Microsoft Pulls Office From Its Own Online Store 127
CWmike writes "Microsoft has pulled almost every version of Office from its own online store to comply with a court order requiring it to remove custom XML technology from its popular Word software that starts on Monday. As of mid-day, the only edition available from the Microsoft Store was Office Ultimate 2007, a $670 'full-version' suite. All other Windows editions, as well as Office 2008 for Mac, were accompanied by the message: 'This product is currently unavailable while we update versions on our site. We expect it to be available soon.' Microsoft confirmed that the disappearance of Office was related to the injunction that came out of a patent infringement case the company lost in 2009. 'We've taken steps to comply with the court's ruling and we're introducing the revised software into the US market," said Michael Croan, a senior marketing manager, in an e-mail. He also downplayed the move. 'This process will be imperceptible to the vast majority of customers, who will find both trial and purchase options readily available.'"
Re:Patent Compliance Tuesday (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm impressed that Microsoft is finally taking the security of their Office suite seriously. We've been waiting for this patch for years.
How convenient... (Score:3, Insightful)
How convenient that the $670 edition should be the one that remains available.
I can only think of three explanations for this:
1. MS are quite happy to put some of the revenue from Office to paying damages, provided the revenue is from the most expensive version.
2. They're holding back on making the cheaper versions compliant intentionally to see if only having the expensive version available dramatically affects sales.
3. They're not as well organised as I'd like to believe - packaging every different edition of Office is a major undertaking which requires a lot of work.
Re:Pulling it from the store isn't enough ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... they should also have to deactivate every (legal) copy that's currently out in the wild.
A large part of the damage award is to cover those copies. That's why they don't have to be disabled. They pay damages to cover the copies already out there, and have to stop selling new copies that infringe.
Re:sopssa said it best (Score:3, Insightful)
You ackowledge your post is redunant. Good for you.
It did not need to be restated. If you wanted to simply voice your support to his thread, then you should have replied to his thread rather than starting a thread whose sole purpose was to agree with the previous thread.
Re:Inside job? (Score:1, Insightful)
It is most similar to the "spreadsheet as database table" patent in the sense that in both cases the patent covered something pretty obvious, about something which users were starting to need, something that was hanging in the air so to speak. In both cases the patent covered *any* thinkable solution to something users might want, that was easily implementable by any competent programmer, which is probably why Microsoft said bugger off in the first place. (The spreadsheet patent was also reality-denying by the way, since spreadsheets and database tables are mathematically equivalent.) And then a judge who has never written a single line of code in his entire life decides that Microsoft has to pay $270e6 to people who haven't contributed anything to society at all. I'm an OOo user and have little love for Microsoft, nor the crash party that is Word, but I know that Microsoft isn't the bad party in this case. Imagine getting $270e6 for doing nothing...
Yes, "MS complies with the law" is the news (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats the news here? That MS complied to laws and judge orders?
Yes, that's exactly it.
And that's not meant to be a smartass comment about how often Microsoft does and doesn't do that.
All I'm trying to say is that this Microsoft/XML/Patent story is of interest to the slashdot crowd, and we would like to be informed about how the sequence of events unfold.
Getting confirmation that Microsoft complies with the law and court orders is an important event in this story---perhaps even the most crucial.
That's the reason it's on slashdot.
Re: here$ the new$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you work in an IT related field? Because I do not. And I do not know anybody (at work) that has even heard of openoffice. In fact, I do not think it would even occur to most of those people that there might even exist another "office" solution.
I know when I tell people that I don't use MS Office they are shock and almost immeditely assume that I must not view any documents at home.
Re:wheres the news (Score:2, Insightful)
So anyone that makes good points that are a bit more level headed than the usual hate based anti-Microsoft drivel is an apologist?
The problem with Slashdot (which really is a problem that stems from the FOSS community) is that it often has a zealotry to it that does it more harm than good in the eyes of anyone looking for objective comments. You read some of the anti-MS stuff here and if you were an outsider it'd give you the impression the site is full of nutjobs.
Microsoft have done a lot of things wrong, but they've also done a lot of things right. The issue is that Apple is guilty of doing as much wrong as Microsoft nowadays, yet because they base MacOS X on BSD they're often given a free ride. Despite Job's insistence otherwise, Apple has been the biggest proponent of DRM over the last decade for example and ironically it's platforms like the iPhone are more closed than even Microsoft's.
The hate for Microsoft here is usually 50% understandable, 50% utterly irrational, yet when someone like sopssa comes along and manages to post with only the understandable portion of hate without the stupid irrationality he's attacked for it? It's a shame there aren't more posters like him here so that we can have discussions that make sense, rather than an orgy of mutual reassurance that it's okay to attack Microsoft in the most irrational ways possible which just reinforce the nonsensical trash that is so often repeated.
There are of course fanboys that lean in completely the other direction, Microsoft fanboys who take things too far the other way and refuse to recognise when Microsoft does wrong. These people deserve to be chastised too, but the day I see one with a +5 insightful mod is the day Slashdot is taken over by MS so they're less of a problem here. It's not like I even agree with sopssa on some of his pro-Microsoft views all the time, but for the most part, his posts make a lot more sense from an objective viewpoint that those caught up in their own rabid fanboyism.
