I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "After the permanent injunction barring Microsoft from selling Microsoft Word, many armchair lawyers and pundits wondered how the ruling would affect OpenOffice. The company with the patent, i4i, believes that OpenOffice does not infringe upon it. But lest anyone think that therefore ODF will win out over OOXML, keep in mind that Microsoft has its own broad XML document patent, which issued just two weeks ago, having been filed in December 2004, and they're telling the Supreme Court to apply the Bilski ruling narrowly, so that it doesn't invalidate patents like theirs (and i4i's). After all, unlike most companies and individuals, Microsoft can afford $290 million infringement fines. Then again, given that Microsoft's new patent has only two independent claims (claim #1 and claim #12), and both of those claims 'comprise' something using an 'XML file format for documents associated with an application having a rich set of features,' maybe they wouldn't be that hard to work around if you just make sure any otherwise infringing format is only associated with an application lacking in the feature richness department."
It would not matter what a third party thinks as long as i4i thinks it is not infringing. Unlike trademarks, patents do not expire unless enforced. So i4i is within rights to sue Microsoft and not Sun. And anyway the common practice is to sue the ones with most amount of money and who can be convinced to pay -- It is difficult to ask for a cut of sales when OpenOffice is free (for most part). To add to that there is the fact that large Open Office installations are in Europe where the patent won't apply anyway.
Of course things might change when Oracle completes the purchase of Sun.
Actually, the patents will apply most everywhere in Europe. There are several agreements concerning this. You can find out more at the WIPO site [wipo.int] which lists almost all the "IP" related treaties. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the case, the law of the land of the violation (Whatever European country) will most likely prevail which could be worse or better depending on the country.
It would not matter what a third party thinks as long as i4i thinks it is not infringing. Unlike trademarks, patents do not expire unless enforced. So i4i is within rights to sue Microsoft and not Sun.
From the perspective of a company which invests into integrating its business processes with the office software that it is using (that's the area of application where the kind of stuff that the patent talks about is relevant), it matters a lot whether you can base your work on ODF without having to fear that essential features (for your purposes) might get removed from future versions due to patent trouble.
large Open Office installations are in Europe where the patent won't apply anyway.
Actually, the U.S. patent will not apply at all in Europe, or Mexico, or China, or Japan, or anywhere else. It's strictly national. It looks like there's a Canadian patent in the family, but I don't see any others (with the caveat that I am not offering legal advice about whether or not this is patented or not in any particular country).
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday August 18, @06:31PM (#29112891)
Absolutely nothing but Abreu apparently doesn't like to do any investigation into the small company who produced the product that Microsoft once used and then infringed upon their patent. After all it's patriotic American Microsoft versus the Evil Canuckstainian Horde (i4i).......
Oh what the hell -- hey morons do a very little research and you'll find out the small company produced the software before Microsoft 1) approached them 2) partnered with i4i and used their work then 3) infringed on the patent
It's an attempt at Embrace Extend Extinguish.... but this time Microsoft got nailed because the i4i has a viable patent and a working product
Why is AC flamebait? A lot of MS employees had spare time today, and some of them had mod points? If anyone bothers to actually read the stories surrounding the case, AC's account is quite accurate.
Embrace, extend, extinguish did in fact fail this time. The little guy in this case does not qualify as our typical patent troll.
Well, the term lawyers use isn't "patent troll" but NPE (non-practicing entity).
Under that term, i4i is, in fact, a practicing entity. That is to say, i4i makes an actual product using something like custom XML. No, i4i does not make a word processor, but Microsoft hasn't been barred from selling MS Word, only from incorporating custom XML into it. So the injunction only exists to prevent Microsoft from cannibalizing i4i's product.
Now, I do think their patent is a bit obvious and I don't like software patents in general. But if Microsoft had any sense, they would do an about-face and recant their amicus brief on Bilski, asking the Supreme Court to strike down all software patents, reducing their potential legal liability tremendously. Of course, I know they won't do that. And I don't know what deadlines are involved, so it's possible that it's too late for them to do that. But they might not be in this mess if they had seen the light and lobbied against software patents a long time ago.
And on a side note, I can't believe that there are Microsoft "partners" in this day and age who don't expect to get screwed. I wouldn't have done business with them to begin with. I can't name a single partner they haven't screwed over when given the incentive.
asking the Supreme Court to strike down all software patents, reducing their potential legal liability tremendously.
