Microsoft loses patent appeal; Word and Office to be barred from sale starting January 11
By Nilay Patel 
posted December 22nd 2009 1:35PM
posted December 22nd 2009 1:35PM
P.S.- Just to be clear on this, i4i isn't a patent troll -- it's a 30 person database design company that shipped one of the first XML plugins for Office and was actually responsible for revamping the entire USPTO database around XML to make it compatible with Word back in 2000. What's more, the patents involved here don't cover XML itself, but rather the specific algorithms used to read and write custom XML -- so OpenOffice users can breathe easy, as i4i has said the suite doesn't infringe. Existing Office users should also be fine, as only future sales of Word are affected by the ruling, not any already-sold products.
Engadget: Helping you flame with accuracy.
Update: Microsoft says it's moving quickly to prepare versions of Office 2007 and Word 2007 that don't have the "little-used" XML features for sale by January 11, and that the Office 2010 beta "does not contain the technology covered by the injunction," which can be read in a number of ways. It's also considering an appeal, so we'll see what happens next.
@Bratyr Judging by your comment and its rank, I'd say this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Engadget: Helping you flame MICROSOFT with accuracy.
You can download DOCXtoRTF to port your DOCX files to RTF.
soooo.....MS just has to come up with a new algorithm to read/write custom XML code, right? what are the odds for the 15 new versions of Office 2010 to contain the new algorithms....
@(Unverified)
This is another instance of Microsoft copying code and procedures from a smaller company - like in China with the Twitter-like client for MSN. Microsoft does a lot of things right and some things very, very wrong. They should pay up and stop acting like they still own the planet.
@Canucker Infringing on the patent hardly means they copied code and/or procedures; all it means is that the USPTO needs to get their heads out of their asses. Or have you just managed to ignore every single bad patent article on Engadge to date?
@(Unverified) : "what are the odds for the 15 new versions of Office 2010 to contain the new algorithms"
The probability is 1 based on the blurb which says THEY'VE ALREADY CHANGED IT.
I doubt this will hold - Office and Windows are MS's 2 main cash cows - they'd be screwed if they lost one of them. Skeptic in me expects MS to give i4i a reasonable pay-off and everyone to carry on like normal
@jk6959 Or MS will try to keep pushing the injunction in any legal means they can. Push Office 2010 out the door ASAP as it doesn't contain the offending xml parts and they EOL 2007. That way that are selling Office 2010 and they don't have to crap open the piggy bank to pay off a patent dispute. All around they still win.
Woah.
I'm setting the settlement Over / Under at $750 mil.
Go.
@Bandigolo
I believe it will be more. Something around 900 mil.
@Bandigolo I'm guessing the amount Microsoft is losing right now, times 1.5.
I'm not so sure... keep in mind who is doing the suing. Not exactly a Fortune 100 company. They wouldn't get as much as a big boy would because MS knows damn well that they've already got their hands out ready for the payoff. No way will i4i play hardball if the figure gets up in this $$$ range.
@Bandigolo
I don't think it will be that high. I'm going with the under.....probably around the $500 mil range.
@ITIdiot
I'm guessing unless the decision is overturned, i4i will have a claim on revenue from sales to date of Word, and that's all they'll get. If it really is a 'little-used' feature, then i4i's claim could end up being pretty small I think.
MS will have a new version of Word without the offending code before the injunction hits, which will let them keep selling it. Even if it's only half-done, it'll be out. They can push updates to polish it later if need be.
@james321 You're not trolling with accuracy!
You guys need to get a better picture; It kinda mucks up in the Top Stories bar.
"Word and Office to be barred from sale starting January 11" is a catchy headline but we all know MS is just going to pony up the $$ if it comes to that. They might even buy i4i. Office is such an enormous cash cow, MS is going to keep selling it even if they have to buy off the little guy to do it.
"P.S.- Just to be clear on this, i4i isn't a patent troll"
Gee, I wonder why now you dont think that now?
Looking forward to seeing that same language on future stories with a similar company.
