http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 8:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/The only thing I find silly about this is that if MSFT did not use i4i what would have happened. I mean know it was their code and they "apparently" used it purposely.If they didn't use i4i wouldn't they have just made their own?

I mean "IF" MSFT did 'steal' this code then pay some royalties and I hope they got another code they can use and release and update so i4i's code becomes useless and irrelevant? From the little buts I've read I don't think i4i tried mediation to get royalties they just sued didn't they?]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Microsoft has already patched all of their current Office software to the updated version they are using for all future products that doesn't include the i4i method of XML encoding.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
It's not an issue of code theft (as far as I'm aware); that would be a copyright infringement. This is a patent infringement i.e. Microsoft wrote code which uses an algorithm or method patented by someone else. Once discovered they had two options: license the patent or use a different algorithm/method. As Delta says, they chose to do the latter.

]]>Mar 12th 2010 10:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 5:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Patents don't cover the actual code. That's what copyright is for. Patents protect the concept or idea. The design behind the code implementation. Microsofts' code might look very different from i4is' code. But the objective end result are the same. Microsofts' custom XML feature is designed to do essentially "exactly" the same thing as the i4i plug-in.

This strikes at the heart of the controversy surrounding software patents. A patent isn't supposed to be issued for something that's as intangible as an idea. Patents are supposed to be used to protect actual inventions. Software by it's very nature is intangible. It's an idea which finds form in the expression of an algorithm being processed in a computer. Algorithms are also generally not patentable.

Simple common sense would then lead us to believe all software patents were invalid. However courts the world over keep honouring them and patent offices keep issuing them. The USPTO is simply the most infamous.

Microsoft, who is incidentally no stranger to patent law disputes, should have known better than to steal something from a company they did not yet own. Especially as it was such a clear cut case. At this point Microsoft should bow out as gracefully as it can. It should pay the fine and licence the technology if it still wants to use it.]]>Mar 13th 2010 7:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 8:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 8:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
I second that, the dog-pile on microsoft is getting a little ridiculous...]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Sounds like they beat themselves up on this one.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Beat up? They broke the law and screwed over another company and got caught. This is justice.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
I guess all that anti-trust action worked, eh?]]>Mar 12th 2010 10:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Cause the 'holier than thou' from either side really irks me]]>Mar 12th 2010 11:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/This is TWO cases against Microsoft who are two orders of magnitude biger that CrApple.

Apple ripped off their name from The Beatles Apple Corp. in the 1960s. Then they ripped off Xerox's OS/UI and ladded it the Lisa. Then they broke the terms of their agreement with the Beatles and willfully used the Apple name in the music business because they were not selling any of their crapo computers.

Now they are stealing other patents and then claiming them as their own.

No, no, no Apple IS the darkside.]]>Mar 12th 2010 11:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
The Apple Corp. complaint is, IMHO, valid. Though to say that Apple (the computer company) got into online music "because they were not selling any of their crapo computers" shows your obvious bias.

Remember, the first iPods weren't even PC compatible, so if nobody was buying their computers then they wouldn't have had a market. Diversifying into portable music players was simply a good idea, and one which they implemented beautifully. The iTunes Music Store was a logical extension of the success of the iPod.]]>Mar 12th 2010 2:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/I've never taken pleasure when it's some shit patent troll.]]>Mar 12th 2010 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
If the patent system was overhauled properly I believe the patent office wouldn't have enough cash to pay back the owners of dumb patents & perhaps that's their problem & not the patent office but the patent office shouldn't have granted 90% of them in the first place. Perhaps they should be the litigious victim for a change & that may make them be a little more careful.]]>Mar 13th 2010 11:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
What does this mean for Office owners like myself?]]>Mar 12th 2010 8:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/I think Engadget reported that if need be MSFT have already made a work around but not sure :s]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Nothing, they can no longer sell Word 07, but Office '10 does not use any of the technologies noted in the lawsuit. Office 10 is on its way.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
They've already patched Office 2007 to avoid the infringing XML encoding. The date to remove the software from their store was back in January and Microsoft has since re-instated Office on their online store after the work-around was added. All at means at this point is the damages that they need to pay.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Open Office FTW]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Win win for both brothers.]]>Mar 12th 2010 12:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 8:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Willful patent infringement means they pay triple damages plus the other guy's legal fees. Not chump change - even for Mr. Softy.]]>Mar 12th 2010 10:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Its a implementation of a way to read a file. While I don't like Microsoft, this is just.. stupid.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/What's so wrong about it? All you M$ fanbois are sickening. ;-)]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/It really is crazy! The level of M$ fanboism is outrageous. Since when did M$ become the underdog that everyone wants to cheer for?

Stealing intellectual property?? M$?? No way!! They're too good for that!! They make the xbox 360... I mean come on!!]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
I agree. Im a MS fan, I Love their products. But if they stole code, they should justly pay the piper. ]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
I agree if the code was stolen it needs to be paid for, HOWEVER, it had better be true. Msft does "seem" to get sued a lot more than they go after people.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/That's just the nature of operating as big as MS does.

When you're a direct competitor with literally every company that produces anything technology related, and you're a known criminal organization that's made no efforts towards self-restraint, you're going to be a big target.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
240 million?!? For XML manipulation tools? Really? I understand that Word is a huge seller for MS, but how many people bought it solely for these XML features?

Even worse....i4i is a Northern USA company!]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
I thought i4i was a Canadian company based in Toronto.]]>Mar 12th 2010 12:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Looks like I'm safe.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Try Open Office. The latest version is pretty slick and for 95% of people it's all they will ever need. So far it has worked with every Word, Excel, and PPT file I've thrown at it. I still have Office on my machine, but it looks like MSFT has seen the last upgrade payment from me. (Yes, I did pay a donation to openoffice.org, so don't claim I'm trying to get something for nothing)]]>Mar 12th 2010 11:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/Mar 12th 2010 9:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
They're Microsoft, they can afford it.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
I agree. It seems like the fault is pretty clear in this case and I'm not quite sure why MS's legal team would waste the money to continue fighting this.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/To bankrupt i4i with legal fees? Or since i4i is a small company, sink the company by requiring all their attention and funds be poured into a court case instead of their customer base.

And MS probably did the math and risk assessment and found that it's worth whatever % chance of winning and not paying the damages vs. losing and paying the 250mil.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/microsoft-loses-second-word-patent-appeal-on-the-hook-for-240/
Fair enough. I would make a terrible businessman.]]>Mar 12th 2010 9:59AM