I agree with your points. Wouldn't it take an act of Congress, rather, to change the law? I can't see the Supreme Court striking down software patents in a broad stroke.
Unfortunately, with Congress consisting mostly crooks, I can't imagine they'd do anything--you know--sensible...
The application of patents to software isn't enshrined in legislation, but instead was created by a series of court decisions and USPTO decisions.
Hence, the court has just as much power to strike down the beast as they did in creating it. Legislation would remove all ambiguity, where the supreme court is more likely to give as narrow an opinion as they can.
Incidentally, this is why the patent termination clause in Microsoft's OOXML patent license is evil. If Microsoft clones the features of a small company's patented software program for manipulating Office files, like they did in this case, all they would have to do is add it to the subset of OOXML covered by the patent promise and hey presto: if the company sues Microsoft, then Microsoft can countersue to terminate their ability to use OOXML, effectively destroying them. Meanwhile, competitors to Microsoft
The submitted article cites the patent owner saying it doesn't apply to ODF. Why would I care what someone who says about himself, "I am not a lawyer, and specifically not a patent lawyer. I have never spent a lot of time on learning about the intricacies of patent law" has to say on the matter at this point? In fact, why would I care even what experienced patent lawyers have to say now? Hasn't it been definitively settled by i4i's statement?
The submitted article cites the patent owner saying it doesn't apply to ODF. Why would I care what someone who says about himself, "I am not a lawyer, and specifically not a patent lawyer. I have never spent a lot of time on learning about the intricacies of patent law" has to say on the matter at this point? In fact, why would I care even what experienced patent lawyers have to say now? Hasn't it been definitively settled by i4i's statement?
What hasn't been settled by i4i's statement is the (IMO false) claim that the MS patent affects ODF more than the i4i patent does.
The patent owner may hold that opinion right now... they might not hold that opinion in the future, and until they put it into some sort of legally binding statement (which I seriously doubt they have) it doesn't mean a damned thing.
It's a decision based on the facts of the matter. OOXML has a mechanism (called "CustomXML") which does what the i4i patent describes. ODF doesn't have anything like it.
Actually, the patent [uspto.gov] does no such thing. The i4i patent describes an algorithm to separate the tags and plaintext of a markup-language document into two separate files, where the locations of the tags are defined by the character position at which they would have appeared in the original, embedded-tag document.
i4i claims to have patented the concept of storing a document's raw data and formatting data separately, rather than inline. Given that Microsoft Word's Custom XML stores its markup inline, I har
Custom XML stores the markup inline, but the text itself is stored out-of-line.
Think about it this way: the i4i patent is on splitting the document into two parts, one of which contains just text, and a second part which contains formatting instructions and references the text by its location. With Custom XML, the first part is the custom XML file (text only, no formatting) and the second part is the document XML file (references the text in the custom XML file by full XML paths, and applies formatting to i
yea, openoffice is free so there is little to no money in sueing them, but microsoft there is millions in there
Sun is distributing OpenOffice, and is legally liable for any patent infringement that would be involved. Pretty soon Oracle will be legally responsible. There is plenty of money there to be gotten by a patent infringement lawsuit, if there was a case to be made. But OpenOffice simply doesn't infringe any patents on OOXML's extension mechanisms simply because ODF doesn't have any such extension mechanisms.
if you just make sure any otherwise infringing format is only associated with an application lacking in the feature richness department
Any XML document is associated with the feature "poorest" application imaginable; the plain text editor. Perhaps a text editor with UTF-16 support or such, but still something that handles characters and nothing else.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday August 18, @05:16PM (#29112207)
What does XML have to do with anything? Microsoft's XML based office format notwithstanding, XML is a text-based data storage and interchange format. Putting things in a container to make them easy to store and transport cannot possibly be non-obvious or novel. Can I get a patent on storing the Amero in a billfold (digital or otherwise)?
For all the talk about improving patent quality, the patent holders real colors come out when they start challenging Bilski.
Bilski only dealt with 'method' claims. The 1st set of claims 'system' claims were not discussed by Bilski.