Re:wheres the news (Score:5, Insightful)
Recognizing that Microsoft is a bad corporate citizen is not "hate based anti-Microsoft drivel".
They have a long history of using other people's innovation without permission, and this case is no exception. I4i is no patent troll, they produced, sold and still sell an XML editing tool. They have a very specific patent, specific enough that other implementations (like ODF) don't infringe.
Sopssa is an apologist. He participated in the original discussion, and has to be aware that this patent suit is fair and valid, and yet is still dismissive of i4i's efforts. That isn't reasonable behavour, it's fanboism or worse.
Apple gets a free ride? Not likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new here. Any Apple-related story draws 10x as many Apple-hating comments as it does Apple-friendly comments.
Re:Oh please. Not the same bullshit again. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Like breaking the law in pretty much all major localities around the planet."
You realise a lot of companies have too yes? Facebook has been guilty of breaking privacy laws across the world, Apple has been guilty of price fixing in the UK due to it's higher pricing of songs to the rest of the EU, Google has found itself guilty of breaching copyright across the world through it's books quest. But you single out only Microsoft's cases?
"If you hear a chorus of disapproval maybe, just maybe, there is a frigging reason of why people feel so aggravated."
This argument is stupid, by the same logic you could argue that Microsoft's dominance in many areas is because most people prefer them. The fact is, you can't infer anything about the validity of the problem from numbers when there's clearly other factors involved like bias in this case, or monopolistic practices in Microsoft's case.
"Google and Apple now have quite a dominance in the markets that will matter in the future and people are far more cool about them because they are not complete and utter unethical bastards."
Huh? Is this the same Apple that although improving, is still one of the worst offenders when it comes to pollution caused by manufacturing and disposal of it's products? The same Apple that uses child labour? The same Apple guilty of price fixing? The same Apple guilty of being one of the most prolific pushers of DRM over the last decade? The same Apple that simply blames the user when their iPhone explodes in their face? The same Apple that leverages a combination of iTunes, the iPhone and it's app store for anti-competitive practices?
What about Google? Is this the same Google that wants to farm all your data? The same Google whose CEO doesn't believe you need privacy unless you have something to hide? The same Google that would happily pander to Chinese censorship and so on?
Look, I'm a fan of some of Apple and Google's products as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend they don't do much wrong as well, clearly they can be quite evil themselves, arguably just as much so as Microsoft. In reality Microsoft seem no less evil than other major players like Facebook either. In the grand scheme of things Microsoft couldn't even come close to many manufacturing firms, many mining firms and so forth. Really in terms of being evil, Microsoft as a company, are pretty much par for the course. The difference is, they're the main opponent of the open source movement and as this is largely an open source supporting community then that is why you see such a focus on them here, not because there is some reality in them being evil enough to stand out from the rest of the world.
Re:Contractual Silence (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds more like an illegal monopolization tactic to me.
"We won't give you MS stuff unless you agree not to support free software."
MSFT has selective legal hearing (Score:3, Insightful)
M$ complying with the law is news.
Not really. MSFT just picks and chooses when to do so. MSFT doesn't believe in rules restricting molopolistic business practices--it has been a belief deeply ingrained within their executive team, including Gates and Ballmer. That belief extends to their resistance to conform with the spirit, if not the letter, of rulings pertaining to those practices including its attempts at tight integration of application-level programming into its OS (Internet Explorer, Media Player), lack of interoperability/closed protocols (bastardised directory services, Exchange...) and so forth. There is a sense of entitlement there--basically they worked damn hard to be industry leaders and they did it by their own hard work, and damn any government who decides how to run their business especially if it hobbles their ability to "compete" and "innovate". Post-Gates this hard-line is changing--albeit at a galcially slow pace--as MSFT tries to show a bit of goodwill in its voluntary contributions to open source. There will be no epic game-changing event (the way Apple had completely overhauled both hardware and software architectures of its flagship product line more than once, or a business strategy equivalent anyways) untill Ballmer retires...if ever.
If this event is news at all, it isn't surprising in the slightest though. MSFT might have fought hard to win its case and it might not think the patent has merit, but when it comes to IP law they very higly respect and conform to it, at least when they are caught with their hand in the patent cookie-jar. Unlike in anti-trust cases, they will only appeal for so long, and they will very willingly comply with rulings not only to the letter, but within the spirit as well (ie. the decision to pull MacOS versions even though they weren't specifically mentioned--because the ruling "probably" covers ALL versions of word). So why the different attitude? MSFT knows it is still a software-centric company and that patentability of software concepts gives them enhanced ability to restrict competition not available with copyright (where IMO software IP should be handled exclusively). No matter what MSFT says critically about the shortcomings of patent law, it wants REFORM, not elimination, of software patents.
If it was in their interest, MSFT would've thrown a billion dollars at lawyers to fight for a ruling in its favour--even if complying was cheaper, but it isn't in their interest in this case. If they slayed this dragon, they know they've set a Bilski-like legal precident exposing a vast amount of their patent library to legal challenge, perhaps even some directly pertaining to its cash-cow MS Office.