Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts Patents News IT

Microsoft Loses Office Patent Dispute 228

Posted by Zonk from the lesson-is-not-to-lose-a-lawsuit-if-you're-a-big-target dept.
cwolfsheep writes "According to CNet, Microsoft has lost a patent dispute with a developer involving the company's Excel and Access product lines; specifically how they interact via spreadsheets. Carlos Armando Amado had filed a patent in 1994: the dispute covers Microsoft's products from March 1997 to July 2003. Office 2003 users will need to upgrade to Service Pack 2; Office XP users will need to apply a patch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Loses Office Patent Dispute More

Microsoft Loses Office Patent Dispute

Comments Filter:

  • Apply this patch to remove functionality! (Score:5, Informative)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:38AM (#14607009)
    Um, no thanks.

    The article should say that Microsoft had to release said patch. Users of Microsoft products are under no obligation to actually apply the patch and remove functionality.

    • Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! (Score:5, Informative)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:40AM (#14607029)
      Users of Microsoft products are under no obligation to actually apply the patch and remove functionality.

      Actually, I think you might be under just such an obligation. You're still using the patented technology without a licence.

      Never underestimate the perversity of patent law.

      • Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! (Score:5, Informative)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:55AM (#14607150)
        Actually, I think you might be under just such an obligation.

        Technically, you're right, but practically nobody is ever going to come and get you. Besides, the courts issue decisions, but they don't enforce them. It will be up to the patent holder to hunt you down and get the authorities to punish you.

      • Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:06AM (#14607233)
        Something about how commercial software was superior to Free Software because it indemnified users [computerworld.com] against patent infringment?

        So much for that argument!

        • Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? (Score:4, Informative)

          by faloi ( 738831 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:12AM (#14607299)
          The end users are still indemnified. They're not getting sued. Microsoft never said THEY were indemnified. There's an article here [com.com] that covers some recent changes to the indemnity clause that business licensees get. I dunno if that extends to people with individual licenses, though.

          • Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:21AM (#14607388)
            However, end users are being (more or less) forced to install a patch that removes the patented technology. Any genuine indemnification would mean that end users could refuse to install the patch and Microsoft would accept liability for any lawsuits that might occur.

            Now, is Microsoft doing that, or is the whole "indemnification" thing a big pile of horse shit?>

            Given this post [slashdot.org], it apparently is.
            • Any genuine indemnification would mean that end users could refuse to install the patch and Microsoft would accept liability for any lawsuits that might occur.

              Indemnification means they're going to lengths to protect their customers as far as legally possible. But if you choose to use their product in an illegal manner, why should you expect to be protected?

              Microsoft is paying out $8.9 million to this guy for previous infringement, they're providing a patch, and no one is being sued beyond Microsoft.

        • mrchaotica:

          Something about how commercial software was superior to Free Software because it indemnified users against patent infringment?

          And, if you RTFA, it goes on to say....

          (In the license agreement) Microsoft promises to indemnify customers from third-party patent claims...

          With additional note on some vagueness in how long the user has to apply the patch to keep this indemification. The license agreement says "immediatey" which is, in legal terms, fairly hard to define, but certainly isn't lon

          • But forcing the user to install a patch that reduces functionality is not indemnification!

            Indemnification should mean accepting liability for any patent infringment claims leveled against the user for continuing to use the software as-is.

            • Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? (Score:5, Funny)

              by greginnj ( 891863 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @01:02PM (#14608543) Homepage Journal
              'As-is' is exactly right, same as if you're buying a used car from a dirt lot. If you read your MS licenses carefully, you will find that they specifically avoid claiming that the software will allow you to type a sentence, add two numbers, or draw a straight line.

              In practical terms, you are actually licencing a product that is not guaranteed to *DO* anything at all. Any functionality you might use is just gravy you should be grateful for. So from a licensing standpoint, they owe you nothing in terms of continued functionality of any kind, because they never promised you any functionality in the first place.