Bilski dealt with 101, whether certain methods qualified as patentable subject matter. Bilski has nothing to do with obviousness or novelty (sections 103 and 102 of 35 U.S.C the laws dealing with patents)
> and they're telling the Supreme Court to apply the > Bilski ruling narrowly, so that it doesn't > invalidate patents like theirs
Microsoft is in a bit of a bind here. Even raising Bilski arguments puts their patent in question as well as providing ammunition for any future challenges of Microsoft patents.
Their best bet is to pretend they never heard of Bilski and find other grounds for their challenge, or just license i4i's technology to preserve their own claims.
What I just completely fail to understand about this patent (i4i's patent I mean) is the words "custom XML". I keep seeing this term "custom XML" as part of its claims. But XML stands for the eXtensible Markup Language. It was designed to be customised. I don't understand,
What is their definition of "custom XML"?
What is "non-custom" XML? ("Standard XML"?)
How they can seemingly get a patent on a usage scenario that XML was specifically designed for?
What leap of logic am I missing here? (Having, obviously, not read the patent.)
There's no money in enforcing a patent against Open Office, so we won't sue you. Should you start making a lot of money, we'll get back to you with our updated policy.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday August 18, @10:51PM (#29114813)
This piece by Amy Wohl [typepad.com] is the only writing on this subject that comes remotely close to explaining what is going on.
In short, i4i's patent only covers some specific use of XML that is only widely used in the medical field. Microsoft is violating that particular patent.
i4i is apparently not claiming that they own a patent against all of XML or anything.
I think it's funny. Microsoft steps right into a landmines of patents, and problems and complications seem to go off at every turn. Ironic? A little bit. Come on, it's a little funny.
Yup. I think it's because the patent system is inherently anti-consumer. Whether MS itself is pro- or anti-consumer doesn't seem to matter, every time they get in patent trouble it's the consumer who loses out, and usually over something that shouldn't really be patentable at all. Remember that viewing a spreadsheet as a database table thing? Where somehow it was patentable that one thing whose most obvious representation is a grid be mappable to something else whose most obvious representation is a grid. N
I think it's funny. Microsoft steps right into a landmines of patents, and problems and complications seem to go off at every turn. Ironic? A little bit. Come on, it's a little funny.
Only if you find the decay of human civilizations funny. No one is immune to this nonsense and in the end innovation grinds to a halt and everything goes backwards until the current IP laws are replaced with something saner and more sustainable. In the meantime expect to see less progress on everything from things that make you
I can create custom XML with any text editor. i4i, whether they realise it or not, have just completely destroyed the proprietary software industry in one fell swoop.
I think you may be overreacting a bit. Whether the patent is valid or not (an appellate decision might prove that it is not), it certainly isn't as broad in scope as you are suggesting. Microsoft may end up having to remove some infrequently used functionality from Word, but the software industry as we know it is not going to come to an end because of this injunction.
The courts just don't have a clue. They do not realise the implications of this decision. Multi-billion dollar implications. The death of an entire industry implications. Lawyers will never understand science and should stop pretending they do. The DNA thing is another example, I have been telling them that for years.
Before characterizing the courts as completely clueless, you might want to go through the court's memorandum opinion and order [uscourts.gov] (PACER registration required, but no cost for this document) denying Microsoft's motion for judgment as a matter of law. It is a detailed memorandum (65 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt font) that gives quite a bit of detail as to why the judge decided to uphold the jury's verdict. Go through it and decide for yourself whether the evidence and arguments presented by Microsoft were so convincing that no reasonably jury would have found for i4i.
The law has no place in science. None. To paraphrase a great Canadian: The law has no place in the laboratories of the nation.
Cute, but seriously, take a closer look at what the real issues are in this case. If you don't try to understand the facts that drive a particular case, your arguments regarding the law and the way courts apply it will sound more like pseudoscience [skepdic.com] than science. Good science is based on facts. Good legal arguments are based on facts too.
...Should they ever become a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporate behemoth we will revisit the situation.
You mean like Sun, and soon Oracle?
Just because a product is free doesn't mean the company responsible isn't loaded to the gills with $billions.
Oracle doesn't have as many $billions as Microsoft has, sure, but they still have $billions. That Open Office is open makes it a choice target if it does, in fact, infringe on any patents.
Actually no, I meant holding enough of the market to be worth billions. What happens if they put a cease and desist on Oracle? Nothing, oracle doesn't ship it anymore (to my knowledge).
Maybe they win a one time judgement but that's not their current strategy with MS. Their current strategy is to stop the shipments and try to force negotiations for patent license fees.
