Judgement Against Microsoft Declares XML Editing Software To Be Worth $98? 230
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?"
Texas? You Don't Say! (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft Corp said on Wednesday a Texas federal jury ...
Texas? You mean the state of Marshall, TX [overlawyered.com] where Microsoft (and everyone else who wants to win) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases? I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, too bad it sets a precedence that fucks us all.
Down with "soft" patents!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, but if enough of these cases are used to sting microsoft, that they decide to turn against software patents, then the fight against software patents gains a powerful ally.
Re:Texas? You Don't Say! (Score:5, Informative)
Please reference one case where Microsoft was plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas (where Marshall resides) and won some huge award... I'm not holding my breath.
P.S. --> A plaintiff is the party that brings a case, Microsoft was the defendant in this case. Under Federal rules of civil procedure, plaintiff has a choice of forum (assuming there is personal jurisdiction and venue, but MS conducts business in all 50 states, and venue is often pretty easy to manufacture as well).
Re:Texas? You Don't Say! (Score:4, Informative)
There's a bit of a gap between 'holds all of their prosecuting cases' and 'here is a case where they were the defendant'.
Also, if what CajunArson writes is correct, it was the plaintiff that chose Marshall and not Microsoft.
Damned if you do, dam... oh wait, just 'damned if you are Microsoft, to hell with facts'.
Re:Texas? You Don't Say! (Score:4, Insightful)
I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!
You make it sound like it's a good thing...
I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").
Besides the obvious implications for software like OpenOffice, this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editing: spreadsheets, UML diagrams, math formulas, MS's Visio/Project outputs, the list goes on. Hell, all modern browsers support a WYSIWYG HTML editor. Do they infringe this patent?
This is absolutely terrible. The only good thing about it is that Microsoft has the money to overturn this joke of a patent, and can get enough media coverage to point out how broken the U.S. patent system is.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a patent on MVC or Doc/View architecture.
Re:Texas? You Don't Say! (Score:5, Interesting)
You make it sound like it's a good thing...
I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").
Not just WYSIWYG. There are TeX and laTeX templates that aim to separate content from structure, and have been for a long time. There are even elements of it in roff. Just how old was that patent?
Re:Texas? You Don't Say! (Score:4, Informative)
Two minor points.
#1 The patent application is from 1994. The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura, a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by Xerox (and subsequently purchased by Corel). The general idea and much of the exact format was borrowed from expensive, proprietary computerized typesetting equipment that was popular in the 70's.
#2: The person who "examined" the patent, a Jankus; Almis R, is now a patent [patents.com] agent [uspto.gov]. I'm no longer amazed at how often bad patent applications are approved by law students, future patent attorneys and/or agents.
Re: (Score:2)
Was this granted in 1994? If so it's over soon.
I keep hoping for more and more patents of obvious bullshit with prior art from the early 90s, as in a few yaers they'll all be expired and we'll be safe.
TFA is misleading; RTFP (Score:2)
I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML
Well, you should read it. The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly. Most XML formats don't do that.
It's about saying something like "in the text, make characters 17-21 bold face" separately from the text itself, instead of "{\bf hello}"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This is only 1 of 20 or so claims. Seems like that covers pretty much all XML editors I know of. Notepad doesn't provide a menu of metacodes so it's safe.
Re: (Score:2)
If the document has no metacode then the patent doesn't apply. Otherwise, there is possible infringement. Let's wait and see how it plays out during the likely appeals before taking out our cheque books. Wonder if Postcript and PDF would also be infringing. SCO all over again... oh the humanity!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since I am bored, I read it.
"I am a <b>sentence</b>."
The patent say, bad! Horrible! Instead, use content + "metacode map":
"I am a sentence."
+
chars 0-7 : normal
chars 7-15: bold
chars 15-16: normal
This is somehow supposed to be dramatically better in every way. Every frickin memory structure ever invented to edit any kind of structured text did this first and did it better.
I'm quite surprised that anyone would ever be found in violation of this "patent", because it's a pretty stupid thing to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You make it sound like it's a good thing..."
Well, since you mention it, YES, it's a good thing!! What could possibly be better, than for a dozen winning suits against multi-billion dollar companies over frivolous patent suits? When the idiocy begins to hurt the idiot who are so successful at lobbying Washington and other capitals around the world, THEN we might see some sanity forced into patent law.
Really, I want another dozen such suits brought against Microsoft quickly. Each one of them worth a billi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ofcourse there is the risk that MS will simply buy this company so that they can use the patent themselves...
Re:Texas? You Don't Say! (Score:4, Informative)
What do you mean by "all of its"? Do you know how many software patent cases Microsoft has been the plaintiff in before the TomTom case? Zero. (And BTW, Texas was convenient for TomTom, as that's where they have filed many of their suits against competing GPS companies).