              I had a professor who used to read a software license, but replaced the words 'software application' with 'Ford car' wherever they occurred. The effect was hysterical -- it wasn't guaranteed to do anything, wasn't guaranteed not to crash, not to have defects, etc. Try it sometime, it's a good brain exercise.
      • Actually, I think you might be under just such an obligation. You're still using the patented technology without a licence.
        The end user is under no obligation. The end user isn't the one that needs the license; Microsoft is. If Ford infringes on a patent with a part in their car it doesn't mean that they then have to replace all of those parts in every car sold. If you still feel otherwise please cite case law to support your assertion.

        • Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! (Score:5, Informative)

          by ajakk ( 29927 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:46AM (#14607694) Homepage
          35 U.S.C. 271(a):
          Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USC 1 et seq.], whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
          (emphasis mine)

          • And what is otherwise provided in that title? I personally use dozens of patented things every day, yet I haven't made a single licensing agreement with any patent holder directly. Am I breaking the law every time I ever use a product covered by a patent? The patent system in the US can be daft at times, but it's not that daft.

        • If Ford infringes on a patent with a part in their car it doesn't mean that they then have to replace all of those parts in every car sold. If you still feel otherwise please cite case law to support your assertion.

          Funny you should mention Ford:

          Nearly every car company fell into line to pay royalties to the Association for the privilege of making and selling cars.

          Except Henry Ford. The association did not want another competitor in Detroit and it did not like his idea of driving prices down to where average

    • Apply this patch to maintain licensing! (Score:5, Informative)

      by mpathetiq ( 726625 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:48AM (#14607093) Homepage
      We received an email from Microsoft licensing last week that addresses this issue.

      Here's the text:

      Background:

      It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code found in Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Access 2003, Microsoft Office XP Professional and Microsoft Access 2002 infringe a third-party patent. As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced.

      Action required:

      As a result of the above ruling, you are required to:

      Install Microsoft Office 2003 Service Pack 2 (Office 2003 SP2) for all your future deployments of Office Professional Edition 2003 and Office Access 2003, Install the Microsoft Office XP Service Pack 3 Patch (Office XP SP3 Patch) for all your future deployments of Office XP Professional and Access 2002

      Action requested:

      To keep your current systems in alignment with your future deployments of these products, Microsoft is requesting that you also update all your current Office Professional Edition 2003 and Office Access 2003 installations with Office 2003 SP2, and Office XP Professional and Access 2002 installations with the Office XP SP3 Patch.

      How do I do this?:

      You can obtain both Office 2003 SP2 and the Office XP SP3 Patch by going to the website listed below and downloading it directly, or by contacting your reseller.

      Please visit our site at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/officeupdate/def ault.aspx [microsoft.com].

      Sincerely,

      Microsoft Licensing, GP This makes it seem like we are being forced to upgrade to maintain licensing.
      • Sounds to me like Microsoft is requiring all NEW deployments of the affected applications to use the new upgraded/patched version, but they are only requesting that you patch your existing installations. Seems patching existing installs is not required by Microsoft.
    • The patch, according to MS site, says that it has been available since September 27, 2005. Since I upgraded my system in early January, 2006, I wasn't even aware of this issue until today. Therefore, I wasn't given (nor cared about) information pertaining to a patent issue.

      Though, for those of us not connecting Excel and Access, who cares?

      And, of course, Microsoft isn't about to publically humiliate themselves on their own website. What company would if not forced to do so by the conditions of a court ru

    • Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:19AM (#14607369) Homepage
      You think that you will have much of a choice? Since Microsoft's patch mechanism supports pre-requisites so that one patch can require another, what's the bet that all future Office patches will require that the patent compliance patch be installed first? That leaves you the rhetorical question of which is going to provide the lesser pain to a PC with Office installed; leaving a feature you possibly never used anyway in place, or being vulnerable to the latest exploit. Good luck if you are opting for the latter, that's all I can say.

      My guess is that Microsoft will throw its customers a bone by making the patch optional for a month or two and then start requiring it for all subsequent Office patches. Come the first serious exploit after that, and you'd better not be reliant on the Access-Excel data connectivity that's being removed unless you are really sure of your anti-virus and other network security systems.

  • I don't think so. (Score:5, Funny)

    by RancidMilk ( 872628 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:39AM (#14607018)
    Patches are for pirates!

  • I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)

    by holySherm ( 916265 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:39AM (#14607021)
    if the patch will be made available to users who have unregistered versions of Office. Or will it be treated like a content update instead of how they treat security flaw patches.

