to circumvent the ban. 

Click to expand...

_
And this is why I think its a carefully crafted end-game to solidify the use of proprietary file formats and move away from open formats for document xchange.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 14, 2009)

Ahhh crap.   

The art studio my work is at uses Word (they have Vista) and scores of people can't open the documents they send out every month.  Good thing I sent them a link to Open Office to see if that'll help them, because with that patch they'd be worse off then before.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 14, 2009)

Traumerei said:


> The Canadian company patented some XML coding that was found in the word product....


No, if I'm reading the patent correctly the 'invention' in question is simply a means for _splitting_ a document (with embedded markup) into two distinct pieces -- one being the actual markup, and the other being the literal content.  The 'invention' also includes the ability to recompose the formatted document from its respective (internal) markup/content maps and provide user-friendly means (e.g: menus or toolbar buttons) to edit either the content or markup without adversely affecting the other.

So, um, yeah, that can pretty much describe any modern word processor which internally manages the document content and formatting tags in two parts.  Heck, if even a _bbCode text box_ provides a WYSIWYG view of the result, it might be an infringement.

I guess the REAL invention patented is the ability to sue the pants off of any developer with an interest in text processing.


----------



## Rel (Aug 14, 2009)

Tbh, this happens to everything, and I highly doubt Microsoft would stop producing word. 

I mean, look what happened to the Wii, 6+ patent lawsuits (and one against the Gamecube controller)


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 15, 2009)

E-Week's coverage talks about how both MS and OOo can avoid infringement.



> An analyst suggested that the relevance of i4i's XML patent may prove short-lived.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Aug 15, 2009)

Fuck Microsoft Word. And Microsoft, they deserve it.

I get a brand new laptop with Vista and have to pay for a word programme? Â£60? WAT IS DIS?

I just went and clicky-click'd Open Office.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 15, 2009)

How the HELL do you patent basic word processing software? I mean, what, do paper companies have patents on the SAME WHITE PAPER THEY ALL PRODUCE?


----------



## Milenko Foulcraze (Aug 15, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> How the HELL do you patent basic word processing software? I mean, what, do paper companies have patents on the SAME WHITE PAPER THEY ALL PRODUCE?


yes


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 15, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> Fuck Microsoft Word. And Microsoft, they deserve it.


"Nobody cheers for Goliath."  Microsoft is an easy target, but at a glance I've gotta side with them over the infringement claims.


----------



## Shino (Aug 15, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> I mean, what, do paper companies have patents on the SAME WHITE PAPER THEY ALL PRODUCE?


 Uhh... actually... yes.

Isn't copyright infringment fun?


----------



## X (Aug 15, 2009)

my parents love word, no matter how much i tell them that its a waste of money or total crap. they think just because open office is free, that its shit. at least if they stop selling it then people wont buy that crap program anymore.


----------



## Kangamutt (Aug 15, 2009)

Oh jeez.
This reminds me when they were sued over XBox Live and some 1994 patent for an "Apparatus and method for electrically connecting remotely located video games."
Gee, I wonder what that could be? The internet, perhaps? Which has existed since as early as (if my memory serves me correct) the mid 1960's. Same thing with this silly word processing lawsuit. XML has existed since before their patent was filed.


----------



## Pipsqueak (Aug 16, 2009)

I think it's awfully paranoid to say that Microsoft put their biggest money maker at risk in order to have an excuse to have to rewrite large portions of how Office saves and opens files. If they wanted to go all proprietary, than there was nothing stopping them in the first place. The average consumer frankly doesn't care.

Personally, it's my opinion that this lawsuit is BS. And it would amuse me to no end if it caused an uptick of companies buying Office before Microsoft has to stop selling it.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 17, 2009)

Pipsqueak said:


> I think it's awfully paranoid to say that Microsoft put their biggest money maker at risk in order to have an excuse to have to rewrite large portions of how Office saves and opens files.



I don't think the patent infringement was deliberate, but I think their handling of it is.   Its cases of making lemonade out of lemons.



> If they wanted to go all proprietary, than there was nothing stopping them in the first place.



Other than market pressures.



> The average consumer frankly doesn't care.



Its true the average consumer likely doesn't care.  But the CEO, CIO and related IT directors of every Fortune 1000 company can and do care, passionately.  When you are picking a document management systems and standardizing file formats for companies with more than 1K employees, you sort of have to take notice of this.  Microsoft's Enterprise Sales Department  will use this to attack the OO with vigor, its a blessing in disguise.

It may also help MS crack the EU market, which is heavily OO (well, open formats anyway) biased.



> And it would amuse me to no end if it caused an uptick of companies buying Office before Microsoft has to stop selling it.