The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course things might change when Oracle completes the purchase of Sun.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the patents will apply most everywhere in Europe. There are several agreements concerning this. You can find out more at the WIPO site [wipo.int] which lists almost all the "IP" related treaties. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the case, the law of the land of the violation (Whatever European country) will most likely prevail which could be worse or better depending on the country.
Avoidance of upstream legal risk matters. (Score:4, Insightful)
It would not matter what a third party thinks as long as i4i thinks it is not infringing. Unlike trademarks, patents do not expire unless enforced. So i4i is within rights to sue Microsoft and not Sun.
From the perspective of a company which invests into integrating its business processes with the office software that it is using (that's the area of application where the kind of stuff that the patent talks about is relevant), it matters a lot whether you can base your work on ODF without having to fear that essential features (for your purposes) might get removed from future versions due to patent trouble.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike trademarks, patents do not expire unless enforced.
Wrong. Patents expire in 20 years, but can not be invalidated unless enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, parentheses. What language cannot be improved by the addition of more parentheses?
Trademarks can be lost if they are not enforced. Read the sentence "Unlike trademarks, patents do not (expire unless enforced)."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
large Open Office installations are in Europe where the patent won't apply anyway.
Actually, the U.S. patent will not apply at all in Europe, or Mexico, or China, or Japan, or anywhere else. It's strictly national. It looks like there's a Canadian patent in the family, but I don't see any others (with the caveat that I am not offering legal advice about whether or not this is patented or not in any particular country).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A Patent Troll is a Patent Troll and nothing they do benefits us in the long run
What does that have to do with the i4i suit?
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely nothing but Abreu apparently doesn't like to do any investigation into the small company who produced the product that Microsoft once used and then infringed upon their patent. After all it's patriotic American Microsoft versus the Evil Canuckstainian Horde (i4i) .......
Oh what the hell -- hey morons do a very little research and you'll find out the small company produced the software before Microsoft 1) approached them 2) partnered with i4i and used their work then 3) infringed on the patent
It's an attempt at Embrace Extend Extinguish .... but this time Microsoft got nailed because the i4i has a viable patent and a working product
Parent
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is AC flamebait? A lot of MS employees had spare time today, and some of them had mod points? If anyone bothers to actually read the stories surrounding the case, AC's account is quite accurate.
Embrace, extend, extinguish did in fact fail this time. The little guy in this case does not qualify as our typical patent troll.
Parent
But i4i makes a custom XML product... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the term lawyers use isn't "patent troll" but NPE (non-practicing entity).
Under that term, i4i is, in fact, a practicing entity. That is to say, i4i makes an actual product using something like custom XML. No, i4i does not make a word processor, but Microsoft hasn't been barred from selling MS Word, only from incorporating custom XML into it. So the injunction only exists to prevent Microsoft from cannibalizing i4i's product.
Now, I do think their patent is a bit obvious and I don't like software patents in general. But if Microsoft had any sense, they would do an about-face and recant their amicus brief on Bilski, asking the Supreme Court to strike down all software patents, reducing their potential legal liability tremendously. Of course, I know they won't do that. And I don't know what deadlines are involved, so it's possible that it's too late for them to do that. But they might not be in this mess if they had seen the light and lobbied against software patents a long time ago.
And on a side note, I can't believe that there are Microsoft "partners" in this day and age who don't expect to get screwed. I wouldn't have done business with them to begin with. I can't name a single partner they haven't screwed over when given the incentive.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your points. Wouldn't it take an act of Congress, rather, to change the law? I can't see the Supreme Court striking down software patents in a broad stroke.
Unfortunately, with Congress consisting mostly crooks, I can't imagine they'd do anything--you know--sensible...
Re:But i4i makes a custom XML product... (Score:4, Interesting)
The application of patents to software isn't enshrined in legislation, but instead was created by a series of court decisions and USPTO decisions.
Hence, the court has just as much power to strike down the beast as they did in creating it. Legislation would remove all ambiguity, where the supreme court is more likely to give as narrow an opinion as they can.
