i4i Says OpenOffice Does Not Infringe Like MS Word 146
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "After the permanent injunction barring Microsoft from selling Microsoft Word, many armchair lawyers and pundits wondered how the ruling would affect OpenOffice. The company with the patent, i4i, believes that OpenOffice does not infringe upon it. But lest anyone think that therefore ODF will win out over OOXML, keep in mind that Microsoft has its own broad XML document patent, which issued just two weeks ago, having been filed in December 2004, and they're telling the Supreme Court to apply the Bilski ruling narrowly, so that it doesn't invalidate patents like theirs (and i4i's). After all, unlike most companies and individuals, Microsoft can afford $290 million infringement fines. Then again, given that Microsoft's new patent has only two independent claims (claim #1 and claim #12), and both of those claims 'comprise' something using an 'XML file format for documents associated with an application having a rich set of features,' maybe they wouldn't be that hard to work around if you just make sure any otherwise infringing format is only associated with an application lacking in the feature richness department."
The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course things might change when Oracle completes the purchase of Sun.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the patents will apply most everywhere in Europe. There are several agreements concerning this. You can find out more at the WIPO site [wipo.int] which lists almost all the "IP" related treaties. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the case, the law of the land of the violation (Whatever European country) will most likely prevail which could be worse or better depending on the country.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the patents will apply most everywhere in Europe.
No, they won't. EC doesn't recognize software patents :D
Under the EPC, and in particular its Article 52, "programs for computer" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
No country should recognize stand alone software patents. It's the stupidest concept ever. Software as a part of an overall invention, sure, but not algorithms or concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter. Countries who signed onto the agreements are obligated to honor the copyrights and patents of other countries whether they recognize them or not. So even though they don't particularly deal with software patents, they will have to honor another country's complaint on them.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU's stance on software patents doesn't matter. US software patents are not worth anything outside of the US, period. For that matter, patents outside of the US aren't worth anything in the US.
Patent rights aren't recognized worldwide like copyright. You have to apply for them (and have
Avoidance of upstream legal risk matters. (Score:4, Insightful)
It would not matter what a third party thinks as long as i4i thinks it is not infringing. Unlike trademarks, patents do not expire unless enforced. So i4i is within rights to sue Microsoft and not Sun.
From the perspective of a company which invests into integrating its business processes with the office software that it is using (that's the area of application where the kind of stuff that the patent talks about is relevant), it matters a lot whether you can base your work on ODF without having to fear that essential features (for your purposes) might get removed from future versions due to patent trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably there's a counter issue about future development though. The patent can be an advantage to MS in a way. If MS do settle with i4i then they will henceforth be able to implement a feature that OpenOffice (or anyone else) wont be able to. So, yes - it pains MS that they would have to pay to do something, but if they can pay and others can't then the patent has the usual effect of software patents, of closing the market with further barriers to entry and favouring established and large players.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the scene: The patent bites a programmer's fingers off when (s)he tries to implement a patented feature?
Re: (Score:2)
I was more imagining a letter from a lawyer in East Texas saying you can't sell your work anymore, actually.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike trademarks, patents do not expire unless enforced.
Wrong. Patents expire in 20 years, but can not be invalidated unless enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, parentheses. What language cannot be improved by the addition of more parentheses?
Trademarks can be lost if they are not enforced. Read the sentence "Unlike trademarks, patents do not (expire unless enforced)."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
large Open Office installations are in Europe where the patent won't apply anyway.
Actually, the U.S. patent will not apply at all in Europe, or Mexico, or China, or Japan, or anywhere else. It's strictly national. It looks like there's a Canadian patent in the family, but I don't see any others (with the caveat that I am not offering legal advice about whether or not this is patented or not in any particular country).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Unlike trademarks, patents do not expire unless enforced.
What? Patents will expire at the designated date whether you enforce them or not, they are for limited times.
Trademark rights are considered abandoned if not properly enforced.
Patents always expire exactly on the expiration date, unless found invalid by the USPTO (upon re-examination), or ruled invalid by a court in the interim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A Patent Troll is a Patent Troll and nothing they do benefits us in the long run
What does that have to do with the i4i suit?
