Judgement Against Microsoft Declares XML Editing Software To Be Worth $98?

Many people have written to tell us about the patent infringement lawsuit that resulted in a $200 million judgement against Microsoft by a small Toronto firm called i4i. Techdirt has a line on the details of the suit where the patent in question is for "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document." i4i argues that this covers basic XML editing to the tune of $98 per application. "It's quite troubling that doing something as simple as adding an XML editor should infringe on a patent, but what's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used. An XML editor. $98. And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?"

I feel sorry for Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Which makes i4i Stalin Hitler.

Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode

[Zarhan]

When reading patents, you always ignore most of the boilerplate and preamble. Just go for the Claims section.

In this case, Claim 1 is quite understandable:

1. A computer system for the manipulation of the architecture and content of a document having a plurality of metacodes and content by producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content; said system comprising:

        metacode map distinct storage means;
        means for providing a menu of metacodes to said metacode storage means;
        and means for compiling said metacodes of the menu by locating, detecting and addressing the metacodes in the document to constitute the map and storing the map in the metacode storage means; and
        means for resolving the content and the metacode map into the document.

Patent awards out of sync with reality? Hardy!

[noidentity]

And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?

Are you aware of how much genius it takes to come up with the idea of first parsing the XML file into an internal in-memory format, editing that, then flattening that back to an XML file? Nobody would have done anything different than re-parsing and modifying the XML every time a minor change was made in the editor, if it weren't for this insightful patent.

Re:Fair Play

[JCSoRocks]

I agree. I enjoy seeing them get a taste of their own medicine as much as anyone, but this sets an awful precedent. Can we organize a virtual million man march and get the patent system fixed? (and by "we" I mean someone other than me. I'm too busy drinking soda in my mom's basement.)

Re:What about Open Office

[RulerOf]

And then torrenting OpenOffice inside of the US would be illegal for an entirely different reason than 99% of all the other torrent traffic out on the inter-tubes.

Neat.

Not good, just neat.

Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode

[happyemoticon]

The USPTO should start denying patent applications that contain this kind of deliberately obfuscative gobbledegook. This is like describing cup of coffee as a "insulating ceramic material vessel for the transportation of central nervous system-stimulant-laden liquids of temperatures approaching gradual evaporation adapted to both manipulation and imbibation for the purposes of maximum early-hours alertness and/or circadian rhythm modulation." It's like reading Foucault.

Re:Fair Play

[MonkWB]

First they came for Microsoft...
But I was not Microsoft so I laughed at the irony.

Re:If You Have a Repeat Offender, Increase Penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, you guys take patent infringement far too seriously.

Re:Fair Play

[mqduck]

Can we organize a virtual million man march and get the patent system fixed?

We could start a Facebook group!

Re:What about Open Office

[tsm_sf]

Ahh, but does this separation occur on the internet?

Re:Must Be East Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean secede?

Damn you clippy!!