Federal Court Grants Microsoft Expedited Appeal 88
patentpundit writes "On Friday, August 21, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Microsoft an expedited appeal of its patent infringement loss to i4i Limited Partnership. On August 11, 2009, Microsoft lost a $300 million judgment for infringing the XML patents of i4i by selling Word. Microsoft was given 60 days to stop selling Word, or implement work arounds that did not utilize the infringed technology. Microsoft filed an emergency appeal with the Federal Circuit, and requested a stay of the permanent injunction that will force them to stop selling work 60 days from August 11, 2009. The Federal Circuit granted an expedited oral argument, which will take place on September 23, 2009. Microsoft requested an administrative stay of the permanent injunction, which was denied, and then filed a petition to stay the injunction pending appeal. i4i has until August 25, 2009, to respond to Microsoft's request to stay the injunction pending appeal."
If they get hit enough like that... (Score:2, Interesting)
they might help reform the patent system
Ignore Anti MS Rhetoric (Score:0, Interesting)
If you ignore the anti microsoft rhetoric this is a good thing. XML patents should not be valid. There is no invention in XML. Software patents are stupid. Algorithm patents are what should be valid. Patenting a system for how to do things is valid. Patenting for how to express an existing system shold not be.
Lifting code? Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a patent case. A software patent case. A software patent *is* a dirty trick, and the target of the dirty trick in this case is Microsoft.
Haven't you ever seen one of those movies where the villains fall out with each other and there's a shootout in the hideout? Just because Microsoft's got a bad track record with software patents that doesn't mean the other guy isn't ALSO scum.
Re:If they get hit enough like that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't like it? Sorry, it's a two party system, and both parties play the same game. You want real change? Sorry, you won't get it by voting.
Ever heard of the 1960s? We got real change then, and what it required was grass roots efforts.
Re:Lifting code? Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, the standard Microsoft behavior.
Algorithm patents are stupid too (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with patents is that there are no provisions for cases where two people invent the same thing independently, which is a very common situation. If 10 inventors are all trying to solve the same problem, and all working independently, the patent system guarantees that the work of 9 of those inventors will be in vain. The constitution was written to mitigate this problem by excluding math and science; ultimately, software is a form of math, and should therefore be entirely excluded from the patent system on constitutional grounds.
Re:If they get hit enough like that... (Score:3, Interesting)
The only possible good thing .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Algorithm patents are stupid too (Score:2, Interesting)
The constitution explicitly excludes scientific and mathematical discoveries from the patent system, and algorithms are mathematics, through and through.
No, it doesn't. The words "scientific and mathematical discovers" are found nowhere in the Constitution. Maybe you're confused about what the word "explicitly" means.
The problem with patents is that there are no provisions for cases where two people invent the same thing independently, which is a very common situation.
Actually, there are many provisions, from rejections under 35 USC 102a, b, and g, and provisions for Interference actions, specifically dealing with cases where two people invent the same thing independently.
If 10 inventors are all trying to solve the same problem, and all working independently, the patent system guarantees that the work of 9 of those inventors will be in vain.
Yes... And how does that happen? Obviously, there must be provisions that make the work of 9 of those inventors in vain. So, your earlier statement about "no provisions" seems to be invalidated by this one.
So, correction for you: there are many provisions. You just don't like them.
The constitution was written to mitigate this problem by excluding math and science
Again, these words do not exist in the Constitution. Seriously, where did you get this idea?
ultimately, software is a form of math, and should therefore be entirely excluded from the patent system on constitutional grounds.
No, and no one is suggesting that. Not even the CAFC in Bilski. It's statutory grounds, not constitutional grounds. Until you recognize that difference, you really shouldn't be in this conversation.
Software is NOT a form of math (Score:4, Interesting)
Software is just a step-by-step instruction list. It's is no more a form of math than is a cookbook. You could give instructions that make software "do" math, but that doesn't make it math any more than a student "is" math when using a calculator.
Poetic justice (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, Microsoft didn't just come up with customXML on its own, they "partnered" with i4i, learned all about their product, then copied what they wanted from it and shafted i4i. While I do NOT like software patents and think they should be abolished, I'm not really going to defend Microsoft here. They're getting a bit of poetic justice, IMHO.
Granted, I would like this lawsuit to instead concern whatever contracts Microsoft had with i4i instead of patent law (claims which aren't worth pursuing when you can get $300 million judgments from patent claims), but I honestly think that this case is, overall, a good thing because it:
A) Highlights how ridiculously overpowered software patents--even those for fairly trivial "inventions"--have become.
B) Punishes one of the biggest proponents of software patents, proving that they were lying when they talked up how much they "respect" IP.
So make no mistake: I still want to abolish software patents completely. They're patents on mathematics (and there's mathematical proof of their equivalence available [haskell.org]) and they shouldn't exist. But as long as they do exist, I can think of nothing better to happen than for their biggest proponents to get shafted by one of the patents.