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely nothing but Abreu apparently doesn't like to do any investigation into the small company who produced the product that Microsoft once used and then infringed upon their patent. After all it's patriotic American Microsoft versus the Evil Canuckstainian Horde (i4i) .......
Oh what the hell -- hey morons do a very little research and you'll find out the small company produced the software before Microsoft 1) approached them 2) partnered with i4i and used their work then 3) infringed on the patent
It's an attempt at Embrace Extend Extinguish .... but this time Microsoft got nailed because the i4i has a viable patent and a working product
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is AC flamebait? A lot of MS employees had spare time today, and some of them had mod points? If anyone bothers to actually read the stories surrounding the case, AC's account is quite accurate.
Embrace, extend, extinguish did in fact fail this time. The little guy in this case does not qualify as our typical patent troll.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
A corporation's only goal is to make profit via any means necessary...
MS have done their fair share of harm to other parties in the pursuit of profit, and i4i are doing exactly the same thing.
Can you honestly say that were the situations reversed, MS would not be doing exactly the same as i4i is doing, including choosing the most favorable court?
MS have plenty of patents, and have threatened to use them against various things including Linux, the reason they don't pursue an aggressive strategy is because th
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is AC flamebait?
Probably because it is just as suspicious that so "many" people are defending i4i because "they have a product". Never mind that their patent is ridiculous and they are suing in troll haven.
But i4i makes a custom XML product... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the term lawyers use isn't "patent troll" but NPE (non-practicing entity).
Under that term, i4i is, in fact, a practicing entity. That is to say, i4i makes an actual product using something like custom XML. No, i4i does not make a word processor, but Microsoft hasn't been barred from selling MS Word, only from incorporating custom XML into it. So the injunction only exists to prevent Microsoft from cannibalizing i4i's product.
Now, I do think their patent is a bit obvious and I don't like software patents in general. But if Microsoft had any sense, they would do an about-face and recant their amicus brief on Bilski, asking the Supreme Court to strike down all software patents, reducing their potential legal liability tremendously. Of course, I know they won't do that. And I don't know what deadlines are involved, so it's possible that it's too late for them to do that. But they might not be in this mess if they had seen the light and lobbied against software patents a long time ago.
And on a side note, I can't believe that there are Microsoft "partners" in this day and age who don't expect to get screwed. I wouldn't have done business with them to begin with. I can't name a single partner they haven't screwed over when given the incentive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your points. Wouldn't it take an act of Congress, rather, to change the law? I can't see the Supreme Court striking down software patents in a broad stroke.
Unfortunately, with Congress consisting mostly crooks, I can't imagine they'd do anything--you know--sensible...
Re:But i4i makes a custom XML product... (Score:4, Interesting)
The application of patents to software isn't enshrined in legislation, but instead was created by a series of court decisions and USPTO decisions.
Hence, the court has just as much power to strike down the beast as they did in creating it. Legislation would remove all ambiguity, where the supreme court is more likely to give as narrow an opinion as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! Very interesting, thank you!
That certainly sheds light on those who are arguing that MS ought to argue against software patents in court rather than pushing for specific legislation.
Why Microsoft's patent termination clause is evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Incidentally, this is why the patent termination clause in Microsoft's OOXML patent license is evil. If Microsoft clones the features of a small company's patented software program for manipulating Office files, like they did in this case, all they would have to do is add it to the subset of OOXML covered by the patent promise and hey presto: if the company sues Microsoft, then Microsoft can countersue to terminate their ability to use OOXML, effectively destroying them. Meanwhile, competitors to Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
A bit obvious? The whole point of XML is that it's customizable... er, "Extensible".
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, encapsulating metadata in markups has been around for decades. People have been doing it with SGML for a loooong time, and XML, after all, is just an SGML derivative. The patent is bullshit, but the judge is sadly too tech ignorant to realize it, and Microsoft is too scared to finally do the logical thing and begin the process of repudiating software patents.
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, of course.
i4i, however, is not now, and has not ever been a patent troll.
