Federal Court Grants Microsoft Expedited Appeal 88
patentpundit writes "On Friday, August 21, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Microsoft an expedited appeal of its patent infringement loss to i4i Limited Partnership. On August 11, 2009, Microsoft lost a $300 million judgment for infringing the XML patents of i4i by selling Word. Microsoft was given 60 days to stop selling Word, or implement work arounds that did not utilize the infringed technology. Microsoft filed an emergency appeal with the Federal Circuit, and requested a stay of the permanent injunction that will force them to stop selling work 60 days from August 11, 2009. The Federal Circuit granted an expedited oral argument, which will take place on September 23, 2009. Microsoft requested an administrative stay of the permanent injunction, which was denied, and then filed a petition to stay the injunction pending appeal. i4i has until August 25, 2009, to respond to Microsoft's request to stay the injunction pending appeal."
If they get hit enough like that... (Score:2, Interesting)
they might help reform the patent system
Re: (Score:2)
What you say is perfectly true. But, if/when the courts get fed up with refereeing the "corporate wars", then the courts may well strike down the whole software patent idea. (Yes, lawyers can find a way to do that, and courts are POPULATED with lawyers)
Whether that scenario ever happened or not, corporations will lose tons of money to the corporate wars. MS knows that, as well as every other company out there that holds patents. They don't WANT a corporate patent war, which is made obvious by all the ou
Re:If they get hit enough like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, they've been trying to do everything but. So far, their defense strategy has been to attempt to paint i4i as a patent troll who never had a product, and therefore should not have been granted a patent. That's kind of silly considering that i4i actually does have a product, and if you look at the screenshot on this page describing one of their products [i4i.com], it's apparent that they have had an implementation of their patent for quite a while (Word 2000 is pictured).
So far, they haven't actually attacked the patent because doing so might invalidate one or more of their own patents. They haven't attacked the patent system or any patent laws not only because they have considerable resources invested in that patent system, but because any change in the patent system really needs to happen at the legislative level and it really isn't likely that a court is going to invalidate the entire patent system.
As much as I'd like to see Microsoft directly attack the patent system itself and fight for patent reform, I just don't think it's going to happen in a court room, and I don't see Microsoft fighting a system in earnest that they have profited so much from.
And I don't blame them. It isn't up to them to bring about patent reform. It's ultimately up to We, The People.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't up to them to bring about patent reform.
So M$ is owned and run by aliens now?
They are people and have just as much responsibility as anybody to try and fix the system. More so because they have financial clout and the ears of legislature.
Or to put it another way: being part of a company doesn't give the people involved a mystical get-out-of-jail free card to be irresponsible or unethical.
Re:If they get hit enough like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Or to put it another way: being part of a company doesn't give the people involved a mystical get-out-of-jail free card to be irresponsible or unethical."
I disagree. We, the people of the west, have allowed our governments and corporations to turn the ideals of free market action into an unholy marriage between all three arms of government and the powerful elite of the private sector. We have allowed powerful members of industry and government to usurp the right to do anything they want, so long as they can afford lawyers to justify their actions, ethical or otherwise. Don't like it? Sorry, it's a two party system, and both parties play the same game. You want real change? Sorry, you won't get it by voting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't like it? Sorry, it's a two party system, and both parties play the same game. You want real change? Sorry, you won't get it by voting.
Ever heard of the 1960s? We got real change then, and what it required was grass roots efforts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
As do I, but I prefer a...less bloody solution. OTOH, sometimes I doubt we'll get one.
Re: (Score:2)
"Or to put it another way: being part of a company doesn't give the people involved a mystical get-out-of-jail free card to be irresponsible or unethical."
I disagree. We, the people of the west, have allowed our governments and corporations to turn the ideals of free market action into an unholy marriage between all three arms of government and the powerful elite of the private sector. We have allowed powerful members of industry and government to usurp the right to do anything they want, so long as they can afford lawyers to justify their actions, ethical or otherwise. Don't like it? Sorry, it's a two party system, and both parties play the same game.