@LAY Okay, make a serious argument that this company is simply stockpiling broad patents in order to sue larger companies and doesn't actually develop any products. (You know, a patent troll.) I'm all ears.
@Nilay Patel
LAY is an ass. Nothing he ever says has any merit, no need to drag yourself down to his level. That's what we're here for! Besides, he's too dumb to actually provide reasoning for anything he says. He just likes taking empty pot shots. At Apple, specifically. Even in topics that don't involve Apple at all.
On second thought, you should probably just ban him.
@LAY @LAY Okay, make a serious argument that this company is simply stockpiling broad patents in order to sue larger companies and doesn't actually develop any products. (You know, a patent troll.) I'm all ears.
Hey, smartie, I dont believe in the term "patent troll"
I ACTUALLY THINK THAT IF YOU PATENT SOMETHING, IT'S YOUR REGARDLESS OF IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT OR IF YOU EVER MAKE A PRODUCT WITH IT.
How clear is that for you? You dont have a right to disregard a patent because you dont think they are using it "right".
MS got hit with the same ax that Apple got hit with, but Apple hit seems to always be the work of the "evil" patent troll, but you go out of your way, which I've never seen here before, to make "clear" that THESE folks are A-OK.
Now go run to the arms of Jack and get your pat on the arse, because people like me are apparently just evil douches for making such comments, and according to him, you just need a hug.
@Jackass
"On second thought, you should probably just ban him."
For having an opinion and not being afraid to voice it?
You must really be an Apple user. You cant handle people that think too different.
If Nilay cant deal with that then he shouldn't be writing articles.
@LAY
You don't believe in the term patent troll, but you also have a problem with Nilay saying that i4i isn't one? Schizophrenia much?
And your lolcaps speech was great and all, but what you think is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a patent troll, and all they do is get patents and sit on them, intentionally, for the sole purpose of getting a big payout when some big company infringes one of them unintentionally.
If you don't "believe" in these people, you are naive beyond reason. Some simple googling would cure you of your ignorance, and yet you refuse to do it. I wonder why? Oh right, because it would be one less thing you could use against Apple.
The simple fact that you actually think this is the same thing as what Apple (and a bunch of other companies, by the way) is getting hit with is pretty good proof that your head is up your ass. If you're not going to pay attention to the specifics of each case, why are you bothering to say anything at all?
Oh right, because you're an idiot. I keep forgetting. And finally, you're not an evil douche. You're just a douche. A fairly ignorant and stupid douche, but not evil. So that's something at least, right?
@LAY
Your rant about your right to enforce your patent if you invent something sounds nice, but it doesn't apply to what people term "patent trolls." As generally, a patent troll has no R&D department and just purchases patents from other entities. Hence, they didn't invent anything. Moreover, trying to call i4i a patent troll is a stretch by any means.
That said, I think your REAL argument is that Nilay is heavily biased towards Apple. That might be true and I can't argue with it.
@krkeegan
Well maybe you can come through where LAY couldn't. How is Nilay biased towards Apple? If you think it "might be true", let's see some reasoning and some proof.
"Engadget is biased towards Apple" is fun to say and all, but mob mentality doesn't make something right, or even close. Let's see you guys start putting your money where your mouths are. Capice?
@Jack You don't believe in the term patent troll, but you also have a problem with Nilay saying that i4i isn't one? Schizophrenia much?
No, pointing out INCONSISTENCY.
This company has a legal patent, so do all of the others that receive the term "patent troll" for doing essentially the same thing this company did, only in those other cases those companies just took legal action against companies that...let's just say have a soft spot to some folks here.
"Your rant about your right to enforce your patent if you invent something sounds nice, but it doesn't apply to what people term "patent trolls." As generally, a patent troll has no R&D department and just purchases patents from other entities. Hence, they didn't invent anything"
So? They have the patent, either through filing it themselves or by legally purchasing the rights. They can do whatever the hell they want or not want to do, with it. Dont like it? Then buy the rights.
