“Microsoft has filed a second appeal in their XML patent case, claiming the original ruling could be dangerous for future patent cases. Last month, the software giant lost to tiny Canadian company i4i, and removed all infringing custom XML editing abilities from its Office 2003 and 2007 suite. Microsoft also paid USD 290 million in damages.”
how much money ms has paid out in legal fees vs the amount they actually saved in lost revenue from software. I know we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars, but how much is enough? This uber capitalism seem’s alot like the cold war, where the victory is the only important thing. At the end of the war, you move on to the next enemy, spending trillions to protect what you believe is the correct path. In the mean time, people are being trampled on, and new enemies are being made. Enemies that will last for years to come, and all of it completely avoidable. In Microsoft’s case, this is indeed money that could be spent on educating people threw greatly reduced software prices, and improved software by working with, instead of against your competition.
It just boggles the mind to think of the possibilities that could occur with more cooperation amongst people , instead of the endless string of litigated conflict that primarily occupies todays business world.
This is correct, but note that Microsoft is the victim here. This feature is obscure, and clearly worth less than the hundreds-of-millions damages award (which is why it was removed.) Obviously MS would rather spend the hundreds-of-millions damages award, plus the (I’m guessing) tens-of-millions legal fees towards improving software. Unfortunately, the act of improving software and adding functionality brings about lawsuits like these, so things end up finding an equilibrium.
It’s not like Microsoft had a choice to avoid spending on both legal fees and damages here (at least, not without also avoiding spending money improving its software.) Less legal fees == greater damages payouts.
The best way to avoid this would be to restrict software patents such that software developers are not hamstrung by patents which are clearly obvious to anyone ‘skilled in the art.’
Of course they did. Microsoft could have just licensed i4i’s technology in the first place, instead of stealing it.
What technology? Oh you mean the patent that vaguely describes any modern form of document file structure from open formats like ODT to Microsoft’s own DOCX.
Microsoft are the victims here of yet another evolutionary patent that protects no R&D costs into new technology.
However, in spite of this I have little sympathy MS given their past track record of chasing after open source providers with undisclosed patents.
All this case proves is that nobody is safe from patent trolls and that the system is broke.
Is it really that vague? It seems to me that the functionality was somehow specific, considering it doesn’t affect new MS Office products nor competing office suites like OOo.
I’m not really sure what the patent is really about, though, but that’s the impression I’m getting.
Here is the patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p…
Now from what I can understand of it – it sounds like just standard XML document mark up. Something which MS Office has supported since Office2003 (as .XML files in Excel, and later as DOCX and XLSX in Word2007 and Excel2007 respectively) and something which OOo (as well as KOffice and all the other open source office packages) supports to with ODT et al.
I’m willing to concede that perhaps Excel documents are immune as – although they’re still documents of sorts, they’re not DTP/Word processing documents.
This would explain why earlier versions of Office weren’t targeted when when damages were calculated (IIRC .XML files weren’t available in MSWord pre Office2007).
Either way, my understanding of the patent reads a pretty generic evolutionary design and hardly technology with R&D costs that need protecting (or in layman’s terms, an organisation after an easy buck)
Edited 2010-01-10 16:51 UTC
I’m sorry for the blatant insult, but can you even read? Linking to that patent and describing it the way you did, is like posting a picture about a bear and then describe a unicorn(!)
All questions about patentability of software patents aside… The patent in question is fairly specific, and covers a specific function that the company invented, which is related to parsing and comparing differences between documents stored as XML.
And it’s not like we have a patent troll here – they had a product which were sold to many customers – and they even offered Microsoft to license the functionality for a fee. However, Microsoft – rigorous defenders of software patents – choose to ignore the existing patent (which describes a specific function, albeit related to parsing XML – but absolutely not “storing files as XML” as you try to portray it) and instead just copy the functionality into their own product, effectively rendering the existing product worthless.
You may disagree with software patents, but Microsoft has chosen to play this game, in fact they want everybody to play this game, so they deserve every little bit of this. Stop spreading misinformation and lies – Microsoft is *not* the victim here.
Clearly you’re not sorry otherwise you wouldn’t have still posted it.