  • Whose problem is this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:42AM (#14607038) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft violated the patent, not me. I bought a copy of the software as it was - and if they have to alter it because they made a mistake then that's their problem. I should not be required to change the software in order to help them cover.

    Are you required to install security patches? Many sysadmins have a wait-and-see approach to major updates for good reason. Is this any different?

    Am I using infringing code? Yes. Is it my responsibility to ensure that I'm not? I don't believe so. Not only is this software that I've licensed from Microsoft, but it's not like I have the option of reviewing the source code.

    I'm curious if there's a precedent regarding this kind of situation.

    • Re:Whose problem is this? (Score:5, Funny)

      by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:44AM (#14607062)
      Are you required to install security patches?

      You haven't read the liscencing agreement, it seems.

      The TOS states alot of things, like your sacred duty to grab a skullbat and assist in the Cleansing when Gazuga appears. It's all in there.
    • Actualy you didn't buy a copy of the program - you bought a license to use it.

      It may seem like a trivial difference, but legaly it's a huge distinction.

      • Legally, it may not be any distinction at all. Book publishers tried this dodge around the beginning of the 20th century to prevent the selling of used books. Courts threw it out so hard it bounced twice. There is not yet good precedent that software should be treated differently; software publishers have been reluctant to put it to the test. As long as it's uncertain, they can scare people with it.

        Chris Mattern

    • Re:Whose problem is this? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:54AM (#14607143) Homepage
      You have now been notified that you are taking action to violate a patent. Microsoft office as sold and supported by Microsoft does not violate that patent. Hence your actions are a deliberate patent violation.
    • You are incorrect. It is your responsibility to make sure that you are not using non-infringing code. From the Microsoft EULA:

      "THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT."

      The key word in there is "non-infringement." You are taking all legal liability for the Microsoft product infringing any patent or copyright claim, should such a claim exist. Microsoft will not indemnify you.

      This is a common

      • Re:Whose problem is this? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... com minus distro> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:24AM (#14607432) Journal
        You are taking all legal liability for the Microsoft product infringing any patent or copyright claim
        I call BS on that. I don't take any legal liability unless enter into a contract stating that I accept such potential liabiity BEFORE the sale. And the EULA click-thru doesn't count - its too late to add terms to an agreement after the sale.
        And yes, I do negotiate IP licenses for a living...
        ... then you should know better. You can't unilaterally change the deal after its been concluded. Once someone bought it, that's it. They are under no obligation to anything more than they already agreed to.

        ... or are you going to argue that a EULA that says "Failure to comply with these conditions, which you didn't know about prior to sale, will result in friggin' sharks with lasers strapped to their heads paying you and yours a visit".

        From the Microsoft EULA:

        "THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT."

        The key word in there is "non-infringement." You are taking all legal liability for the Microsoft product infringing any patent or copyright claim, should such a claim exist. Microsoft will not indemnify you.

        Again, not the buyers problem. Like all contracts, there are 3 important rules:

        1. get it in writing
        2. get it in writing
        3. get it in writing
        ... I don't think Microsoft can show a copy of ANYONE's signature on a click-through EULA. Let them tell it to the judge how "oh, e added these conditions AFTER they bought the software, and we don't have a copy of their agreeing to them, but they MUST have ..."

        That'll go over real well, especially since both common law and consumer protection legislation requires you to warrant what you sell.

        • Re:Whose problem is this? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          You're wrong. Try buying a stolen radio sometime, even if you had no idea it was stolen, you might not go to jail but you don't get to keep it when the cops show up. Now, you've bought some "stolen" IP.

          Suing the customers for patent infringement isn't a new thing. Back around 1900 when Ford started selling cheap cars, one of his competitors sued people who bought cars from Ford. Reading around the various links posted by others here, I see that Microsoft's customers have been sued before, though in that

          • Re:Whose problem is this? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... com minus distro> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:58AM (#14607819) Journal

            Don't be a moron. (Oh, right - telling THAT to an AC)

            Suing the customers for patent infringement isn't a new thing. Back around 1900 when Ford started selling cheap cars, one of his competitors sued people who bought cars from Ford.

