THE SHORT story -- for those who have not heard yet -- is that Microsoft Word is banned -- embargoed if you will (deja vu) -- based on a court's decision which will probably be reversed or mitigated by the time it comes into effect. David Gerard says that it "doesn't take effect for 60 days, MSFT will certainly get it overturned. but amusing nevertheless!" McKool Smith is the shameless law firm and the so-called 'victim' is i4i. Microsoft's patent dispute with i4i is not new, as it was previously mentioned in:
The national law firm of McKool Smith is announcing a permanent injunction and total damages and interest of more than $290 million against software giant Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) in a Texas patent infringement lawsuit won by Toronto-based technology provider i4i Inc.
The Order and Permanent Injunction were signed today by Judge Leonard Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Today's ruling follows a May 20, 2009, verdict of $200 million after jurors found that Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft willfully infringed an i4i patent covering a document system that relies on the XML custom formatting function.
In the latest apparent case of the U.S. patent system run amok, Judge Leonard Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a permanent injunction on Tuesday preventing Microsoft from selling versions of Word that handle custom XML in the form of the .DOCX, .DOCM, and .XML file formats. Which would mean that Microsoft is now forbidden from selling Word 2003 or Word 2007. And since it also forbids Microsoft from testing such versions of Word, there would seem to be implications for Office 2010 as well.
Judge Leonard Davis, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ordered a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to an announcement by the plaintiff, Toronto-based i4i Inc.
We may add that while Microsoft always pays lip service to patent reform and patent quality, it effectively obstructed even moderate steps of pragmatic reform in the field of software patenting with massive lobbying investment and an ideological agenda. An ideological motivation you don't find among all the other players which have a real business. The massive lobbying also applies to colonial attitudes towards patent regimes of third nations in which the American company operates, or the European Union, our main area of operations as the FFII e.V. Ironically Microsoft itself is a favourite target of troll challenges and no one knows how much profits Marshall Phelps actually generates by selling their Microsoft FAT patents. In the spectacular case of TomTom we were told it was a very small amount. Some American critics as Brian Kahin speak of a patent bubble of low value patents but how is it going to burst? When you have a licensing business a good patent is one that hurts. Maybe the Encyclopedia Brittannica is an example, it failed commercially and now became an (unsuccesful) patent enforcement agency against actual market players.
In the recent referral G03/08 about software patentability an European Patent Office case named T 424/03 (Microsoft) was center to the debate. Find the Amicus letters here. Currently you also have a pending referral on Bilski in the US Supreme Court which is more far reaching than software. In the US many examination tests were dismantled such as the machine or transformation box test which opened the flood gates and unbalanced the system. It was reintroduced under the Bilski ruling but appealed at the supreme court. The Bilski test does not rule out software or business method patents but provides means to reduce the pressure within the examination system in later stages.
First you wreck the law, then the trolls wreck you.
[...]
Right now ISO/IEC 29500 ("OOXML") is patent encumbered and cannot be called an "open standard" according to conventional definitions and looks unusable for the public sector.
Brian Jones
Dennis Hamilton
Alex Brown
Erika Ehrli
Gray Knowlton
Jesper Lund Stocholm
Stephen Peront
Doug Mahugh
Red Hat, Novell Still Face Interface Patent Claims
Handing down a claim construction that accommodates the plaintiffs, a federal judge has refused to invalidate one of three user interface patents Linux providers Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc. allegedly infringe.
--David Kappo, Director of the USPTO
Comments
Jose_X
2009-08-12 14:44:40
Of course, Microsoft is already patenting around their inventions like mad so that they own the cards and not someone else. That's what IBM and everyone does when the build patents for "defensive" purposes. Of course, defensive patents turn offensive whenever you need some help in the market place or need to defend your turf or even monopolies (and associated high revenues). As if these large companies weren't already powerful enough, they use the patent cards as well as necessary to gain more advantages over smaller competitors.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-08-12 15:01:51
There's something similar.
IBM -- like Novell -- uses software patents to market even its 'own' Linux.
Jose_X
2009-08-12 14:29:52
Rather than implementing things, I will spend the time as do these patent factories by dreaming up combinations of future uses of computers and electronics and trying to get the most general patents possible. I'll consider creating free workshops and free online documentation to facilitate everyone else also getting enforceable patents. Even ordinary Joe can spot trends and work on a patent with a few technical individuals to split the profits later.. or help ground the US software industry to a halt.
Software patents are likely unconstitutional (hinder not promote) and are unethical, but the US courts and Congress apparently aren't clear on this yet.
There are many talented FOSS devs that could be making millions to the loss of society and various profitable businesses if they dedicated their time to writing patents.
Perhaps the contributors to a project that gets shut down because of patent threats should donate future time to writing patents to be used on major players like Microsoft that support software patents. Force Microsoft into a corner: injunction and lose ability to sell Windows and Office missing much interesting functionality (or having to spend billions retooling) or else have them help get the software patents declared unconstitutional. Only a company like Microsoft has enough at stake and enough money to fight your hungry lawyers all the way to the Supreme Court. If Microsoft folds, go after IBM, etc.
[The funding for the patents will come if you build them. Lawyers will work for you in anticipation of winning settlements and off past winnings.]
Why is it that writing a quality piece of interesting open source software requires so much more energy, creativity, study, commitment, skill, time, cooperation, etc, than writing a patent that will yield millions in revenues?
I think the FOSS world is making a tactical mistake by not retooling to becoming patent generation machines instead of open source generating machines. Surely, the world will be better if we diverted our attentions into these monopolies and stopped writing free/free quality software, no?
Roy Schestowitz
2009-08-12 14:58:43
There is an actual example of this, but it kept silent about it. Software patents have already shut down more FOSS projects.