Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Patents The Courts

Microsoft Pulls Office From Its Own Online Store 127

CWmike writes "Microsoft has pulled almost every version of Office from its own online store to comply with a court order requiring it to remove custom XML technology from its popular Word software that starts on Monday. As of mid-day, the only edition available from the Microsoft Store was Office Ultimate 2007, a $670 'full-version' suite. All other Windows editions, as well as Office 2008 for Mac, were accompanied by the message: 'This product is currently unavailable while we update versions on our site. We expect it to be available soon.' Microsoft confirmed that the disappearance of Office was related to the injunction that came out of a patent infringement case the company lost in 2009. 'We've taken steps to comply with the court's ruling and we're introducing the revised software into the US market," said Michael Croan, a senior marketing manager, in an e-mail. He also downplayed the move. 'This process will be imperceptible to the vast majority of customers, who will find both trial and purchase options readily available.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Pulls Office From Its Own Online Store

Comments Filter:
  • wheres the news (Score:3, Informative)

    by sopssa ( 1498795 ) * <> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @03:40AM (#30734216) Journal

    I'm always up for a good bashing, but eh what? It was already decided in court that MS was violating the patent (which imo is stupid, btw). They were required to stop selling Word, and now they comply. Whats the news here? That MS complied to laws and judge orders?

    Also, how is that "downplaying the move"? They probably worked on non-infringing Word version for long time already and are replacing it soon. In fact;

    Microsoft has posted updates for both Word 2003 and Word 2007 to its download site and told customers in accompanying support documents that those updates are mandatory "only if you have been instructed to do so in a separate communication from Microsoft." The company has also committed to revamping Word 2008 for Mac and Word 2004 for Mac, even though those versions were not named in the injunction.

    In the meantime, Microsoft also told potential customers that they can download the free beta of Office 2010, the next-generation suite slated for a June release.

  • Re:Bad comparison. (Score:3, Informative)

    by icebike ( 68054 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @05:43AM (#30734752)

    You need your reading glasses too, if you haven't found the spell checker in

  • by cenc ( 1310167 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @08:51AM (#30735770) Homepage

    By William Henry Gates III

    February 3, 1976

    An Open Letter to Hobbyists

    To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

    Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

    The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

    Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

    Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

    What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

    I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.

    Bill Gates

    General Partner, Micro-Soft

  • Contractual Silence (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @09:23AM (#30736012)

    I know from experience at least one training firm that had a contractual requirement in their dealings with Microsoft to not mention free software.

    They are afraid of the news from great free software.

    Personal pref is Open Office but Abiword is worth your attention too.

  • by sorak ( 246725 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @10:46AM (#30736942)

    Would you want to do business with someone who just sued you? They are using this to encourage people to test drive the 2010 beta, and have no reason to throw any more money at i4i.

  • Re: here$ the new$ (Score:3, Informative)

    by IANAAC ( 692242 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @10:48AM (#30736968)

    Do you work in an IT related field? Because I do not. And I do not know anybody (at work) that has even heard of openoffice. In fact, I do not think it would even occur to most of those people that there might even exist another "office" solution.

    I think it would probably depend more on what you actually use an office package for in your work.

    I, along with my colleagues, have either a .doc, .xls or .ppt file open all day to work on. Most of us are self-employed as well - the PP got it right that many of us are indeed looking for the cheapest way to get our work done (it's not the only thing we look for, but, yeah, it's important).

    There are currently two packages that I can think of that everyone I work with knows about and would consider good enough to work with: Open office and Softmaker's line of products.

  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @05:45PM (#30743184) Homepage

    The infringing source is of course a composite, with thousands of contributors, rather than one. The underlying reality of that, is that it is a composite of code modules that creates the perceived infringement (only in countries with software patents) not any of the individual modules, as each module has a specific range of non infringing functions and it is only when combined, in effect compiled and the application assembled, that infringement occurs. Whilst I made not have contributed any code, does that mean lawyers will attempt to sue me for compiling, others peoples code and creating the final application (amongst the millions of others), bearing in mind that I am also free to distribute the completed applications as log as I adhere to the FOSS licences ie. make available the underlying non infringing components.

  • Re:Bad comparison. (Score:3, Informative)

    by icebike ( 68054 ) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @08:13PM (#30744956)

    Press F7, click options, select your dictionaries, check boxes for spellcheck as you type.

    I think your experience with OO is PEBCAK related.

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351