Microsoft loses second Word patent appeal, on the hook for $240 million in damages
By Vlad Savov 
posted March 12th 2010 8:54AM
posted March 12th 2010 8:54AM
And the intellectual property rollercoaster continues. Microsoft's second appeal of that $240m judgment banning sales of Word with features infringing on i4i's XML-related patents has been rejected, leaving the Redmond giant with a huge fine to pay atop its undoubtedly sky-high lawyer bills. The appeals court held that Microsoft was explicitly aware of i4i's patents before implementing the relevant XML code into Word -- undoubtedly because i4i had been selling an extremely popular XML plugin for years and had approached Microsoft about licensing it. Yeah, oops. Don't worry, though, there shouldn't be any consumer impact here: old versions of Word aren't affected, and current versions of Word 2007 and Office 2010 don't have the offending features. Still, Microsoft might be able to appeal yet again, depending on a panel ruling on the matter -- at this rate, we'd expect it.
Its not just about the patent right. Its about BAD patents, like someone patenting something about XML which is an open standard.
First the patent law grants patents that are much too broad. And second if you are going to use an open standard. You should not be able to patent techniques with it.
And does i4i actually do anything productive other then buy companies for patents. Patenting brokers suck and pull down real innovation. It just be made illegal.
@Draken
i4i actually is a real company. They aren't just patent trolls that hold on to patents and litigate them. I'm not sure why they waited ~10 years to litigate this particular patent, but such is business.
@Draken
Actually, the patent system stirs innovation. You see, if there weren't a patent system, everyone would be copying each other's property, always trying to one up each other to have an edge.
True innovation comes from having to create a TOTALLY NEW way to make what is desired.
The patent system protects the an individual's ideas and forces someone else to make a NEW idea or a NEW way to get the same effect (if the said effect is what you want.)
@think before you react
I hardly think that a particular way of using an open standard (XML) is an innovation that needs to be protected. It's an open standard, the whole point is that you can do whatever you want with it. To allow patents on encoding techniques opens the flood gates to anyone who wants to say that their way of using XML is proprietary. I understand why Microsoft wants to fight this for statute, but the fact that they had prior knowledge of the patent before they implemented the technique is somewhat damning.
@Draken i dont think they stole code... it was all about how to wrap binary data in xml.. i4i just patented the what .. not the who and how
@think before you react:
Alas the reality we live in is not a perfect as you seem to think. In my perfect world every government system would world as it should, and I would have a pony.
@Draken "Its not just about the patent right. Its about BAD patents, like someone patenting something about XML which is an open standard. "
C/C++ and pretty much every language I can think of right now is an open standard. By stating that, you're saying that there could be no software patents unless said software was written in completely closed manner. Even Assembly is open, so you'd have to create such software on a closed hardware platform as well.
I'm not disagreeing on the premise as I think software patents are rabidly stupid and should only be covered by trademark opposed to patents, but your logic on open standards/patents doesn't follow convention.
@think before you react Only if you include unnecessary redundancy in your definition of "innovation". New for the sake of new is worthless. The public good is served only when *better* methods are discovered, and the desire for something better has never needed assistance as a driver of innovation.
When you want something improved, it's best to have as many people as possible available to work on it. But if something is locked up by a patent, only the patent holder and the few willing to pay royalties are able to build on that idea. Everyone else is forced (unnecessarily) to reinvent the wheel just to find a way around the patent. It's a lot of wasted effort to get a handful of second rate alternatives when what someone *really* wanted to do was improve on the existing, successful solution. Market diversity then comes not from people being *forced* to do something differently, but from disagreements about which innovations are actual improvements and which are not so useful. Innovation should be driven by positive forces like genuine need and a desire for improvement, not negative ones like artificial restrictions and a hunger for power and monopoly.
@Treefingers dammit... need an edit button.
"Market diversity should come..." (not "then comes")
Ha ha!
I think they have enough money to pay it since they're a huge company, but this doesn't sound cool for word 07..
this is just bullshit.
what does i4i do anyway, create companies to patent shit so they can sue other companies that are actually worthwhile?
If they actually swipped code they need to pay the bills and be done with it. If its just some patent holder trying to enforce some ambiguous patent that could have meant almost anything, then by all means fight it to the supreme court.
look, you can still use MSWORD '07, they just can't sell it anymore.
http://www.govtech.com/gt/735279
99 out of 100 modern software IP patents are crazy themselves.
