Judge Bars Sale Of Microsoft Word For Patent Infringement (Though It Won't Stick)

from the nice-work dept

Just last week, plenty of tech publications were up in arms over the news that Microsoft had apparently secured a patent on XML word processing documents (patent 7,571,169). Of course, when you live by software patents, expect to die by software patents... as a judge (in East Texas of course) has now issued an injunction against Microsoft, barring the sale of Microsoft Word because it infringes on a patent that involves (you guessed it) XML word processing documents.

The judgment against Microsoft in this case actually isn't new. We wrote about it and the $200 million judgment back in May, noting how insane it was that the company holding the patent, i4i, felt that it deserved $98 for every copy of Microsoft Word ever sold. For what? Its patent, 5,787,449, is about XML editing of a word processed document. How that could be worth $98 per copy of Word is beyond me. Actually, how it's patentable at all is beyond me... but that's another story.

Of course, there's about 0% probability that this will actually stop the sales of Word, but it's ridiculous for Judge Leonard Davis to issue this injunction in the first place. As he well knows, the Supreme Court ruled in the MercExchange case that injunctions often don't make sense in patent infringement cases. In that case, the Supreme Court says that a judge should weigh a variety of factors in determining if an injunction is reasonable. From the actual injunction, there's no evidence at all that the judge weighed anything at all. However, he gave Microsoft 60 days to comply, which is ample time for Microsoft to appeal the injunction, and in such cases it's quite common for the appeals court to stay the injunction.

But, honestly, the whole thing shows (yet again) how screwed up the patent system has become. The fact that a judge would ban all sales of Microsoft Word because it can edit an XML document? And that's on top of a $200 million award for infringing on this patent? How can anyone think that's a sane outcome?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 2:47am

    I think the judge is doing it for his own self-interest (more patent cases for Texas) and should be jailed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Frosty840, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 3:07am

    Re:

    I can't honestly see any other rational explanation.
    Sure, there's an offchance that Microsoft's lawyers sat around and drooled for the whole case, but I'm pretty damn sure that they'd want to have pointed out that this guy can't actually patent the concept of editing a file format that someone else invented...
    Or can he? Is the system really that bad?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Big Al, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 4:43am

    Re: Re:

    If MS can get a patent (7,571,169 mentioned above) on using XML for what it's intended to be used for (a text mark-up language i.e. document formatting) then why can't i4i enforce THEIR patent (5,787,449 - Ha ha, got there first) on using XML for what it's intended to be used for?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 4:46am

    Couldn't care less

    As an avid Linux and OS X user, anything that hurts Microsoft is either a)funny or b)good.
    I would not put this under the b category, but it defiantly a.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    slacker525600 (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 4:50am

    None of this makes sense

    But that is what happens when you have people reviewing patents with no insight into the technology behind them. And when you have courts ruling on systems that they do not understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 4:57am

    Ignoring the "who" in the case, let's look at the legal realities.

    Company A makes a product that infringes the patent of Company B. Company B gets a ruling, which company A ignores. What is the next step?

    The next step is clearly to get the sales of the product stopped, as they are infringing and unlicensed.

    WHile you may or may not like the patent(s) in question in this scenerio, the reality is they company is doing what they are suppose to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Clevername, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 5:13am

    Ha

    It is funny that the company name is i4i.
    I can't wait for the next case which involves a company named tooth4tooth.

    Oh and btw, can I still use vi to edit xml ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    topspeed (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 5:46am

    Hate DOCX

    If this will prevent the use of the DOCX format then I'm all for it. MS tends to force useless file format changes which, in the corporate world, on messes-up the ability to share information. This can be helped with add-ons from MS but the non-MS products which read only DOC formats are useless. This ends-up costing companies many millions.

    Well done i4i, I hope this will either shake-up the retarded US patent laws or make Microsoft eat its own dog food.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Patent Whire, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 6:05am

    Time to Patent

    I serious need to patent the idea of using a device that has a processor and some sort of input device to create output.

    I think that should cover just about every modern device... then I can get a judgement to stop the sell of EVERY electronic device!

    BAHAHA!

    The world won't know what to do. There will be chaos and turmoil.

    The World Will Look Up and Shout "Save Us!"

    And I'll whisper... "No."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    AC, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 6:09am

    Re:

    Guess what kind of shirt I'm never going to buy because of stupid advertising spam? That's right: the ed hardy kind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Spectere (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 6:34am

    Hey guys! Newsflash!

    To all of the Microsoft bashers above, don't you realize that OpenOffice.org would infringe on the same patent that Microsoft Word allegedly does? It uses an XML-based document format as well.

    Don't be so quick to "ha ha" just because Microsoft is being brought to court. If lawsuits like this stick then everybody is screwed, not just the big players.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Spoiler, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 7:14am

    WORD?