Just because some desk-jockey geek thinks that no one should have those rights, again, unless you are a certain company, doesn't make those rights invalid, or do you plan on buying a KIRF phone in the near future?
Go ahead and go into a court and use the term "patent troll" and see how far you get.
@Jack
You're the one that brought Apple up first. How do you know I want referring to Google?
Apparently you're the one on a hair trigger.
@LAY
Inconsistency? Seriously? The term "patent troll" is very consistent, then only person here who appears to be having some trouble with it is you. Maybe you need it explained to you.
i4i has patents that they actually use, such as the one they're suing Microsoft over. They use those algorithms themselves, in their own software. Therefore, they are not patent trolls.
A patent troll would be somebody who patented those algorithms and did nothing with them, intentionally sitting on them until some company unwittingly infringed on them. The patent troll then sues to get the big payout.
Microsoft did not unwittingly infringe on this patent. They knew damn well that they were using i4i's algorithms, and that i4i did not give them to Microsoft to use freely. And since i4i uses these algorithms in their own software, this is not even close to being a patent troll case, and it's a perfectly valid patent infringement case
Now that that's cleared up, let's be clear about this: Patent trolls do exist, and they primarily target companies like Apple and Microsoft, or big telcos, or big hardware manufacturers. Let's also be clear that nobody thinks Nokia is a patent troll either. However Nokia's suit has less merit than i4i's suit. Doesn't mean they're patent trolling - just mean that they're trying to sue for questionable infringement.
Clear on that now? You can drop the whole "Apple is the only one who gets away with it" bullshit routine because that's not even close to being true. If you looked at each case objectively you would see that, but you're not really capable of being objective when Apple is concerned, are you?
And finally, seriously. Go here and read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll That should answer your question as to whether a patent troll defense would be usable in court. Specifically look at the RPX Defensive Patent Aggregation and Allied Security Trust if you want an idea of how serious this problem is.
@LAY
Where has Engadget been inconsistent?
You cite when Apple gets sued as a proof of inconsistency. What about the Nokia suing Apple? Engadget wasn't pro Apple then.
@Jack
"i4i has patents that they actually use, such as the one they're suing Microsoft over. They use those algorithms themselves, in their own software. Therefore, they are not patent trolls.
A patent troll would be somebody who patented those algorithms and did nothing with them, intentionally sitting on them until some company unwittingly infringed on them. The patent troll then sues to get the big payout."
IT IS THEIR PATENT
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND BASIC ENGLISH??
That term is used as a way of disparaging companies that protect THEIR PATENTS against companies the person using it likes more.
GO READ THE COMMENTS ON ALL OF THOSE STORIES.
I pointed out that Engadget, and many in the peanut gallery, in the past has always showed a slant for or against small companies that protect their patents depending on who they were suing.
Engadget for the first time, NOW says "oh that company isnt a patent troll, and her's why..."
WHEN THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER COMPANY WITH PATENTS THAT HAS SUED.
If I was soooo for MS like you like to pretend, dont you think I would be fuming at the company that just sued them and won, instead of defending them, and others like them.
Take your time.
Tell me where the fine office products from this company are being sold? Not selling any?
PATENT TROLL!!!
Looks like they are just sitting around, producing "vague" ideas to sue people over.
Isnt that the definition you are going by?
@LAY
Jesus, you really need to learn how to read better. Or at least comprehend better.
"That term is used as a way of disparaging companies that protect THEIR PATENTS against companies the person using it likes more"
No. As I explained in my last post that you apparently didn't read, that term is used specifically for people who patent something with no intention of doing anything with it. They patent it specifically to sit on it and wait till somebody infringes on it to collect a payout. That is the definition of a patent troll. It's a blatant abuse of the patent system.
If a company has a patent for something that they use, sell, work with, and some company infringes on it, they're not patent trolls, are they? Patent trolls don't have companies or employees. They just sit on patents, waiting for somebody to infringe on them.
