Dell and HP Back Microsoft in Word Lawsuit

[jn77]

If Microsoft broke the law, and it affects their partners, well, thats life.

If I start a company, develop something, and get it patented, and some huge monopoly steals it, They own me every penny my work earned me.

Microsoft, HP, Dell, and the like did not get to where they are by backing down and being nice to their competition.

 

[Guest]

@demonhorde665: NO, you can't do whatever you want with it just because it's open source. There are various licenses that are issued with it, all of the greater/lesser GPL/GNU/Gwhatever licenses usually state that you can't make it closed source, among other things. If it's my intellectual property, then I can claim whatever license rights I want for it, just like Microsoft. You're no better than somebody who is pirating a copy of Windows, with the attitude like "haha sucker, you gave me the source code, you're fucked now!!! I'm going to steal it and use it, and you can't stop me!!!!".

 

[r3t4rd]

Why are you guys so Clueless? Step back, and take a look at the big picture not just your picture (mostly your personal "experience"). This should be your first question: Why aren't all the Big Companies not using Open Office? Open Office is great....for home use and small companies - maybe even some mid size companies. But in the Corporate and Multi-Billion Dollar Companies (The Corporate world is where MS makes most of its $$$$) like - example: 3M, Open Office will not due.

MS Office is just better designed to meet the "corporate world" while Open Office is not. I don't use Open Office extensively but I know Open office does not do or mimick everything MS office can do. That is why Open Office has not or yet been accepted by Corporations. Think of this: OpenOffice = free, MS = $200/license. What would you rather get? "Free" Ofcourse. Corporately, I am also sure (rolls eyes) they prefer "Free", but Open Office just doesn't come close to what MS Office can provide. There have also been many people who have posted what MS Office provides over Open Office and again, I don't use Open Office extensively so I can't quote specifics of the MS Office's specific adavantage.

The other side to this is big Corporations buy and or lease OEM PC's from DELL and HP 90% of thetime. So I can see Dell and HP's decision in this as well.

I am no fan of MS and MS should pay up, but if MS does pull MS Office, the ramification from thise move is going to be pretty harsh.

 

[frankzz]

Have some of the commenters READ the patent, or have you just parused through the article and jumped on the "bandwagon" that MS should just pay. Wait, you guys sound like the guy that sits on the other side of the phone that tells you to pay your overdue bills who has no clue why...
For all of you too lazy to find the patent language, I have posted it
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,571,169.PN.&OS=PN/7,571,169&RS=PN/7,571,169

It sounds to me (even though it makes little sense with all the mechanical errors. a.k.a. could have been writen better by monkeys) that these 6 guys patented editing XML files, saving them, and giving "hints" to other apps so these said apps dont have to understand the file(A title page I guess)....
If MS is held to this judgement, whos to say that apple wont be next or any other word processor that you can work with XML on that uses a XSD file for coding.

And tom's, please make us informed readers by giving us some background information on the topics that you give news on. Knowing what the patent was about other than it's involves XML that was stated in a previous article would be really helpful. Some of us reading these articles dont have time to find the background info.

 

[E7130]

The biggest fail is that i4i's patent shouldn't have even been approved. Its riddles with vague details and point to no clear design. They more than likely never could produce anything other than a broad idea and where luck to patent it.

 

[E7130]

[citation][nom]JN77[/nom]If Microsoft broke the law, and it affects their partners, well, thats life.If I start a company, develop something, and get it patented, and some huge monopoly steals it, They own me every penny my work earned me.Microsoft, HP, Dell, and the like did not get to where they are by backing down and being nice to their competition.[/citation]

They didn't develop anything, did you even read the patent? Apple, Adobe, etc will be effected because they use their own version off the XML coding and all i4i did was develop a vague/broad patent (which shouldn't have even been approved). I really wonder who the hell wrote it as it mechanically doesn't make since and if it did would apply to just about every form of XML.

 

[Guest]

r3t4rd: You do know that big corporations pay like $2 a copy for Office and XP, right? That is pretty much the real reason big corporations use it, if they had to pay full retail, they probably would use OpenOffice.


PS: That kind of pricing scheme constitutes abuse of MS's monopoly power.

 

[falconqc]

[citation][nom]the associate[/nom]That's right, i'm going to invest in a company who's sole purpose is to create programing techniques, technologies and so on, patent them, never make any use of these new innovations, and never let anyone else use them either.I'd estimate this stupid planet is at LEAST a few hundred years behind in scientific/technological/psychological evolution/progression because of garbaged brained mentalities such as this.end of rant -.-[/citation]

Apparently its a big thing now. I have friends who worked for companies who do not actually have any clients, buyers or products. All they do is R&D all day long and patent stuff left and right. Sometimes a company will come in to pay for rights to a patent, but apparently the company they worked for made their money on patent infringement lawsuits. The company eventually went out of business and the owner died in his car a few weeks later or something.