Oh, and defendants have been winning more than plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas since early 2007.
What about Open Office (Score:2)
Re:What about Open Office (Score:5, Informative)
Aren't all the ODF documents just XML documents?
No, they're compressed XML documents.
How much does Open Office have to pay for each download?
If this ruling stands for them too, still nothing. They just won't let you download in the US. Free Software has no jurisdiction.
Re:What about Open Office (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. And any Open Office developers who happen to live in the U.S. - whose coding would be subject to U.S. patents - would do what exactly to avoid their liability for infringing the patent? And even if we pretend (as TFS seems to imply, incorrectly) that patent damages somehow have to be tied to a count of distributed copies, and that OO could cut off U.S. distribution, how would the cover the damages for copies already distributed in the U.S.?
If the patent applies to what OO is doing, it would be a big problem for the project.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Neat.
Not good, just neat.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suspect that many people would start using Tor once again demonstrating to the governments that people are still more then capable of hiding their identities online when given sufficent cause too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And any Open Office developers who happen to live in the U.S. - whose coding would be subject to U.S. patents - would do what exactly to avoid their liability for infringing the patent?
Stop contributing. Where is it written, that OOo has to have contributors from the US? There will be others. And I'm sure the courts would appreciate the fact that they stopped upon finding out about the infringement.
Also, the fact that they sued the richest software company in the world does not imply they'll go after individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the fact that they sued the richest software company in the world does not imply they'll go after individuals.
They might go after Sun. Of course, if it made it into the courtroom it would be thrown out immediately (Sun doesn't develop OOo, it just sponsors it) (IANAL), but these are patent trolls. They'll think of anything. Remember SCO? These guys are worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember SCO? These guys are worse.
Even SCO went after IBM, not J. Random Developer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As any lawyer will tell you, don't go after the guilty - go after the ones with the deepest pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Open Office is was commercial program that was developed by a German company (not Sun).
Some of us still have our old copies from when they were still Star Division.
Re:What about Open Office (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's an issue of editing XML documents in the sense of using XML to store structured data (such as Ooo documents), then the patent should be overturned. The whole point of XML is to provide a generic (and thereby obvious) means of structuring and editing data.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of XML is to provide a generic (and thereby obvious) means of structuring and editing data.
Not to mention ODF is an international standard, so any US patent should in my opinion be null and void. Of course that's common sense, so likely not true.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be common sense, if the standard were there first (i.e. before the patent). If the patent were there first, why would it be common sense that an international standards body would be allowed to say "Hey, that's a good idea; we'll just invalidate your patent by incorporating it into a standard!"?
And indeed, if the standard came first, then any later-filed patent covering the idea could not be novel and non-obvious, so the law would behave in what I consider a common-sense fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the patent were there first, why would it be common sense that an international standards body would be allowed to say "Hey, that's a good idea; we'll just invalidate your patent by incorporating it into a standard!"?
Doesn't the ISO have policies for patents they know about? And if they didn't, it's hard to argue about the originality of a patent that made it into a standard.
Re:What about Open Office (Score:4, Interesting)
The use of XML for documents may postdate the patent, but text processing systems that separate document structure from details of formatting go back at least to the late 1970s in the form of Brian Reid's Scribe. Unless I have misunderstood the patent, this constitutes prior art.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the patent would be valid might well depend on when it was filed. The mechanisms for editing XML are obvious if the XML spec is taken as background, but if the patent was in force when the XML spec was created and if those methods were covered by the patent, then XML would violate the patent (not the other way around).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Before we had XML, there was a more elaborate ML called "SGML" (HTML 1-4 are simplified versions of SGML. SGML was standardised in 1986, was there prior art involving similar techniques around XML?
--
AC
If You Have a Repeat Offender, Increase Penalty? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well--and I stress that I am not defending this ruling--you could look at it like raising the stakes involved since there are so many patent cases.
... maybe they are just on their way to try to get all these patent cases prevented?
Example: You steal a piece of fruit. You are convicted in front of a jury and slapped on the wrist. So you and everyone else does it again tomorrow. To combat this they increase the penalty to a $70 fine and 4 days in jail. In an ideal world, people stop stealing fruit.
Of course, I'm told hands get chopped off for stealing in some countries (could be wrong on that one though). I do know in Texas they're not opposed to electrocutin' ya for certain offenses though
Doesn't make a lick of sense at all considering you can't throw a goddamn progress bar [edn.com] on your application without risking litigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Geez, you guys take patent infringement far too seriously.
Filed in 1994 (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted in 1998.