Unlike a patent troll, i4i produces an actual product. An actual product, which, after working with Microsoft, Microsoft unilaterally stole.
i4i is not a patent troll, unless you are trying to spin the story so that people think 'poor Microsoft'.
Hopefully, that won't work here.
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:5, Interesting)
The submitted article cites the patent owner saying it doesn't apply to ODF. Why would I care what someone who says about himself, "I am not a lawyer, and specifically not a patent lawyer. I have never spent a lot of time on learning about the intricacies of patent law" has to say on the matter at this point? In fact, why would I care even what experienced patent lawyers have to say now? Hasn't it been definitively settled by i4i's statement?
Re:The MS patent does not affect ODF. (Score:4, Interesting)
The submitted article cites the patent owner saying it doesn't apply to ODF. Why would I care what someone who says about himself, "I am not a lawyer, and specifically not a patent lawyer. I have never spent a lot of time on learning about the intricacies of patent law" has to say on the matter at this point? In fact, why would I care even what experienced patent lawyers have to say now? Hasn't it been definitively settled by i4i's statement?
What hasn't been settled by i4i's statement is the (IMO false) claim that the MS patent affects ODF more than the i4i patent does.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The patent owner may hold that opinion right now... they might not hold that opinion in the future, and until they put it into some sort of legally binding statement (which I seriously doubt they have) it doesn't mean a damned thing.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
IANAL but I believe that the term is Estoppel and it doesn't take a lawyer to put an estoppel into place either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
But the article doesn't quote anyone from i4i so the we can't be certain that ODF is clear. If i4i puts out a public relations statement or something of that sort stating that ODF does not infringe upon their patent then they have applied an estoppel to an infringement case against ODF on this particular patent.
Re: (Score:2)
If the statement clearly and definitively stated that ODF does not infringe their patent that would mean something, but such a statement is extremely unlikely to be made in any event, and would almost certainly accompanied by an aneurysm for i4i's chief legal counsel. Much more likely is a statement that ODF doesn't appear to infringe, or that they are not aware of any infringement in ODF, or that there is no plan to sue regarding infringement in ODF. The latter versions could sound an awful lot like "ODF d
Re: (Score:2)
That only holds true if nothing changes in the intervening time... you most certainly CAN sue someone for trespassing into your bedroom after inviting them into your living room, and if ODF (or OO's implementation of it)changes in any significant way that can easily invalidate any prior statements.
You also have to watch for wiggle words allowing future investigation or research to change the situation... if he said that ODF clearly does not violate i4i's patent upon thorough inspection it would severely lim
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and you're right that the Microsoft patent doesn't affect ODF, but you're missing the more significant reason why. Both independent claims have the following requirement:
wherein all of the text of the document is stored within text elements such that only the text of the document is contained between start text tags and end text tags; wherein there are no intervening tags between each of the start text tags and each of the corresponding end text tags
This means that document formats that use a HTML-like mixed content model to do their formatting aren't affected by the Microsoft patent, and that includes ODF. This isn't a coincidence; the references show the patent examiner was aware of the StarOffice/OpenOffice.org XML format that ODF was based on. It will also remain true no matte
Re: (Score:2)
you're missing the more significant reason why. Both independent claims have the following requirement:
wherein all of the text of the document is stored within text elements such that only the text of the document is contained between start text tags and end text tags; wherein there are no intervening tags between each of the start text tags and each of the corresponding end text tags
This means that document formats that use a HTML-like mixed content model to do their formatting aren't affected by the Microsoft patent, and that includes ODF.
That's a very good point; thank you for pointing this out! I've added a link to your comment at the bottom of my article under "Notes on feedback from readers [adaptux.com]".
Gold digging? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why spend money on litigation against OpenOffice if you don't get a $290 mil return on investment.
Re:Gold digging? (Score:5, Informative)
Gold digging. (Score:3, Interesting)
i4i claims to have patented the concept of storing a document's raw data and formatting data separately, rather than inline. Given that Microsoft Word's Custom XML stores its markup inline, I har
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Custom XML stores the markup inline, but the text itself is stored out-of-line.