You may have just as well said “No offence, but you’re an idiot!” :p
What’s this specific function?
It’s a fairly lengthy patent and I’m not great at deciphering technical legal documents (computer jargon I’m fine with but that document was struggle)
You’ve still not stated what this product is exactly.
Parsing and comparing XML documents is still a very generic evolutionary description and not very clear about what i4i have developed that is worthy of patenting.
I’m not out to defend MS – I just want to understand what the hell i4i own because thus far nobody has stated anything specific (or am I missing the obvious?)
After insulting my ability to read, you then go on to completely miss the comments I made about not having any sympathy for MS then go on to reiterate my point as if to counter my argument. *sigh*
I was only sorry for the fact that it was so obvious. I still think it is well beyond stupid to have such strong opinions on something you – with your own words – don’t understand. If you cannot grasp what the patent covers, something you admitted you didn’t – then you should probably leave it to someone that does to defend or dismiss it. I’m not saying I’m that guy, but even skimming through the patent reveals a lot more than you admittedly managed to understand.
Yes that document was not the most well-formatted document I’ve read, but you always have google. One quick look at “i41 patent” on google, revealed several good articles on the subject, and many of them describe the patent with less “technical legal document” jargon. Here is a good one:
http://milan.kupcevic.net/custom-xml-microsoft-office-word-data-sto…
This is described in many of the articles mentioned above. See the one I linked, and zdnet also mentions it here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22595
Apparently it’s something that’s big in the pharmaceutical industry. I’m not big there so I don’t know enough about it to be able tell you more than what you can read from those articles.
Yes, I mixed your comment and another comment there. Sorry for that.
Oh for gods sake drop the f–king attitude.
I wasn’t stating strong opinions – I was stating the facts as I understood them.
I’m open to correction but there’s no need to be abusive about it.
Right, so you’re just as ignorant as me yet you’re the one with the superiority complex. Got it.
I did several searches before posting and the majority of pages are vague or just as clueless. So I decided to trust my own interpretation rather than another random blogger with no legal background.
So basically you don’t even know yourself despite acting all high and mighty on the subject. Understood.
Sorry for the condicending tone to this post, but your attitude was unnessiary and offensive.
As I said from the start – if I misunderstood the facts, then I’m grateful for the corrections.
But there’s no need to offensive when you’re not even in possession of the facts either.
Just wanted to pop this in as well – which probably goes to show Microsofts behaviour in this case:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/176685.asp
A few select quotes:
Poster zegenie said it best, so I will just quote those words:
Edited 2010-01-10 22:19 UTC
Yeah, he said that replying to me
But thanks for the reply.
Is it wrong that I’m actually a little disappointed it’s not just a patent troll?
I, personally, would hold that one cannot patent abstract ideas, that mathematics is an abstract idea, and that software is mathematics.
Therefore, I, personally, would not find Microsoft in any way culpable here.
However, if they were being self-consistent, supporters of software patentability should find Microsoft culpable and liable for a fine over this episode.
Microsoft have positioned themselves as being a supporter of software patentability.
I think this is a gross oversimplification of Microsoft’s position.
Start with general counsel Brad Smith’s take:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3489181
There is a difference between supporting software patents in some form versus supporting them in their current form.
Actions speak louder than words and in Microsofts case, their actions would completely support lemur2’s summary.
My own view of this particular case is this: Microsoft wrote their own code. i4i came to Microsoft wanting Microsoft to pay i4i for a license for code that Microsoft had already written for themselves. It is hardly surprising that Microsoft said to i4i “On your bike”.
So Microsoft have been caught in a patent trap, and do not deserved to be fined.
However, Microsoft themselves have sued TomTom over Microsoft’s patent for Long File Names for the FAT32 format. That was a completely trivial patent, Microsoft claimed they filed it only for Microsoft’s own defense against patent attack, and they claimed that anyone else could implement the functionality … then they sued TomTom over it (code that neither TomTom nor Microsoft actually wrote) behind the scenes.
So, in another sense, Microsoft getting caught themselves in a similar fashion is perfect karma.