It took them that long to sue MS?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyhow, the patent is regarding "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document." That's so hopelessly vague it's not even a joke. That's a patent that will affect every document format known to man. How on earth can this patent be a n
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the patent will expire in a couple of years
2015 (or 2018) is *FOREVER* in "internet time".
Re:Filed in 1994 (Score:4, Informative)
The patent claims (which define the scope of the patent) are easier to read after going through the specification a bit more closely. This patent is about a particular method of encoding structured data.
Consider the example (given in the patent) of <Chapter><Title>The Secret Life of Data</Title><Para>Data is hostile. </Para>The End</Chapter>. Typical parsers would encode this as some kind of tree.
This patent teaches coding it by creating a "Metacode Map" with six elements encoded as {Element Number, Element, Character Position}: ({1, <Chapter>, 0}, {2, <Title>, 0}, {3, </Title>, 23}, {4, <Para>, 23}, {5, </Para>, 23}, {6, </Chapter>, 46}). The content is then stored separately as one long strong: "The Secret Life ofDataData is hostile. The End"
I haven't read the claims closely enough to say whether they are consistent with the teachings of the patent, but it does seem to be narrower than simply editing XML (or SGML). I also suspect that there aren't a whole lot of infringers since this is an unusual way encoding marked up language. Does Word do this? The jury though so, but the code is all under seal, so it is a bit difficult to check out independently.
Re:Filed in 1994 (Score:5, Informative)
So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed, and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them. That probably didn't sit very well with the jury. Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent, rather than just ignore it and hope for the best.
Re: (Score:2)
So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed, and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them. That probably didn't sit very well with the jury. Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent, rather than just ignore it and hope for the best.
That's a very good point, but what's so wrong about copying the idea? Is the idea THAT good that it needs to be patented and protected as such?
It's not like this particular idea is doing any good for us all... so why grant the patent?
Patent Makes My Head Asplode (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5787449 [google.com]
I have no idea what this patent is saying.
Abstract:
A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.
It sounds a bit like an embedded XSLT, more or less. Maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Just from reading the abstract, it sounds more like templating -- I know the basic structure of your format, so I can go in and replace the strings (content) between the parts that are structural. Or, to modify the template, I could hide the content, and allow you to modify just the structural part ... and I could present it in any number of ways to allow you to edit it.
XSLT is more one-directional, and there isn't the mapping made to relate how things go back into the original file.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You sir, have made me laugh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a sad commentary on the state of the patent system, your convoluted description of coffee was easier to follow than most patent applications.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like any type of stylesheet-based editing.
That means office suites, HTML editors, vector graphics editors are all "infringing".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, Claim 1 is quite understandable:
Why isn't this modded funny?
I've spent a stupid amount of time reading patents, and this is one of the worst I've ever seen. The third item in the list isn't even coherent, as it suddenly starts talking about storing some map in a "metacode storage means" which is hitherto undefined.
I defy anyone to show me a class diagram and pseudo-code that unambiguously instantiates this claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're Microsoft, it's probably a great idea. Make your data files even more complex by splitting data and markup up, so when those poor KOffice and OO.org guys go to reve
$98 isnt alot compared to RIAA/etc (Score:2)
That makes sense... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of the variety of parsing tasks out there to do, with the level of support available in terms of API's and frameworks, working with XML could be seen as slicing butter with a hot knife.
creimer wasn't talking about using a XML parsing API - of course it's easy if you use someone else's parsing and DOM API, that is not the point - he's talking about writing such a parser yourself. Look at the source code of an XML parser (like xerces) sometime if you think it's a quick 'n easy job to whip up something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That makes sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
You're joking, right? I develop an XML editor as my living, so I'm more than passingly familiar with this topic. Generating XML is on the order of a few hundred lines of code. A proper, full XML parser is on the order of 100,000 lines of code. The xerces source code is over 300,000 lines of code - there's a reason for that - does that sound "simple" to you? Even the simplest of XML parsers (and even if you only a tiny subset of XML) is orders of magnitude more complex and time-consuming than merely generating XML, which is trivial. Sure there's "very specific documentation" - so what? Have you even looked at that specification? The full specification is large. Having "very specific documentation" for something has nothing to do with difficulty of implementation (I'm sure there's "very specific documentation" for wiring a 747 too). And a parser has to handle so many more cases than a generator. And is much more work to test. For reasonably simple cases, you can write a generator that can generate a valid fairly complex XML document in under an hour. Good luck writing a proper XML parser in under an hour for an XML document of the same complexity.
Re: (Score:2)
RAM and disk space got cheap.
Must Be East Texas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone ever realize that maybe Texas should succeed?