            Your Ford example sucks. The competitors lost their suit. Ford continued to sell cars.
            http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles /FE18101F937B9D8386256DBF00739550 [prorec.com]

            n 1903, when Henry Ford launched the Ford Motor Company, his third attempt at making cars, automobiles were high-priced, custom-made playthings for the rich. What's more, the major manufacturers had figured out a way to keep it that way. They had acquired a strategic property right very much like the recording industry's copyrights on recorded songs. It was called the Selden Patent and it gave its owners the exclusive right to sell a very basic invention: self-propelled vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. Many people in the car business thought this patent was an outrage - much as some online retailers today are angry that Amazon.com received a patent on its "One-Click" checkout system. But the U.S. Patent Office had issued the Selden Patent and a group of powerful incumbents had purchased it and formed an association to enforce it. Litigation, then as now, was very expensive - especially for start-up companies with limited working capital. Nearly every car company fell into line to pay royalties to the Association for the privilege of making and selling cars.

            Except Henry Ford. The association did not want another competitor in Detroit and it did not like his idea of driving prices down to where average people could afford a car. So it refused to license him. For Ford, it was either exit the industry or fight the Selden Patent in court. He decided to raise a legal war chest and fight the incumbents. The litigation lasted from 1903 until 1911 and along the way, the association launched hundreds of lawsuits against Ford's customers to scare them away from his showrooms for buying "unlicensed vehicles."

            Most ordinary people of Ford's era had been content to stand by and watch the automobile makers slug it out over the Selden Patent. It was just an industry cat fight. But when the big "money men" started suing ordinary people who were just trying to buy a cheap car, public sympathy shifted against the incumbents. People rallied to Ford's side against the bullies. Editorials weighed in against the industry's heavy-handed lawsuits, and Ford helped his own case by purchasing litigation insurance for his customers. By the time the patent litigation was over - Ford won on appeal in 1911 when the court ruled that the Selden Patent covered only cars made with a special type of engine nobody was using anymore - Ford was a hero, and the largest car manufacturer in America.

            At lest provide a relevant example, or I'll have to sic the sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads on you.

    • I am of your opinion. It should be Microsoft's responsability to license the patient and make it good. When I bought the license to use their product, I was licensing it in good faith. Frankly, I would love to return the product and get my money back claiming they they have violated their licensing agreement by reducing functionality. In fact, I wonder if Microsoft will allow me to return the product based on the claim that I can no longer use the product legally that I purchased. If Microsoft does not prov
    • What rock have you been sitting under? It doesn't matter who promised you what or sold you which widget, if it infringed on the patent before you owned it, it still infringes on the patent. While the patent holder probably won't bother hunting you down, you'd best keep an eye open for the subpoena of microsoft's product registration database, just in case.

      Don't think just because you bought it from somewhere else that you're in the clear (think stolen property. Now think stolen intellectual property). S

  • You'd think... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:43AM (#14607050)
    that this would help show to them how stupid the idea of software patents are. But I suspect this won't change the MS perspective on software patents.

    I've never been to Guatemala, but I suspect the $8.9 million that Amado won will go far...
    • that this would help show to them how stupid the idea of software patents are.

      Since the indications are that Microsoft stole this idea, and possibly code, from this guy, I doubt it'll do any such thing. More likely it'll convince them more that they're a good thing.
    • That's Emporer Amado to you, mister.
    • Depends on how MS uses their patents. Originally (and this may have changed), MS obtained patents defensively, not to use offensively. That is, MS would obtain a patent merely to show they invented something, to prevent others from using software patents against them.

    • But I suspect this won't change the MS perspective on software patents.


      What do you think is MS's perspective on software patents?

  • Who does /. hate more? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:43AM (#14607052) Homepage Journal
    The guy who patented interaction with a spread sheet, or Microsoft?

    -Rick

    • Re:Who does /. hate more? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:57AM (#14607173)
      The US government for granting software patents.
    • The guy who patented interaction with a spread sheet, or Microsoft?

      Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmn,

      Tough choice - I'm going to go with live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword Microsoft.