Think about it this way: the i4i patent is on splitting the document into two parts, one of which contains just text, and a second part which contains formatting instructions and references the text by its location. With Custom XML, the first part is the custom XML file (text only, no formatting) and the second part is the document XML file (references the text in the custom XML file by full XML paths, and applies formatting to i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle still makes billions of dollars, even if Microsoft makes more than them.
Re:Gold digging? (Score:5, Insightful)
yea, openoffice is free so there is little to no money in sueing them, but microsoft there is millions in there
Sun is distributing OpenOffice, and is legally liable for any patent infringement that would be involved. Pretty soon Oracle will be legally responsible. There is plenty of money there to be gotten by a patent infringement lawsuit, if there was a case to be made. But OpenOffice simply doesn't infringe any patents on OOXML's extension mechanisms simply because ODF doesn't have any such extension mechanisms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they hired Doc Brown and have a fleet of Deloreans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you'll notice that Sun and Oracle disclaim any liability whatsoever.
Microsoft also routinely disclaims all liability that can possibly be disclaimed. So what?
No matter who wins (Score:1, Insightful)
We lose.
Re:No matter who wins (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It would be a lot funnier if it were Apple. I hate Microsoft but it seems like almost every time they're in court, I end up on their side.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think it would even more funny and ironic if it were "big patent" IBM [windowsitpro.com] (or as fake steve jobs calls em: "The Original Borg").
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup. I think it's because the patent system is inherently anti-consumer. Whether MS itself is pro- or anti-consumer doesn't seem to matter, every time they get in patent trouble it's the consumer who loses out, and usually over something that shouldn't really be patentable at all. Remember that viewing a spreadsheet as a database table thing? Where somehow it was patentable that one thing whose most obvious representation is a grid be mappable to something else whose most obvious representation is a grid. N
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you're not on the jury then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's funny. Microsoft steps right into a landmines of patents, and problems and complications seem to go off at every turn. Ironic? A little bit. Come on, it's a little funny.
Only if you find the decay of human civilizations funny. No one is immune to this nonsense and in the end innovation grinds to a halt and everything goes backwards until the current IP laws are replaced with something saner and more sustainable. In the meantime expect to see less progress on everything from things that make you
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you find the decay of human civilizations funny.
Hey, somebody discovered the slippery slope fallacy!
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery phallusy what?
Oh shucks, that's a'nuher one of 'em homophones!
(Not to be confused with a homonym which, at least according to the linguists, must share both the same pronunciation and spelling. Silly linguists!)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, somebody discovered the Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy. That is to say, the "slippery slope fallacy" states that just because we have stepped closer to the cliff edge, doesn't mean we'll take further steps. The "slippery slope fallacy fallacy" states that just because we haven't proven the additional steps will be taken, doesn't mean we haven't just reduced the number of steps needing to be taken to reach the cliff edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, somebody discovered the slippery slope fallacy!
Hey, somebody discovered that if they cryptically accuse the other person of a logical error without any kind of backing to the accusation, they can avoid the issue altogether!
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically I am listening soundtrack of Fallout 3
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that's how The Adventures of Superman radio show undermined the Klan:
http://www.ferris.edu/JIMCROW/question/july09/ [ferris.edu]
Rich feature set (Score:2)
if you just make sure any otherwise infringing format is only associated with an application lacking in the feature richness department
Any XML document is associated with the feature "poorest" application imaginable; the plain text editor. Perhaps a text editor with UTF-16 support or such, but still something that handles characters and nothing else.
Re: (Score:1)
Any XML document is associated with the feature "poorest" application imaginable; the plain text editor.
I am looking at you, EMACS!
Apply Bilski forcefully with unilaterally (Score:5, Insightful)
What does XML have to do with anything? Microsoft's XML based office format notwithstanding, XML is a text-based data storage and interchange format. Putting things in a container to make them easy to store and transport cannot possibly be non-obvious or novel. Can I get a patent on storing the Amero in a billfold (digital or otherwise)?
For all the talk about improving patent quality, the patent holders real colors come out when they start challenging Bilski.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bilski only dealt with 'method' claims. The 1st set of claims 'system' claims were not discussed by Bilski.