Parent
Why Microsoft's patent termination clause is evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Incidentally, this is why the patent termination clause in Microsoft's OOXML patent license is evil. If Microsoft clones the features of a small company's patented software program for manipulating Office files, like they did in this case, all they would have to do is add it to the subset of OOXML covered by the patent promise and hey presto: if the company sues Microsoft, then Microsoft can countersue to terminate their ability to use OOXML, effectively destroying them. Meanwhile, competitors to Microsoft
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, of course.
i4i, however, is not now, and has not ever been a patent troll.
Unlike a patent troll, i4i produces an actual product. An actual product, which, after working with Microsoft, Microsoft unilaterally stole.
i4i is not a patent troll, unless you are trying to spin the story so that people think 'poor Microsoft'.
Hopefully, that won't work here.
Parent
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Interesting)
The submitted article cites the patent owner saying it doesn't apply to ODF. Why would I care what someone who says about himself, "I am not a lawyer, and specifically not a patent lawyer. I have never spent a lot of time on learning about the intricacies of patent law" has to say on the matter at this point? In fact, why would I care even what experienced patent lawyers have to say now? Hasn't it been definitively settled by i4i's statement?
Parent
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:4, Interesting)
The submitted article cites the patent owner saying it doesn't apply to ODF. Why would I care what someone who says about himself, "I am not a lawyer, and specifically not a patent lawyer. I have never spent a lot of time on learning about the intricacies of patent law" has to say on the matter at this point? In fact, why would I care even what experienced patent lawyers have to say now? Hasn't it been definitively settled by i4i's statement?
What hasn't been settled by i4i's statement is the (IMO false) claim that the MS patent affects ODF more than the i4i patent does.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The patent owner may hold that opinion right now... they might not hold that opinion in the future, and until they put it into some sort of legally binding statement (which I seriously doubt they have) it doesn't mean a damned thing.
Gold digging? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why spend money on litigation against OpenOffice if you don't get a $290 mil return on investment.
Re:Gold digging? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Gold digging. (Score:3, Interesting)
i4i claims to have patented the concept of storing a document's raw data and formatting data separately, rather than inline. Given that Microsoft Word's Custom XML stores its markup inline, I har
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Custom XML stores the markup inline, but the text itself is stored out-of-line.
Think about it this way: the i4i patent is on splitting the document into two parts, one of which contains just text, and a second part which contains formatting instructions and references the text by its location. With Custom XML, the first part is the custom XML file (text only, no formatting) and the second part is the document XML file (references the text in the custom XML file by full XML paths, and applies formatting to i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle still makes billions of dollars, even if Microsoft makes more than them.
Re:Gold digging? (Score:5, Insightful)
yea, openoffice is free so there is little to no money in sueing them, but microsoft there is millions in there
Sun is distributing OpenOffice, and is legally liable for any patent infringement that would be involved. Pretty soon Oracle will be legally responsible. There is plenty of money there to be gotten by a patent infringement lawsuit, if there was a case to be made. But OpenOffice simply doesn't infringe any patents on OOXML's extension mechanisms simply because ODF doesn't have any such extension mechanisms.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they hired Doc Brown and have a fleet of Deloreans.
Rich feature set (Score:2)
if you just make sure any otherwise infringing format is only associated with an application lacking in the feature richness department
Any XML document is associated with the feature "poorest" application imaginable; the plain text editor. Perhaps a text editor with UTF-16 support or such, but still something that handles characters and nothing else.
Apply Bilski forcefully with unilaterally (Score:5, Insightful)
What does XML have to do with anything? Microsoft's XML based office format notwithstanding, XML is a text-based data storage and interchange format. Putting things in a container to make them easy to store and transport cannot possibly be non-obvious or novel. Can I get a patent on storing the Amero in a billfold (digital or otherwise)?
For all the talk about improving patent quality, the patent holders real colors come out when they start challenging Bilski.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bilski only dealt with 'method' claims. The 1st set of claims 'system' claims were not discussed by Bilski.
Bilski dealt with 101, whether certain methods qualified as patentable subject matter. Bilski has nothing to do with obviousness or novelty (sections 103 and 102 of 35 U.S.C the laws dealing with patents)
Hard to believe... (Score:4, Funny)
Although, that quote is oddly applicable, as blind (along with lame, deaf, and dumb) is more or less the result of the ongoing software patent trends.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone, just the bad guys.
Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking, you mean.
Re:Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Microsoft. "Telling" more accurately connotes their arrogant attitude when dealing with such petty nuisances as the U.S. Court system.