The west != the US. Though I feel your pain and would like for you to have a more citizen-influenced system, it is good to know that there are countries with systems that do give that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or to put it another way: being part of a company doesn't give the people involved a mystical get-out-of-jail free card to be irresponsible or unethical.
Oh really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_veil [wikipedia.org]
Time for a 'new XML', perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
i4i may have 'a product', but really isn't anything particularly incredible ... it's basically just XML authoring via parsed-back transformed output. Whoopty-do - this is something quite basic and that could and should become commonplace in many, many different applications in future. A 'product' does not make a patent-able invention. Microsoft may be abusing the system, but i4i is worse, they're still behaving like a blatant patent troll, probably because their 'product' just isn't special anymore. We're just talking about a fight between two unethical companies ... much as I can't stand Microsoft, i4i is even worse here - they're actually *doing* what Microsoft so far has only had the veiled threat of doing via their patents.
Now the real problem with all this (as well as MS's own patents on XML-based word processing) is that it has destroyed the entire purpose of XML. XML was adopted by industry as a counter-measure to the many proprietary binary "lock-in" formats of the 80s and 90s. Initially it seemed like it was going to serve this purpose, but XML is now so ridiculously over-encumbered with bogus, obvious patents that it's impossible to create any "serious" useful new XML-based applications without infringing patents. In other words, industry has succeeded in making XML the "new" proprietary lock-in format.
MS and i4i will both continue to make reams of money relative to their sizes. The real losers here are the general public, customers of the IT industry, and potential small-business competitors/entrepreneurs.
Time for a new "XML"? This time, with a stipulation in the licensing that no patents may be made over the format.
Poetic justice (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, Microsoft didn't just come up with customXML on its own, they "partnered" with i4i, learned all about their product, then copied what they wanted from it and shafted i4i. While I do NOT like software patents and think they should be abolished, I'm not really going to defend Microsoft here. They're getting a bit of poetic justice, IMHO.
Granted, I would like this lawsuit to instead concern whatever contracts Microsoft had with i4i instead of patent law (claims which aren't worth pursuing w
Re: (Score:2)
But as long as they do exist, I can think of nothing better to happen than for their biggest proponents to get shafted by one of the patents.
The problem is that even when companies like MS get "shafted" by the patent system, they still overall come out ahead by using and abusing that system - and as long as they overall come out ahead (and they will - like I said, I'm sure both MS and i4i will make truckloads of money in the coming years), then they remain satisfied with the system, and the public continues to lose.
In fact, it's nothing new for big companies like MS to get "shafted" by this system --- consider, for example, the reason that Micro
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If they get hit enough like that..THE PROB HERE (Score:2)
The problem is that We (Most of) The People don't have a clue on why this should matter to us.
cynical (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:cynical (Score:4, Informative)
They seem to have been caught directly lifting code from someone else's stuff who was relying on that to make money and putting it into their own.
They have been accused of patent-infringement. That means that even the patent holders aren't accusing MS of stealing code directly. Had that been the case, MS would have been accused of copyright infringement as well.
Muddying the differences between patents, copyright, and trademark is part of the reason why debates about "intellectual property" is often confused.
Re:cynical (Score:5, Informative)
First, they have been found GUILTY of willful patent infringement, not just accused. Second, if you would actually take the time to read about what MS did [theglobeandmail.com] instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction "Ooh patents are bad!" and comprehend it, you'll see that MS approached i4i about working together on national security issues and then STOLE THEIR CODE.
The only person muddying the waters here is you, because you are trying to paint MS' actions in a decent light, when they are clearly, clearly in the wrong. I can only think that i4i went to court under patent law instead of copyright infringement because they thought it was a more open and shut case. That or, the MS Office programmers were smart enough to cover their tracks and that copyright infringement wasn't possible to prove unequivocally.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No need to jump on my throat, pal. Had my reaction been knee-jerk, it would have had a bit more emotional outburst.