      Seriously - software patents are wrong, alot of people who wield them do so unethically, but its hard to have sympathy for a company licensing stealth patented [microsoft.com] tech.
    • Microsoft found guilty of patent infringement [slashdot.org].

      Here are the relevant links:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/18/microsoft_ court_excel/ [theregister.co.uk]
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/07/microsoft_ pays_excel_man/ [theregister.co.uk]

      The story goes like this:

      Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent in 1990 for software which lets users move data between Excel to Access via a spreadsheet. He tried to sell it to Microsoft two years later, but they rejected it. Then it turns out that they DID use his software behind his back, without paying him a dime.

      This is not like the EOLAS plugin patent. This is an idea that Microsoft STOLE and got rich with. Microsoft is the one to blame, not Carlos Amado. (They could as well have licensed his technology or simply use an alternative, but did they?)

      • This is not like the EOLAS plugin patent. This is an idea that Microsoft STOLE and got rich with. Microsoft is the one to blame, not Carlos Amado. (They could as well have licensed his technology or simply use an alternative, but did they?)

        I don't think so. Appleworks had this feature via a shared memory segment first back in the mid-80's. Is the Carlos Amado method unique? Maybe, but Appleworks is prior art and therefore not a new idea.

        I can't believe a mega-corporation with an army of lawyers didn't bri
        • Wow man you are so much smarter then the army of IP lawyers MS has. I mean they spent years on this case, spent tens of thousands of dollars, paid millions of damages all for nothing. They just could have asked you and you would have slayed the court with your argument. DOH!. I can see you in court now.

          "Your honor, I present to you the the feature of appleworks which uses shared memory back in the mid 80's! "

          Judge: "Well OK then, I am struck by your insight and research, case dismissed!"

          Dude that would roc
      • Considering the idea is obvious and fundamental I'd hardly describe it as stealing as much as implementing something obvious and demanded by users world-wide.
      • What gives somebody a right to patent a method of using two products that *I* created.

        Granted this might be a novel idea, but to patent the methods of interacting between two of a specific product (belonging to somebody else) VS one that was, say, aimed at speedsheet/database apps in general...

        I don't agree with MS stealing the idea, but being able to patent it seems equally wrong.
      • 1. Review new software releases various vendors
        2. Find obvious improvements
        3. Patent said obvious improvements
        4. Notify company of said improvements
        5. Sue company when they implement any of these improvements
        6. PROFIT!

        -- My favorite question that I ask fellow programmers in hiring interviews: "Do you speak bachi or the binary language of moisture evaporators?"

  • WHAT functionality? (Score:5, Informative)

    by linolium ( 713219 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:44AM (#14607064)
    This story doesn't exactly mention what functionality the patch removes. But there is another article about it here with a bit more information:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/07/microsoft_ pays_excel_man/ [theregister.co.uk]

    "In 1990 Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent for software which helped transfer data between Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft's Access database using a single spreadsheet. He said he tried to sell this technology to Microsoft in 1992 but they turned him down. According to Amado, Microsoft started including his software in their releases between 1995 and 2002."

  • What about OO.org? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mick Ohrberg ( 744441 ) <mick,ohrberg&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:47AM (#14607083) Homepage Journal
    Is OpenOffice affected by this?

  • I wish.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They would release important patches as fast as this one. But I guess this problem would harm their money.
    • SP2 was already done. This is a small patch... and I hate to break it to you, the codebase for access/excel is miniscule compared to windows. Of course this patch came out "faster". Hell, they probably started work on it long ago *just in case*, it's not like this lawsuit was filed and settled in a week.
  • Okay, I RTFA, and nowhere does it state what exactly it is removing or changing. I use Access very hevily with Excel. Popping data back and forth between the two. What is it going to break and what is a workaround?

    • Re:What does it change? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jeffy210 ( 214759 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @10:56AM (#14607158)
      Never mind, went deeper and answered my own question:
      "Microsoft has released an update for Microsoft Access 2002. This update removes the functionality in Access 2002 that lets users add new data to or edit existing data in a linked Microsoft Excel worksheet."
       
      Two words: Hell no. That's not a "small" part of the market segment, IMO.
      • Two words: Hell no. That's not a "small" part of the market segment, IMO.
        And you'd better hope no member of that market segment needs to upgrade or install a new copy of Office for the next, what, 20 years?