Yes. They own the patent. And they are abusing the patent system which is why, if you read the wiki link I gave you, you would have seen that there is a lot of legal pushback against patent trolls. Not people with legitimate infringement cases - only the trolls.
The fact that you still can't tell the difference after all the information I've given you is frankly indicative of a level of stupidity I hadn't suspected. If you don't get it this time, I'm not sure what else I can do to help you other then spelling it out word by word in bright crayons.
"WHEN THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER COMPANY WITH PATENTS THAT HAS SUED."
That would be great if you weren't 100% wrong. The whole reason it was brought up was because of the sheer number of patent troll cases out there, so clearly there is a difference.
"If I was soooo for MS like you like to pretend, dont you think I would be fuming at the company that just sued them and won, instead of defending them, and others like them."
1. I didn't say you were for MS. I said you were anti-Apple. And you are. But please try to deny that so I can have a good laugh.
2. The reason i4i won is because MS was guilty of blatant patent infringement.
3. That's great that you want to defend i4i and others like them. They're not patent trolls.
4. The problem is when you lump patent trolls in with companies like i4i that are not patent trolls and put them all under the same patent holder umbrella.
Just because they hold a patent doesn't mean they aren't a patent troll and aren't abusing the patent system to make a quick buck. You really need to learn the difference and stop being so naive about it.
"Tell me where the fine office products from this company are being sold? Not selling any?"
Sigh. Really? http://www.i4i.com/ . Go look at what they do, understand it, and don't reply until you do that. If you don't understand why MS hijacking their XML algorithms would be an issue for them, you should probably just flush your head down the toilet.
"Looks like they are just sitting around, producing "vague" ideas to sue people over."
No... no it doesn't. Maybe you should look a little harder. And then take one guess where the XML code came from in Office 2007. See if you can put the pieces together yourself after that.
i m starting to wonder if the company i4i has all apple employees
@jimmyrock88
lol, too true.
@jimmyrock88
yes because only Apple employees could possibly have problems with Microsoft...
@Nicnac Well, Apple and the European Union.
@jimmyrock88
It's never the Apple fanboys that bring Apple into non-Apple discussions. It's always the braindead Apple haters.
@jimmyrock88
There's an unhealthy obsession with Apple hate in the comments section with nearly all Engadget news. This is not good for you or anyone else.
@jimmyrock88
I think that sometimes , people with no problems with either Apple or Microsoft will start a flame war , whatever its called, just to laugh at the comments. It's really easy to do. The same goes for Xbox vs PS3, oops I meant the BitchBox 360 vs Power Station 3
@jimmyrock88 no. Of course not. What about MS office for Mac? It also uses the i4i extensions and thus BOTH Mac and PC users suffer from this. Apple hates i4i in THIS CASE as much as MS hates i4i.
I guess this means I will use Open Office more often. In fact, this may mean that Google, Mozilla (Thunderbird, Firefox) and Open Office begin to consume the roots fo Redland.
@Dr Yusuf AlKindi
'roots fo Redland'.
Open Office - the alternative to Microsoft Office, generations have used it and our spelling shows.
@Dr Yusuf AlKindi
Hold. Up. Just hold up a sec. I had to register just to reply to this comment. Where in the hell is Redland? Unless you're referencing communism, or i missed something, Microsoft is located in RedMOND, Washington.
...As I'm from Washington, felt it was my duty to correct that.
Engadget: Helping you flame with accuracy. BEST WORDS YET lol
So can anyone ballpark how much this will cost MS.
Won't cost MS anything, they'll pass the settlement right on to you!
Nilay is a blatant apple fanboy and MS hater, check any article and every engadget show and it's clearly obvious this chunky kid is on the apple payroll.
@fatslug You're cute.
@fatslug
Somebody named fatslug probably shouldn't be calling anybody else chunky. But seriously, does being that stupid hurt? It seems like the weight of all that ignorance would eventually crush your skull, so I was just wondering.
@fatslug The only possible reason to have any beef with Microsoft is because you are being paid by Apple. It's not like they've done anything to merit criticism, right?