I bet Texas already thinks they are successful. Did you mean secede? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secede [merriam-webster.com]
Windows 7 ships without notepad (Score:2)
Saves you $100 in a blink of an eye :)
And many others (Score:2)
May as well fine Smith Corona, since a typewriter from 1970 can also edit XML with the appropriate white out fluid.
XML editing in WORD?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"$98 is too much even for Word itself! "
Why? How much did you pay for it?
Suggested retail price is $229. [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
150$ for 3 licenses for personal use [microsoft.com]
Less than that at work for the full thing, thanks to volume licensing, including a free copy for home use there too via the professional home usage program that microsoft offers. Oh, and another "free" (to some extent) license of all Office client products from the MSDN subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh.
So $98 *IS too much for Word
Re: (Score:2)
Big fat enterprise software aside(like the server versions of windows, sql server, Dynamics, etc) when purchased as single licenses, very few products of Microsoft end up being that expensive when bought correctly.
There's always a way. MSDN Subscriptions can be obtained as low as 30% retail price if bought through the proper (legal!!) channels, Exchange licenses can drop to almost free when in bulk, Office can be obtained for near free as I described, etc etc etc.
There's always a (legal!) way with MS produc
Patent awards out of sync with reality? Hardy! (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
If you had published it it would have become what's known as PRIOR ART.
Ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just ridiculous.
The patent would apply to any markup language. This is totally obvious and there are many implementations which have been around for more than 25 years.
There are several errors here.
1) the patent should not have been granted because to do something like this is obvious.
2) the court must be totally incompetent.
3) the defense must be incompetent as well.
Any database driven web page is an infringement. It doesn't need to be XML. In fact most databases have this and Oracle is an example. PostgreSQL also has tools which do this.
Any templating software does this.
This illustrates just how bad the USA patent system is.
I hope it goes to appeal and that this gets straightened out. The thing is we software developers are under attack these days We will find that the 3rd world will eventually do all our software development. I know I would not go into software development if I were back in my university days. If a person does anything of any significance they can expect to be sued. No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Defense does not necessarily need to be incompetent. As long as the accuser can demonstrate that the patent applies, defense has no choice, until the patent used itself is invalidated, which is not easy. (Remember that one-click shopping patent of Amazon).
I've only seen one recent case of Microsoft using patents against competition (FAT vs TomTom). However, every year they have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to unknown companies. Especially the Eolas case was ridiculous, and those money, unfortunate
$98 is a Bargain... (Score:2)
Perhaps this is a little poetic justice for MS's fleecing of their own customers.
eye-for-eye (Score:2)
Great name for a patent troll company suing Microsoft.
patent is not about XML editing in general (Score:2)
I believe the reason Microsoft steps on this patent is because of their XML format, which uses such nonsense. I don't see how
What pisses me off about this.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fair Play (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite how one feels against M$, this is ridiculous.
It is not fair at all and could be used against other software with similar capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not fair at all and could be used against other software with similar capabilities.
Not quite. Other companies with similar cash flow.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, the law should protect only the poor, miserable, and troubled, and punish the rich, mighty, and successful, so that everyone and everything becomes uniformly mediocre and apathetic. I'm amazed at how the pure open source ideals sometimes end up twisted in people's minds, so that they become indistinguishable from the dull communist propaganda. Surely, this is completely missing the point of the open source movement?
WTF? I was implying that suing the richest software company in the world does not necessarily mean they'll go after individuals, because it's likely not a good investment. What ideals are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people here seem happy that MS got spanked.
After the Tom-Tom suit I don't blame 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did Jurily mention open source?
Re: (Score:2)
Only? No. But it should and often does (at least in sensible systems) take into consideration the degree to which a person needs defending. If you break a guys jaw in a barfight, you'll likely spend a couple nights in a county jail and get some probation... if you break a little old lady's jaw while she's crossing the street you'll likely spend a couple years in a state prison and a felony record.
The sad truth is that in many places, the law really doesn't protect the poor, miserable and troubled, serving o
Re:Fair Play (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can we organize a virtual million man march and get the patent system fixed?
We could start a Facebook group!
Re: (Score:2)
Neither do I. However, in the end, who ends up paying $98/copy to i4i?
I'll give you a hint -- it's not Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I bet it will be their name on the check.
Oh, so Microsoft prints their own currency now?
It's called the "Vista". Until recently they had a very popular currency called the "XP", but MS ran out of^H^H^H^H wanted more USDs so they had to print more money to exchange -- but they didn't want inflation so they invented a new currency called the "Vista", symbol MSV. The people rejected the Vista and its exchange rate plummeted, so now MS is working on a new currency to replace the Vista -- currently codenamed "seven", but that probably won't be its final name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But I was not Microsoft so I laughed at the irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Big? Yes. Innocent? Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Re: (Score:2)