First, they have been found GUILTY of willful patent infringement, not just accused.
I stand corrected.
you'll see that MS approached i4i about working together on national security issues and then STOLE THEIR CODE.
I didn't really see that claim in the article you linked to. I might have missed it though as I didn't read it thoroughly. The closest thing to stealing anything, as mentioned in the article, was about MS "pinching the technology".
The only person muddying the waters here is you, because you are trying to paint MS' actions in a decent light, when they are clearly, clearly in the wrong.
You are reading too much into what I wrote. Nowhere did I hint that the actions of MS were justified. Hell, I didn't even hint that patents were a b
Re:cynical (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think that operating in and earning billions from a foreign market shouldn't be reason to be subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign market?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he was really saying that. Being subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign market is fine in principle, but is totally independent of whether or not that jurisdiction is ethical and valid. Sure a foreign market can impose conditions, but not just any old conditions they like - nor should such conditions be above criticism if they are unethical themselves. As an extreme example, just to demonstrate the point, they might stipulate that the CEO must sacrifice his first-born child --- if someone at
Re: (Score:2)
Again (presuming you're the same person), I made absolutely no such claim. In fact, I made no value judgments about anything at all. I don't know enough about the Europe MS ruling to do so. I only commented on the structure of the argument made by jmac_the_man, and the argumentally structural incorrectness of the reply by MrNaz. Read again, you'll see.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure a foreign market can impose conditions, but not just any old conditions they like
In that case foreign countries don't have sovereignty then, since someone (you?) gets veto rights over what market regulations they may impose. There are countries that have laws I find reprehensible. I have the choice to not go there or go and argue those laws in the courts of that country. If you choose the court option you have no grounds for complaint should the ruling not go your way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, Apple, commercial Linux distros (i.e. the ones that have assets that can be seized), and every other player in the OS market would be forced to provide the choice to ONLY have one browser installed
Those other OS'es are not monopolies.
In this case, the "They're a convicted monopoly" argument is a ton of BS. (Specifically, a metric ton.) EVERY Operating System comes with the official browser of the people who made the operating system. Apple comes with Safari by default. Debian comes with Iceweasel. A KDE 3.5 system comes with Konqueror. ChromeOS will include Chrome.
None of those OS'es are monopolies. Only Windows is a monopoly, and it's illegal to use your monopoly in one are to gain monopoly in another area.
By the way, the complaint was brought by Opera, which is a European company.
So what? Most fines EU mandates for antitrust-violations are targetted at European companies.
The only reason the EU took this case was to benefit a European company at the expense of an American one.
That's a load of bullshit. Most fines and remedies EU mandates are targetted against European companies, not American,
Oh, and they get to tax the American company.
Don't be a retard. Oh wait, too late for that....
Re: (Score:2)
The European "You have to provide a choice of web browsers" decision was really just a tax on a non-European company
If you actually bothered to check your facts, you would find out that most fines that EU hands down to companies for antitrust-violations are targeted at EUROPEAN companies. Of course those cases are not widely reported in USA, so drooling retards like you get the idea that EU is just bullying innocent American companies, while letting European companies do whatever they please.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
They didn't lift code from i4i. It appears you can't see past your hatred of Microsoft.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your right this is slashdot, also home to some of the worlds biggest Microsoft fanboy's, and/or possibly astoturfers.
What you missed in all this was that you are confusing Copyright and a patent. So here is where you are going off.
1. Patents cover ideas.
2. Copyrights cover the specific use of language.
To infringe on a patent you do not have to copy anything but the idea. It doesn't matt
Re:cynical (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats an even more complex explanation of patent vs copyright. I seriously doubt those that cant even get that patents dont cover words will get that. I was trying to explain that patents cover, say for the sake of explaining, the idea of a scrollbar in a browser, vs the way its coded. Not that thats what this patents covered.