Bilski dealt with 101, whether certain methods qualified as patentable subject matter. Bilski has nothing to do with obviousness or novelty (sections 103 and 102 of 35 U.S.C the laws dealing with patents)
Hard to believe... (Score:4, Funny)
Although, that quote is oddly applicable, as blind (along with lame, deaf, and dumb) is more or less the result of the ongoing software patent trends.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone, just the bad guys.
Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking, you mean.
Re:Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Microsoft. "Telling" more accurately connotes their arrogant attitude when dealing with such petty nuisances as the U.S. Court system.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not telling the court to apply Bilski narrowly, its telling the court its opinion of what the best approach to the law is. It is asking the court to act on that understanding, though the request is implicit in an amicus brief, whereas it would be explicit in filing by a party.
"Telling" is the correct verb, if its follo
Someone doesn't quite understand patents (Score:5, Interesting)
This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Microsoft will be allowed to continue shipping Word.
i4i is entirely within their right not to license the patent to Microsoft, even if/after Microsoft pays the fines and damages.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The big question is how will this affect "office ready" and/or volume license users. IIRC with the java issue MS stopped shipping media for versions with the MSJVM included but customers who already had media were still allowed to install them under the downgrade rights of newly purchased volume licenses (and third parties shipping software made with MS technology could still offer the redistributable).
Will that be the case here or are we likely to end up with a situation where IT departments have to carefu
Bilski bites both ways (Score:3, Informative)
> and they're telling the Supreme Court to apply the
> Bilski ruling narrowly, so that it doesn't
> invalidate patents like theirs
Microsoft is in a bit of a bind here. Even raising Bilski arguments puts their patent in question as well as providing ammunition for any future challenges of Microsoft patents.
Their best bet is to pretend they never heard of Bilski and find other grounds for their challenge, or just license i4i's technology to preserve their own claims.
A pox on both their houses.
I just can't believe (Score:1, Interesting)
all the shills here still trying to call I4i a patent troll. It's been proven conclusively that they do not fit the definition, and they have said their patent isn't violated by ODF, yet the same old lies just keep on coming.
I can't believe the lack of ethics and outright lying that goes on here. I'd have to hide my head in shame if I were caught in the lies being told here. Yet, here are shills still trumpeting their crap.
It's no wonder the US is going down the tubes and our society is collapsing as thi
Re: (Score:2)
all the shills here still trying to call I4i a patent troll.
...
Go read about how Rome's, and every other major civilization's, society crumbled and you'll see the same exact types of behavior......
Wow. Here I thought this was just a simple patent dispute. I never realized that the very future of western civilization is hanging in the balance!
Good... (Score:1)
What is non-custom XML? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I just completely fail to understand about this patent (i4i's patent I mean) is the words "custom XML". I keep seeing this term "custom XML" as part of its claims. But XML stands for the eXtensible Markup Language. It was designed to be customised. I don't understand,
What leap of logic am I missing here? (Having, obviously, not read the patent.)
Re: (Score:2)
Custom XML is just a marketing term (Score:1)
i4i's patent is here [google.com]. customXML is just the name of the infringing feature in Microsoft Word, which is why it's referenced as such in the judgment. It's part of the OOXML specification, as well (not that anyone but Microsoft uses that).
In other words, 'customXML' is just a name for a particular way of using XML. It does NOT mean that every way of customizing XML has been patented (though I'm sure there are people trying to do that...).
In a related note, I wish that people would stop saying that Microsoft
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
All of this simply reinforces, at least to me, the idiocy of software patents. They are great for companies or individuals to make money, but bad for the intellectual side of the software development industry because they stifle innovation. I don't think you are missing anything at all and saw the issue very clearly - some patent holder wants money, period. It's very sad this happens, but people and companies arre greedy and so here we are.
Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no money in enforcing a patent against Open Office, so we won't sue you. Should you start making a lot of money, we'll get back to you with our updated policy.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no money in enforcing a patent against Open Office, so we won't sue you.
Particularly when "you" (ODF) in fact don't violate our patent, and have nothing in your standard that is even analogous to our patent.