Likely it will.  See "making lemonade out of lemons" above.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 17, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Total agreement...but that doesn't mean they get to continue using the format.  So a new file format has to be designed by committee....meantime, MS markets the hell out of their new proprietary Doc format to government and industry.  "The OpenSource guys will be a decade figuring it out, use us instead!"
> 
> See where I'm going with this?


On the other hand, i4i might do what Eolas did, and grant royalty-free licences to their 'invention' for non-commercial products. This is why IE still has/had that bullshit "Click to activate control" on Flash content, while Firefox could continue as they had been doing.. see where I'm going with this?



ArielMT said:


> Patent trolling at its finest.  I'm no fan of Microsoft, but they're completely in the right in this affair, and I hope they win on appeal.  I also hope the patent in question is reexamined.


I have to side with Microsoft, on the issue of patents, but on the other paw, Microsoft is getting a nice dose of karma, it is no secret that Microsoft has done the same thing to other companies and has always been a strong proponant of "computer implemented inventions" which serve no purpose other than to allow big companies to prevent competitors getting into the market. Microsoft has just been struck a blow with its own weapon.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 17, 2009)

Carenath said:


> On the other hand, i4i might do what Eolas did, and grant royalty-free licences to their 'invention' for non-commercial products. This is why IE still has/had that bullshit "Click to activate control" on Flash content, while Firefox could continue as they had been doing.. see where I'm going with this?



Agreed, and yes I do see.  This ain't over, its just barely begun.


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 17, 2009)

OpenOffice > Word


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Aug 17, 2009)

Glaice said:


> OpenOffice > Word



I haven't played with Open Office any but I've been wanting to even though I have Office on every computer. Does it allow you to code behind with VBA or some other such script language?


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 18, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> I haven't played with Open Office any but I've been wanting to even though I have Office on every computer. Does it allow you to code behind with VBA or some other such script language?



OpenOffice.org (at least on Ubuntu) has OpenOffice.org Basic, Python, BeanShell, and JavaScript macro abilities.  The latter three require a Java Runtime Environment that OOo can see, but the answer appears to be yes.


----------



## Aden (Aug 18, 2009)

We all know this is a non-story. This will be settled out-of-court, and we'll all go on with our lives.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 18, 2009)

While it's just a blatant patent troll much like the whole rumble-integrated-into-controllers patent troll that hit as the current generation of consoles hit the shelves, I should mention that Microsoft has filed an "Emergency Motion" to continue shipping Word.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 18, 2009)

Aden said:


> We all know this is a non-story. This will be settled out-of-court, and we'll all go on with our lives.



For the end user consumer, its probably a non-event.  The sun will rise tomorrow and Word will continue to exist.

For the various standards bodies (IEEE, OO etc) and CIO's, its a wake-up call.  The reverberations of that settlement will likely be felt for years to come.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 18, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Agreed, and yes I do see.  This ain't over, its just barely begun.


Agreed, even if it's a healthy dose of Karma for Microsoft.


----------



## Traumerei (Aug 19, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> No, if I'm reading the patent correctly the 'invention' in question is simply a means for _splitting_ a document (with embedded markup) into two distinct pieces -- one being the actual markup, and the other being the literal content.  The 'invention' also includes the ability to recompose the formatted document from its respective (internal) markup/content maps and provide user-friendly means (e.g: menus or toolbar buttons) to edit either the content or markup without adversely affecting the other.
> 
> So, um, yeah, that can pretty much describe any modern word processor which internally manages the document content and formatting tags in two parts.  Heck, if even a _bbCode text box_ provides a WYSIWYG view of the result, it might be an infringement.
> 
> I guess the REAL invention patented is the ability to sue the pants off of any developer with an interest in text processing.



Oops, I was going off information I read on another forum article I belong to. Didn't even bother to touch this article because I was pretty sure I knew the story XD


----------



## Kitoth (Aug 19, 2009)

I'd like to see Microsoft not get it going their way for a chance.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 19, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Microsoft has filed an "Emergency Motion" to continue shipping Word.



Figured I'd repeat that just in case people missed it the first time.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 19, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> I'd like to see Microsoft not get it going their way for a chance.



This is the wrong reason.  The defeat of software patents is far more important than blind opposition to Microsoft's monopolies.

In fact, thanks to their monopolization of key microcomputer software markets, Microsoft have the warchest to license whatever patents they need, whether they infringed before or not, and bludgeon their competitors out of business using patent trolls and their patents as truncheons.

It's less expensive to fight invalid patents, though.  They're actually doing the right thing by appealing the decision and the patent, even if it is to save their bottom line.


----------