        On the bright side, if OO.o isn't also infringing, it provides a great reason to switch!
      • You would have to be a complete retard to edit database records from a spreadsheet. Especially, considering the limited amount of validation you can enforce with Jet. The linked table mechanism is clumsy and slow anyway. It depends on either a hard coded path or a defined ODBC data source. Both of which are easily broken when documents are shared with others as is frequently the case with spreadsheets. It's no big loss.

        Likewise. Anyone trying to link a SQL server table into Excel is doubleplusretarded.
        • Linking a SQL table into Excel (size not withstanding) is actually done fairly often. Excel's Pivot functions are far better than anything Access has to offer. This makes creating drill down and dynamic pivot charts and tables very useful for combing through data. I know quite a few companies that use this set up to help them forcast their numbers.

          As for the using Excel as a source, yes I agree it a precarious implementation (I wouldn't recommend it), but again, I see quite a few people who have this set up
  • In response to about half of the top level posts, no, this court decision isn't forcing you, the existing MS software users, to change the way you do things; but it prevents any -further- distribution of the infringing technology.

    From the article:

    "Although existing customers can keep using older versions on current machines, any new installations of Office 2003 will require Service Pack 2, released by Microsoft in September. Office XP will need to be put into use with a special patch applied."

  • Interesting MS spin (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dpille ( 547949 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:01AM (#14607189)
    "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."
     
    What about a "a verdict last year by a jury" makes the code anything but_actually_ infringing instead of _allegedly_?

  • Prior art (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:01AM (#14607191) Homepage
    It seems to me that Microsoft did a bad job in defending this case. Microsoft claims (and for the purpose of argument lets assume the claim is true) that they had a working exchange between Excel and Access prior to 1990. Further you clearly saw similar types of echanges with other products (Paradox and QuatroPro, Lotus 1-2-3 and db2, etc...).

    Obviously they lost I'm curious as to why though. I think this means that something like:

    1) The layoffs have gotten to to the point that Microsoft can no longer prove stuff about its own code base.

    2) They had committed a more serious violation (anti trust, copyright...) and so couldn't go into details.

    3) They didn't take the case seriously.

    Does anyone have any insight as to why they lost?
    • If Microsoft or anyone else wanted to argue that this was "obvious" or that they were "just doing what Paradox did" or whatever, then they would need to content with the following:

      1) They claimed that their engineers STARTED working on it in 1989.

      2) They released it as a new feature in 1995.

      If it's obvious, it shouldn't take "engineers" six years to implement.

  • Patching to Remove Functionality (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slashbob22 ( 918040 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:02AM (#14607201)
    This sounds like it is becoming Microsoft's new patching practice. First patch Tuesday, which works great until a zero day issue occurs. Now we have blackhole patches; these suck functionality out of your product (both with the Xbox 360 and now office). I for one would like to thank Microsoft for removing functionality I use - as opposed to the other 90% of functions in your Office software which are bloatware and are rarely used.
    • as opposed to the other 90% of functions in your Office software which are bloatware and are rarely used.

      What functions do you use then? If you're just typing a simple document or SS, yes, you won't use the features. Duh. That's the point. They're features for more advanced documents/ss, be it mail merge, master/subdocuments, pivottables, etc.. those of us who do make more complex documents aren't bitching.
    • I for one would like to thank Microsoft for removing functionality I use

      And a second thanks to TiVo, who is doing the same thing. It seems a lot like Bait & Switch to me.

  • Microsoft won't release SP3 but forces us to patch Office? :-/
  • "It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code ... infringe a third-party patent," Microsoft said ... "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly [emphasis mine] infringing code replaced."

    It is not allegedly infringing, it was found to be infringing in a court of law. You can only claim no wrongdoing if you settled out of court and the settlement stipulated that you could claim that.
  • It's the only way the little guy can win against those who would use their stuff w/o asking.