Re: (Score:2)
That is misleading. Patents do not just cover random ideas. I can't just patent teleporters right now because I thought of them. Generally the methodology behind how the system works is what is patented so that other similar ideas can still be generated without violating patents. So patents are about the 'code' or methodology used to accomplish something, not just the idea. In order to patent a teleporter I would need to patent a specific way of teleportation and if someone else came up with a differen
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the wording of the patent. If I use consists of, yes specific things need to be there. If I use includes, it may only be one of the things I describe. Also patents on mechanical devices are quite different in there requirements that software or business patents. A device would indeed cover a specific "thing" needed to implement an idea. But in software specific coding is not needed. For that we have copyright, there is no copyright for devices.
Dont think I am for patents, or giving a all inc
M$ Fanboy (Re:cynical) (Score:1)
Lifting code? Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a patent case. A software patent case. A software patent *is* a dirty trick, and the target of the dirty trick in this case is Microsoft.
Haven't you ever seen one of those movies where the villains fall out with each other and there's a shootout in the hideout? Just because Microsoft's got a bad track record with software patents that doesn't mean the other guy isn't ALSO scum.
Re:Lifting code? Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They partnered with i4i until they learned enough about the code, then kicked i4i in the butt and came out with their own implementation.
This is worse than when M$ accuses Wine/Samba etc for 'cloning' their products.
Wine/Samba etc coders didn't have the chance to READ and STUDY the original code.
Re:Lifting code? Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, the standard Microsoft behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Got a link for that? (Score:1, Flamebait)
They partnered with i4i until they learned enough about the code, then kicked i4i in the butt and came out with their own implementation.
ORLY. Got a link? All of the stories about this I've found read like it's just another patent troll incident.
Re: (Score:2)
i4i is not a patent troll, since they have a product called x4o since at least 2003: http://www.i4i.com/x4o.htm [i4i.com].
Here is an archive from the same page in February 2003: http://web.archive.org/web/20030207000848/http://www.i4i.com/x4o.htm [archive.org]
It seems their technology began in 1998:
http://web.archive.org/web/19981206121641/http://www.i4i.com/ [archive.org]
Extract:
S4 Toolkit for Microsoft Word!
A Head Start for your XML/SGML Development Team
Schedule a NetMeeting Demo Today!
Their first released product dates from 1999.
You can chec
Re:Got a link for that? And also... (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks for the links... (Score:2)
Thanks for the links (you, eulernet, and the ACs as well).
This is the first case I've seen where a software patent might actually be working the way it's supposed to... and I've been following the subject since the early '80s when the Hayes patent was screwing up the whole modem market. So you got to understand why I'm a little skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they worked with i4i long enough to realize their patent was pretty thoroughly covered by prior art, considering their "invention" is a method of separating data from metadata describing the formatting, styling, etc, of the data.
It looks like if this patent holds up, they could hold the online world at gunpoint and demand everyone who uses CSS to pay up. I'm sure OpenOffice applies too, because it supports XML based styling and the like.
The really, really funny thing about this case is it has brought out
Re: (Score:2)
Clearer?
Re: (Score:2)
They are a patent troll because:
(a.) It's obvious to an expert in the craft. People have been executing this patent's claims for years.
(b.) It's a software patent.
(c.) There is tremendous prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Software patents are the primary factor keeping me out of trying to make money for my software. Trolls have it so easy. So, I wish Microsoft the best of luck in this situation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It will never happen, both of those companies have arsenals of patents at their disposal. They cross license them against potential opposition. Having a huge portfolio of patents means anyone suing them will undoubtedly infringe one of their own. You can bet your bottom dollar MS are trawling through their stack looking for something i4i have infringed. MS merely need to delay and delay some more, sooner or later they'll find what they want and force cross licensing or i4i having to face being sued themselv
Re: (Score:2)
Having a huge portfolio of patents means anyone suing them will undoubtedly infringe one of their own
No it doesn't. Lots of companies own patents but don't produce anything. It's becoming standard practice now to file a patent, sell it to a spin-off, and then license it back. The spin-off doesn't produce anything, so they can go after anyone they like and not worry that they might be infringing other patents. In this case, i4i actually does produce something, but they're becoming an exception.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Ignore Anti MS Rhetoric (Score:4, Funny)
...XML patents should not be valid. There is no invention in XML. Software patents are stupid....