    Personally I haven't used WORD in years! OpenOffice seems to take of all my needs. If you're not using OO I suggest you grab a copy and put WORD on your 'B' list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Felix Pleșoianu, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 7:29am

    Still think it's a good idea to be judged by people who are ignorant about everything besides the law? Especially when said law is already obsolete? A judge/jury who understands the issues they judge could at least try to reconcile reality with the spirit of the law, and pass a decent ruling. But as long as they're deliberately chosen to be ignorant, expect the circus to continue.

    Besides, how can the patent troll demand that MS pays for every copy of Word ever released? Those before 2007 don't even understand XML. And the patent itself was filed in 2004. How can it apply to Word 2003 and previous versions?

    Good to live in a jurisdiction that doesn't have software patents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 8:32am

    "Just last week, plenty of tech publications were up in arms over the news that Microsoft had apparently secured a patent on XML word processing documents"

    If Microsoft's patent is enforced and the judgment against Microsoft is ofterturned then that double standard shows who the patent system truly stands to serve, the rich and the powerful.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    CommonSense (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 8:48am

    Re: Time to Patent

    The World Will Look Up and Shout "Save Us!"

    And I'll whisper... "No."

    That literally made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah his stuff is to Hawaiian for me ...

    I prefer .....

    I like the Ralph Lauren clothings from a visual POV. Ralph Lauren clothes created ripples among the fashion conscious immediately after the Ralph Lauren was launched. I like the Ralph Lauren clothing. Ralph Lauren is one of the most popular brands. Ralph Lauren clothing displays the brilliant work of Don Ralph Lauren. He is a gifted painter, printmaker and tattoo artist. Ralph Lauren offerings include Ralph Lauren Ralph Lauren swimwear Ralph Lauren clothes is just 4 years old and was launched by Audigier in 2004. There were many Hollywood stars who wear his Ralph Lauren clothing. Ralph Lauren Christian Audigier, Clothing, Shoes, Shirts, Swimwear, Perfume, Hats, Purses, Dresses, Boots 50-75% OFF, Free Shipping WorldWide. Ralph Lauren ,Ralph Lauren shoes. tiffany jewelry

    ..... LOL .... 32 seconds to copy paste and replace ....

    This ad is in no way supported, endorsed, paid for, or approved by Ralph Lauren. Ralph Lauren is a registered trademark of Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. (RL). I actually do like RL's shorts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 10:17am

    "Just last week, plenty of tech publications were up in arms over the news that Microsoft had apparently secured a patent on XML word processing documents (patent 7,571,169)."

    Wasn't the purpose of XML to create open standards that are free of retarded intellectual property? After everyone has gone through ALL the hard work of doing this why the heck does Microsoft get to parasite off of the hard work into developing this (with the intent of not having stupid intellectual property get in the way of EVERYTHING WE DO) and get a patent off of this work? This harms innovation and creates a disincentive for people to create new innovations with the intent of them being in the public domain knowing that some stupid evil parasite like Microsoft might grab a patent on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 12th, 2009 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    So people create open XML standards, they become a success, and then Microsoft, with practically nothing to lose, sees the success of XML that other people have put hard work into developing and decides it wants to parasite off of that hard work and success so it grabs a patent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 10:29am

    Re:


    Company A makes a product that infringes the patent of Company B. Company B gets a ruling, which company A ignores. What is the next step?


    Um. Microsoft did not "ignore the ruling." So not sure where that came from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    DNY (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 6:14pm

    Re: Hey guys! Newsflash!

    Not necessarily: if i4i lets XML be used under GPL license
    terms or anything similar, and credit is given by OpenOffice, a freeware distribution using XML would not violate their patent, while its use in proprietary software sold for a profit would.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    topspeed (profile), Aug 12th, 2009 @ 6:15pm

    Re: xlm

    MS released a "patch" which allow Office 2003 (Word specifically) to read .DOCX. So if you have applied the patch, you are infringing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Spectere (profile), Aug 13th, 2009 @ 6:49am

    Re: Re: Hey guys! Newsflash!

    You're making a pretty huge assumption that the company is going to turn a blind eye to someone who is infringing on their "patent" just because they're developing a free, GPL licensed, office package.

    The way I see this going down, i4i is going to get licensing fees from everyone that they possibly can. And considering OpenOffice.org was initiated by Sun Microsystems, you'd better believe that they'll be next if they manage to get anything out of Microsoft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2009 @ 5:52pm

    Microsoft will probably countersue for patent infringement and it will turn into a patent mud slinging war like always.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2009 @ 5:54pm

    Re:

    (or they'll appeal and it'll get overturned. those are the two likely probabilities. But personally I want to see a patent mud slinging war, it's more entertaining).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    detour, Oct 1st, 2009 @ 7:31pm

    XMLOpen Document Format related MS Word Injunction

    What a joke ...

    Word is that the "judge" is from an old school that believes in an "eye for an eye".

    Seriously though, accepting that he is simply passing the "buck" to an appellate jurisdiction which has greater authority and presumably more combined intelligence, how can our learned friends get it so wrong?

    "Common good" if not "common sense" is plainly lacking ... next case!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This