Should you start making a lot of money, we'll get back to you with our updated policy.
Good luck with that. See above.
actual explanation (Score:5, Informative)
This piece by Amy Wohl [typepad.com] is the only writing on this subject that comes remotely close to explaining what is going on.
In short, i4i's patent only covers some specific use of XML that is only widely used in the medical field. Microsoft is violating that particular patent.
i4i is apparently not claiming that they own a patent against all of XML or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we all know that. The issue is claiming that somehow because you encapsulate some customized extensible data into a markup language (in this case XML) that somehow or other you have this unique invention. It isn't unique. It's been a notional part of markup languages for the better part of four decades.
Solution (Score:2)
1.Serialize ODF into JSON instead of XML
2.Laugh at both "office documents serialized into xml" patent trolls
3.profit
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there's an easier and more effective way to avoid them than that - just serialise the document into XML in the obvious way, and don't change ODF at all.
Yes, seriously. The i4i patent fairly clearly excludes normal XML document formats from the patented subject matter - it includes SGML-based document formats in its description of the state of the art on which it improves, and XML is basically just a simplified and cleaned-up version of SGML.
As for the Microsoft patent, that only covers XML documen
In other words.... (Score:1)
it's one of two things, either i4i is holding off suing them since the windfall from MS, or they think OpenOffice doesn't have the cash to make the extortion worthwhile.
Telling? (Score:2)
Microsoft Patent No Defense to i4i (Score:2)
It has been suggested in various writings that the newly issued Microsoft patent on an XML-based document would somehow resolve Microsoft's woes against i4i. This is most unlikely. A patent grants only rights to exclude others from practicing a claimed invention, and creates no right at all to practice the claimed invention. It is quite possible to obtain a patent governing a novel and unobvious variation of an existing patented technology. While the second patent would grant its owner the right to excl
Re:What about notepad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you may be overreacting a bit. Whether the patent is valid or not (an appellate decision might prove that it is not), it certainly isn't as broad in scope as you are suggesting. Microsoft may end up having to remove some infrequently used functionality from Word, but the software industry as we know it is not going to come to an end because of this injunction.
Before characterizing the courts as completely clueless, you might want to go through the court's memorandum opinion and order [uscourts.gov] (PACER registration required, but no cost for this document) denying Microsoft's motion for judgment as a matter of law. It is a detailed memorandum (65 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt font) that gives quite a bit of detail as to why the judge decided to uphold the jury's verdict. Go through it and decide for yourself whether the evidence and arguments presented by Microsoft were so convincing that no reasonably jury would have found for i4i.
Cute, but seriously, take a closer look at what the real issues are in this case. If you don't try to understand the facts that drive a particular case, your arguments regarding the law and the way courts apply it will sound more like pseudoscience [skepdic.com] than science. Good science is based on facts. Good legal arguments are based on facts too.
Re: (Score:2)
:) No. It is a PDF. Of course, there is a good chance that it was originally drafted in Word (although the judge probably did not use the CustomXML features at issue in this case).
Re: (Score:2)
No...patent scope. Notepad, older versions of Word, etc. don't have technologies built into them that could be considered infringing. If they did, then those that pre-dated the invention could have been used as prior art to invalidate the patent (Microsoft in fact had argued unsuccessfully that a bookmarking feature in a previous version of Word anticipated the i4i patent).
You can't effectively talk about a patent's scope without looking at t
Re: (Score:2)
...Should they ever become a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporate behemoth we will revisit the situation.
You mean like Sun, and soon Oracle?
Just because a product is free doesn't mean the company responsible isn't loaded to the gills with $billions.
Oracle doesn't have as many $billions as Microsoft has, sure, but they still have $billions. That Open Office is open makes it a choice target if it does, in fact, infringe on any patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they win a one time judgement but that's not their current strategy with MS. Their current strategy is to stop the shipments and try to force negotiations for patent license fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Sun does not own Open Office and soon Oracle will continue to not own it.
Re: (Score:2)
"And workers in Sun can be sued as Sun employees because they are officially working on OOo as Sun employees."
Good luck with that. Since when has an employee been successfully sued for patent infringement?