We need major patent reform.
"I patent pushing a key to activate it."
...then somebody else...
"I patent letting go of the key!"
Utter rubbish!
And these patent trolling lawyer shops out of texas (and elsewhere too) should be the first ones up against the wall.
Wow people are so shockingly ignorant. This isn't some Amazon "one click" type patent or an Apple/Nokia style patent witch hunt. Microsoft really fucked this little company. Read the details of the case before making a knee jerk reaction that all software patents are bad. This is a much different situation.
@(Unverified)
Um, what exactly are you talking about? The company patented a method for using an open standard (XML) and Microsoft used the same method for encoding that OPEN STANDARD. Microsoft didn't steal code from i4i (as many commenters seem to think). If they had, this wouldn't be a patent trial, it would be much worse. They used the same method for leveraging XML as a file store engine.
@Delta Indeed. If Microsoft had stolen code this would be a copyright case.
i4i is not a legitimate business, they are extortionists taking advantage of a system that looks to be built exclusively to benefit patent trolls.
@Sawawa well on that point so is Microsoft & so they are feeling the brunt of their own stick. Serves them right.
PWND! Not sure why, though.
This is fantastic news. It seems that the only way to fix our utterly broken patent system (which should have never allowed software patents in the first place) is to cheer for patent trolls.
Maybe after enough actual companies with real products (such as RIM, Microsoft, eBay, et al) are subjected to such ridiculous penalties they will begin to support changing the rules.
Software patents kill innovation.
@Sawawa but on the same hand Sawawa, M$ is one of your patent trolls.
BOO HOO, Proor Microsoft....
Pay up Microsoft! They were only good at copying others ideas. Now they just outright steal them.
Microsoft is constantly being beat up.
It used to be "cool" but now it's getting out of hand. Yes they deserved it this time around but I'm referring to the EU browser thing as one example that beating up on MS has gotten really stupid lately.
Im with Microfot on this software patents in the US are far too easy to obtain and too broad/vague when they are granted. Perhaps something closer to the European patents would be better
Wikipedia European Patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
"This has been interpreted to mean that any invention which makes a non-obvious "technical contribution" or solves a "technical problem" in a non-obvious way is patentable even if that technical problem is solved by running a computer program."
This means things like file format and UI design can't be patented. Meaning patents tend to be about clever/fast algorithms.
@petebob796 Which still amounts to a patent on math. There is no justification.
A little insight on some the comments here:
First, for everyone that is upset about how weak this patent is, understand that the Microsofts, Apples, and Amazons of the world are just as guilt of obtaining incredibly weak software patents. Apple recently sued HTC with one patent that claimed unlocking a a touchscreen phone by sliding a picture of a lock. Amazon had the one click patent. Last year MS got a patent through that essentially claimed using PGDN and PGUP to go, wait for it, down and up one page. It was on Engadget somewhere, but I'm not going to search for it.
Second, the patent system is flawed and many weak patents get through. But the majority of these extremely weak patents are invalidated in court when they are litigated. The examiner at the PTO usually spends a less than 40 hours searching for prior art and uses what he can find to narrow the scope of the invention. When someone sues MS or Apple, MS and Apple hire a big firm and have 10 or so people spending 100s of hours scouring the Earth for any mention of the patented idea being previously mentioned. Patents that survive this scrutiny can still be obvious and weak, but the hurdle exists all the same.
Third, you can't bankrupt i4i by burying them in motions and filings. Small companies such as i4i are typically taken on a contingency basis. Their attorneys float the cost but take a significant percentage of the prize if they win.
@festis88
Couldn't resist searching...here's the MS page down patent:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/02/microsoft-patents-page-up-page-down-functionality-april-1st-s/
Wow, all these people making commentary about patents and the patent system. Um, how many of you are licensed attorneys registered to practice in front of the USPTO?
I know, I know, that would take too much work. So instead, just blame Apple (and curiously, anything patent related on Engadget always seems to be Apple's fault) for something most of you clearly have little (if any) knowledge about - that is sooooooo much easier!
@DigDug
I am a licensed patent attorney registered to practice in front of the PTO.
No surprise from the predatory monopoly company. It seems microsoft are always trying to screw somebody over.
bunch of freakin thieves. always have been. always will be.
Awesome.