The ONLY good that can possibly come out of this whole thing is if Microsoft change their tune and agree that Software Patents make no sense at all, and lobby that the appropriate legal protection for software is copyright (just as it is for novels, movies and songs). In other words, write your own code. As long as you write your own code, and do not copy someone else’s code, then what that code actually does is moot. Maths is maths, after all, and anyone who is capable should be allowed to do any maths they please (just as they should be allowed to do any writing or composing they please).
Frankly, I can’t see that happening. If it doesn’t happen, frankly, Microsoft General Counsel and chief hypocrite Brad Smith can take a hike in my view.
Edited 2010-01-11 09:31 UTC
I agree with software patents where there is expensive R&D costs involved as you’d expect the funding corporation to recoup their costs.
I don’t agree with software patents on evolutionary designs like finger gestures on multi-touch interfaces.
If someone has the balls to develop a product that’s innovative and new – then they should be rewarded.
But try revolution happens rarely and where to draw the line is often a subjective arguement
Patents on “inventions” are only necessary when the R&D won’t be undertaken without sufficient incentive. People have been willing to invest in Software projects, both large and small, for ages. Huge Software projects were undertake before any patent was ever granted for software.
One doesn’t need to invest heavily in equipment to partake in Software development. Copyright protection alone is sufficient to encourage investment of half a billion dollars in a movie project such as Avatar … so why should Software require any more protection than that? Finally, there is a vast amount of Software produced, and a huge amount of money made from it. Why does it need any extra encouragement (that projects like writing novels, making movies or composing music doesn’t enjoy, BTW)?
Software patents make no sense at all. They are tremendously anti-competition, they hold the Software industry back, and they make only lawyers any richer.
Same could be argued for hardware patents.
One might depending on the project in question.
But generally not no.
However hardware isn’t the only expense during an R&D phase.
Put more generally, wouldn’t a patent system made sense if the cost of licensing a technology (and hence to some degree damages for infringing) were proportionate to the costs of development? No doubt there will be some situations where one product takes advantage of a predecessor’s design significantly (Visicalc & 1-2-3? Windows & Mac & Xerox?), but this should not prevent the process of refinement and grant a monopoly to the first vendor in a space (which is what happened here.)
You have no evidence that they stole this, and considering what is at question here, the ability to store a word processing document as XML, and parse that document, it seems that this method would be apparent to any 2nd year CS major.
It’s not MS that is at fault here, but the USPO. They never should have granted such a stupid patent.
Edited 2010-01-10 17:25 UTC
That is incorrect. The patent – validity of software patents aside – is perfectly valid in the sense that it describes a specific way of performing a specific function, and is not at all that generic.
Albeit *related to* XML – it is nothing near as general as you try to portray it.
Edited 2010-01-10 17:47 UTC
No, it is generic, because anybody processing documents in XML would eventually come up with this particular method. It is vague because it can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Oh, and just stating I am wrong, with out any valid arguments, do not make me wrong.
Actually, you have something that is very close to a smoking gun. An article in InformationWeek from this past August shares part of an email that turned up in discovery:
“We saw [i4i’s products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete,” said Martin Sawicki, a member of Microsoft’s XML for Word development team, in an e-mail to a colleague. “It looks great for XP though,” wrote Sawicki, according to court records.
source: http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArt…
That’s a smoking gun? That’s not even a lit match
Microsoft was clearly in the wrong here. They knew there were patents on the technology. They just figured i4i was too small to do anything about it. As for the award, you can’t really judge it unless you know how big i4i’s business is. Remember, Microsoft has been dragging this out for years, while i4i tried to negotiate a license deal. Four or five years worth of revenue could easily amount to $300 million. Thats not even counting the punitive part of the award if there is one. Of course, Microsoft claims they are the victim. But their internal emails say otherwise, which I imagine is a large part of the reason for the large award.
Proof?
The email posted by zegenie above is all the proof you need. They saw i4i’s technology BEFORE they implemented it themselves. They knew they were stealing it. It makes no difference if the patent should have been granted or not. If Microsoft had a problem with the patent, they could have challenged it instead of just stealing the technology. Even now, they could try to get the patent invalidated, which would save their goose, but they don’t. Chances are its because there are no grounds to get the patent invalidated on.