    Kevin
    • That is exactly how patents are supposed to protect the inventor. However...it isn't the inventor that is abusing the system, its the patentor. Patenting something and then never making it, waiting for someone else to put the work and money into making it real, and then filing lawsuits. Patenting something that shouldn't be patented. Betamax vs VHS made sense and to me was decided correctly, however, by the way things are going now, it would be a patent lawsuit just for making a device that could play v

  • Indemnification? (Score:3, Informative)

    by jbeaupre ( 752124 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:16AM (#14607336)
    I thought MS offered indemnification. Guess I was confused. Guess that was just server software. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /topics/ipi.mspx [microsoft.com]
  • If I were the guy holding the patent, I would have sought tons of $$$ from Microsoft in court. Why did this just result in an obligation to fix up the infringement?

    • Re:Show me the money? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Orne ( 144925 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:47AM (#14607704) Homepage
      He was originally asking $500 million, a sum that I would consider "tons of $$$". Microsoft claims that they had been working in-house on the capability to add the linking since 1989, and Mr Amado approached them with a working product in 1992. From other research, it appears that the "trick" in question is to link an Excel document from Access in read/write mode as an in-line table, something we all take for granted in the modern Office versions.

      Microsoft said no thanks at the time, and released their in-house work in 1995 with the release of Office95. The jury decided that there wasn't sufficent evidence that Microsoft was in the clear, so they settled for $9 million and an agreement to cease using the technology.
  • how open source is at threat for problems with patents.

    Microsoft builds up its patent portfolio and it still can't prevent itself from having to make product patches affecting its customers due to its pervssive "theft" of "intellectual property".

  • Losing patent disputes is good for Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cpu_fusion ( 705735 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:13PM (#14607979)
    Microsoft has a lot of cash to burn. And what better way to spend that cash than to lose a few software patent disputes? The rewards are clear:

    1. FUD in the marketplace concerning patents, giving CIOs worry about using open/free software.
    2. A way to fund patent trolls who *may* turn their attention to open/free software (if they perceive money to be made from folks like Sun/OpenOffice.)
    3. Precidents set on absurd patents whose licensing costs prohibit free softwar from entering a domain.

    I'm not saying this particular example is applicable, but losing a few key patent cases may actually help more than harm Microsoft.
  • Microsoft would not say how many customers are affected, but said it is likely only a "small fraction" of Office users.

    Well, a small fraction could still end up in the millions of users.

    Hooray for the little guy with the million dollar patent. According to GeekNewz.com, [geeknewz.com] Carlos Armando Amado patented it in 1990, and tried to sell it to Microsoft 2 years later. Microsoft looked into it, didn't buy it, but used its technology anyway in Excel 95-2002.
    Good thing he waited.
  • I found two between 1976 to present, neither of which seem on the face of it to be relevant. Anyone know the actual patent in question?
    News reports should include such basic info so that
    readers can do some of their own analysis if they so choose.

    This is what I found at http://patft.uspto.gov/ [uspto.gov]:

    1. 5,701,400 Method and apparatus for applying if-then-else rules to data sets in a relational data base and generating from the results of application of said rules a database of diagnostics linked to said data sets t
  • Software patents ruin inovation

    whats next, patenting linked lists? for loops?
    you cant write ANYTHING anymore without using someone elses patents how is bring all development to a screeching halt. or tieing up developers in courts for the rest of their existance supposed to help inovation?

    i dont even like microsoft but i think everyone sueing them for things they arent even doing wrong is terrible for the whole industry

  • Why doesn't MS just license it and make it go away (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:55PM (#14608449)
    Ok, I just don't understand, unless it is pure cheapness and greed. Why doesn't MS just pay the man $1 per shipped license. The marginal cost to press the cd and license the software is basically nill. It's not like they don't make a basically 100% profit on each license already. So surely they can cough up $1 out of the $370 that I paid them for my license. But Nooooo, they want to remove the functionality instead of licensing it. Come on MS, just fork over the cash (its basically chump change to you) and let the users keep the functionality.
  • Microsoft where's my companies rebate since we lose some of the functionality that what we had paid for!!!
  • Maybe now some people will realize how bad software patents are. The majority of computer users don't care when Linux is prohibited from doing something because of patents but hopefully the fact that this will affect more users of proprietary software, people will start to take notice.
  • Like Microsoft will get away with having infringed on a patent for the entire lifespan of a SERIES of products....

    Wow... way to hold out until it doesn't matter anymore.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close