Ha ! Wait until you see my implementation of EMACS using nothing but XSLT !
Re:Ignore Anti MS Rhetoric (Score:5, Funny)
# apt-get pussy
E: Invalid operation pussy
# apt-get install pussy
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Suggested packages:
tits
The following packages will be REMOVED
penis
The following NEW packages will be installed
pussy
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? ^C^C^C
#
Phew!
Re:Ignore Anti MS Rhetoric (Score:4, Informative)
If you read the patent, you will realise that is isn't patenting XML.
It's "Patenting a system for how to do" a certain thing in XML (actually SGML, but there's no different. That's why Office violates, and OpenOffice doesn't violate. It's the custom XML feature in Office, which isn't actually XML.
Algorithm patents are stupid too (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with patents is that there are no provisions for cases where two people invent the same thing independently, which is a very common situation. If 10 inventors are all trying to solve the same problem, and all working independently, the patent system guarantees that the work of 9 of those inventors will be in vain. The constitution was written to mitigate this problem by excluding math and science; ultimately, software is a form of math, and should therefore be entirely excluded from the patent system on constitutional grounds.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The constitution explicitly excludes scientific and mathematical discoveries from the patent system, and algorithms are mathematics, through and through.
No, it doesn't. The words "scientific and mathematical discovers" are found nowhere in the Constitution. Maybe you're confused about what the word "explicitly" means.
The problem with patents is that there are no provisions for cases where two people invent the same thing independently, which is a very common situation.
Actually, there are many provisions, from rejections under 35 USC 102a, b, and g, and provisions for Interference actions, specifically dealing with cases where two people invent the same thing independently.
If 10 inventors are all trying to solve the same problem, and all working independently, the patent system guarantees that the work of 9 of those inventors will be in vain.
Yes... And how does that happen? Obviously, there must be provisions that make the work of 9 of those inventors in vain. So, your earlier
Software is NOT a form of math (Score:4, Interesting)
Software is just a step-by-step instruction list. It's is no more a form of math than is a cookbook. You could give instructions that make software "do" math, but that doesn't make it math any more than a student "is" math when using a calculator.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all maths. Physics, Language, Music, Philosophy, Reality, Dreams, Fantazy... It may not look like it at first sight, but in some sense everything that can be said to be can be described in terms of mathematics.
The implication is that patents is a poor way to try to stimulate consumption of goods and services with positive externalities.
Yes it is! And here's the proof! (Score:2)
> Software is just a step-by-step instruction list. It's is no more a form of math than is a cookbook.
You might want to look up Curry-Howard correspondence [haskell.org] someday.
Not only is software math, there's an equivalence theorem relating the two. If that were not the case, the people over at MetaMath [metamath.org] wouldn't be able to get very far.
In other words, that statement isn't just wrong, it's provably wrong and you'll have to prove the Curry-Howard correspondence wrong before you can claim otherwise. One of the weir
Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think MSFT will just happily eat that judgment and not raise prices one single penny?
I'm still not seeing how this is bad for me. Either they lobby against software patents, or they put their prices up and push more people away from their products. Both of these options sound good to me.
i4i (Score:2, Funny)
The only possible good thing .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Microsoft has apparently threatened to stop selling Microsoft Office entirely [dailytech.com], if the patent is allowed to stand.
That'd be an interesting gambit.
"We broke the rules, didn't adhere to the law, we're too big to fail so now the government has to step in and allow us to break the rules anyway. You know - like all the banks."
Re: (Score:1)
Expedited Appeal (Score:2)
If there was ever a reason to allow Texas to leave the union it is because of the far out of the norm patent case decisions coming out of that East Texas district court.