Parent
Someone doesn't quite understand patents (Score:5, Interesting)
This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Microsoft will be allowed to continue shipping Word.
i4i is entirely within their right not to license the patent to Microsoft, even if/after Microsoft pays the fines and damages.
Bilski bites both ways (Score:3, Informative)
> and they're telling the Supreme Court to apply the
> Bilski ruling narrowly, so that it doesn't
> invalidate patents like theirs
Microsoft is in a bit of a bind here. Even raising Bilski arguments puts their patent in question as well as providing ammunition for any future challenges of Microsoft patents.
Their best bet is to pretend they never heard of Bilski and find other grounds for their challenge, or just license i4i's technology to preserve their own claims.
A pox on both their houses.
What is non-custom XML? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I just completely fail to understand about this patent (i4i's patent I mean) is the words "custom XML". I keep seeing this term "custom XML" as part of its claims. But XML stands for the eXtensible Markup Language. It was designed to be customised. I don't understand,
What leap of logic am I missing here? (Having, obviously, not read the patent.)
Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no money in enforcing a patent against Open Office, so we won't sue you. Should you start making a lot of money, we'll get back to you with our updated policy.
actual explanation (Score:5, Informative)
This piece by Amy Wohl [typepad.com] is the only writing on this subject that comes remotely close to explaining what is going on.
In short, i4i's patent only covers some specific use of XML that is only widely used in the medical field. Microsoft is violating that particular patent.
i4i is apparently not claiming that they own a patent against all of XML or anything.
Re:No matter who wins (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It would be a lot funnier if it were Apple. I hate Microsoft but it seems like almost every time they're in court, I end up on their side.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think it would even more funny and ironic if it were "big patent" IBM [windowsitpro.com] (or as fake steve jobs calls em: "The Original Borg").
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup. I think it's because the patent system is inherently anti-consumer. Whether MS itself is pro- or anti-consumer doesn't seem to matter, every time they get in patent trouble it's the consumer who loses out, and usually over something that shouldn't really be patentable at all. Remember that viewing a spreadsheet as a database table thing? Where somehow it was patentable that one thing whose most obvious representation is a grid be mappable to something else whose most obvious representation is a grid. N
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's funny. Microsoft steps right into a landmines of patents, and problems and complications seem to go off at every turn. Ironic? A little bit. Come on, it's a little funny.
Only if you find the decay of human civilizations funny. No one is immune to this nonsense and in the end innovation grinds to a halt and everything goes backwards until the current IP laws are replaced with something saner and more sustainable. In the meantime expect to see less progress on everything from things that make you
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you find the decay of human civilizations funny.
Hey, somebody discovered the slippery slope fallacy!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that's how The Adventures of Superman radio show undermined the Klan:
http://www.ferris.edu/JIMCROW/question/july09/ [ferris.edu]
Re:What about notepad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you may be overreacting a bit. Whether the patent is valid or not (an appellate decision might prove that it is not), it certainly isn't as broad in scope as you are suggesting. Microsoft may end up having to remove some infrequently used functionality from Word, but the software industry as we know it is not going to come to an end because of this injunction.
Before characterizing the courts as completely clueless, you might want to go through the court's memorandum opinion and order [uscourts.gov] (PACER registration required, but no cost for this document) denying Microsoft's motion for judgment as a matter of law. It is a detailed memorandum (65 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt font) that gives quite a bit of detail as to why the judge decided to uphold the jury's verdict. Go through it and decide for yourself whether the evidence and arguments presented by Microsoft were so convincing that no reasonably jury would have found for i4i.
Cute, but seriously, take a closer look at what the real issues are in this case. If you don't try to understand the facts that drive a particular case, your arguments regarding the law and the way courts apply it will sound more like pseudoscience [skepdic.com] than science. Good science is based on facts. Good legal arguments are based on facts too.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
...Should they ever become a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporate behemoth we will revisit the situation.
You mean like Sun, and soon Oracle?
Just because a product is free doesn't mean the company responsible isn't loaded to the gills with $billions.
Oracle doesn't have as many $billions as Microsoft has, sure, but they still have $billions. That Open Office is open makes it a choice target if it does, in fact, infringe on any patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they win a one time judgement but that's not their current strategy with MS. Their current strategy is to stop the shipments and try to force negotiations for patent license fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Sun does not own Open Office and soon Oracle will continue to not own it.