 

[ethanolson]

I've reviewed the patent. Although I agree that it shouldn't have been filed, it's filed and we gotta live with that.

I believe that MS is not in violation of the patent with Word 2007, but that they were in violation of a part with Word 2003. Word 2007 stores the file as a PKzip single file that is actually an archive with multiple files and folders. No single piece represents the document, though the unformatted body is found in a file called document.xml. So the patent doesn't apply here.

The judge has been misled, which is easy to do with a non-technical judge. As a prosecutor, you just size him up and bamboozle him.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]E7130[/nom]They didn't develop anything, did you even read the patent? Apple, Adobe, etc will be effected because they use their own version off the XML coding and all i4i did was develop a vague/broad patent (which shouldn't have even been approved). I really wonder who the hell wrote it as it mechanically doesn't make since and if it did would apply to just about every form of XML.[/citation]Apparently, you didn't understand the patent. It's specific to "custom XML", and it's even more specific to a method of separating the formating information from the main text rather than embedding the formatting info in the text. This will only affect companies who have used custom XML in a specific way.

Whether or not the patent should have been issued or should be overturned, is a separate issue. At issue presently is whether or not MS WILLFULLY infringed i4i's patent, and MS's own emails indicate they did so knowingly. MS could have, and perhaps should have, challenged the patent, but the have not done that, instead, they chose to violate the patent. Now they are requesting to be excused from having to pay the consequences of willfully violating a patent.

 

[r3t4rd]

[citation][nom]r3t4rd_by_name_r3t4rd_by_reputation[/nom]r3t4rd: You do know that big corporations pay like $2 a copy for Office and XP, right? That is pretty much the real reason big corporations use it, if they had to pay full retail, they probably would use OpenOffice.PS: That kind of pricing scheme constitutes abuse of MS's monopoly power.[/citation]

Sorry to say, but you fail. To note, my Company is a Top10 Fortune 500 company just to show you the size and mass of the IT support I have to do and 15yrs of doing it. That out of the way, my Company does not get XP/Vista for $2 a license. XP/Vista is an enterprise license and I don't know the expense of this because I don't sit ontop of the corporate IT thrown in my Company (so maybe you can say $2 but I highly doubt it)nor is it in my job description to know my company's expenditures that does not immediately affect my daily job. MS Office on the other hand, I have to keep track and update the corporate database of each licensed install at $200 a piece.

Here is the facts, sometimes a company (example my compmany) buys products and services from another company at a discount price vs regular consumers. What I have noticed is that this can also be reversed. Example: when I order parts and or supplies, there are specific partners. These partners that my company has a contract with charges full retail. That is just the way things are between companies - because it is company to company, not company to consumers. Another example, my first yrs working in my Comapny's IT dept, 40GB driver for $100 vs New Egg $60. I went to my boss and said we can save $40 if we purchase it through here. My boss would say no. I didn't understand it back then but have a better grasp and understanding now. It all boils down to logistics and easy/quick support for products and services. I can go more into this but will refrain from writing a book.

Have some of the commenters READ the patent, or have you just parused through the article and jumped on the "bandwagon" that MS should just pay. Wait, you guys sound like the guy that sits on the other side of the phone that tells you to pay your overdue bills who has no clue why...
For all of you too lazy to find the patent language, I have posted it
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph [...] /7,571,169

Sorry but I am guilty of this and acknowledge. And as a News/Blog site such as Toms, I read what I can and take what its spewed here sometimes with a grain of salt. I don't have all the time in my work day to go reading lawsuits and patents etc. Nor do I want to once I get home. I think I am like most people, we just want to unravel and relax play with our kids instead of jumping onto the web and finding out the details of said item.

Regardless, I see your point if MS falls its a domino with this XML code patent. But as most people here have stated, the US Patent system is the most Frakked-up system - PERIOD.

 

[r3t4rd]

[citation][nom]r3t4rd_by_name_r3t4rd_by_reputation[/nom]r3t4rd: You do know that big corporations pay like $2 a copy for Office and XP, right? That is pretty much the real reason big corporations use it, if they had to pay full retail, they probably would use OpenOffice.PS: That kind of pricing scheme constitutes abuse of MS's monopoly power.[/citation]

Forgot...

Lets say even at $2 a license. That is still $2. Do the math and add 100K of workstations. If I owned a company I'd want to save as much as I can. Why would I want to spend X amount of dollars on MS office when Open Office is free? Come on its FREE!! But, why haven't my Company I work for and many others change to Open Office? I think I've already answered that question. Most people who work in said same position as I do will probbaly agree 100% with me on this one.

I do agree with you on one item though, in my opinion, MS is a Monopolistic entity to a certain extent.