Microsoft Word to Stay On Shelves For Now

Status
Not open for further replies.

jerther

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
286
0
18,780
0
man, patents are a real greedy business... could you imagine a world without lawyers?

...

*dancing people all around the world, hand to hand*

brrrrr :(
 

burnley14

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
682
0
18,990
3
I was actually rooting for M$ on this case. I think the whole patenting strictly to steal money from someone who wants to pursue progress is ridiculous. At least M$ was doing something with the idea, not just sitting on it until the time was right to file a lawsuit.
 
G

Guest

Guest
burnley14, You really need to keep up with the details of the case before you open your stupid mouth and make yourself look more stupid.

i4i was using the patented technology. Microsoft willfully infringed on the patent and intended to make i4i's technology obsolete.

They defintely were not sitting on the patent.
 

grieve

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2004
2,709
0
20,790
4
[citation][nom]Imperiex[/nom]Microsoft willfully infringed on the patent and intended to make i4i's technology obsolete.They defintely were not sitting on the patent.[/citation]
Im not doubting you, but i wish you informed us how they are using the patent or a link or something to back your statement up.
 

tektek

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2006
186
0
18,680
0
i'm with MS on this one.. its just an example that no matter how perfect a system is... it will still have flaws.. i just wish the consumer would gain from this instead of just corporations.
 

jerther

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
286
0
18,780
0
burnley14, You really need to keep up with the details of the case before you open your stupid mouth and make yourself look more stupid.
I agree with the keep up part, but not the look stupid part. this one was very unnessary...
 

alikum

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2008
674
0
19,010
5
I'll have to support burnley14. The patent system is broken. It only restricts us from advancing in technology and at the same time, restricting competition. XML is an open language that defines data, much like HTML defining layout. Since i4i claims that they are the founder of the architecture, then improve it and go head on against Microsoft. Wait, i4i isn't even targeting business/consumer market in the first place.
 

jerther

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
286
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]I'll have to support burnley14. The patent system is broken. It only restricts us from advancing in technology and at the same time, restricting competition. [/citation]

More on this here :)
 
Microsofts spends millions settling cases each year simply to avoid a costly legal battle. There must be a reason for them to keep fighting this. $290 million seems a bit insane to pay for a patent like that.
 

danish_2828

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2009
48
0
18,530
0
Can you imagine if AutoDesk would start filing lawsuits as well for all the numerous companies that have integrated the use and manipulation of DWG and DXF files in their software? Most 3D drafting such as: ProE, 3D Studio Max, Libra, and others some how can import, create and manipulate those files. Heck even Photoshop CS4 can manipulate 3D DXF files now. Does that mean those companies shouldn't be using that file format and they should be taken off the shelf? Should Adobe Illustrator 5-CS4 be taken from shelf since it can manipulate 2D DXF and DWG files?

No. I feel that the ability of software companies to use the same file types creates competition towards the advancement of better product. While at the same time making it possible for those softwares to be compatible with each other and if a customer decides that the competition has better software they can upgrade or change to it comfortably.
 

alikum

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2008
674
0
19,010
5
[citation][nom]danish_2828[/nom]Can you imagine if AutoDesk would start filing lawsuits as well for all the numerous companies that have integrated the use and manipulation of DWG and DXF files in their software? Most 3D drafting such as: ProE, 3D Studio Max, Libra, and others some how can import, create and manipulate those files. Heck even Photoshop CS4 can manipulate 3D DXF files now. Does that mean those companies shouldn't be using that file format and they should be taken off the shelf? Should Adobe Illustrator 5-CS4 be taken from shelf since it can manipulate 2D DXF and DWG files?No. I feel that the ability of software companies to use the same file types creates competition towards the advancement of better product. While at the same time making it possible for those softwares to be compatible with each other and if a customer decides that the competition has better software they can upgrade or change to it comfortably.[/citation]
That's precisely the point.
 

danish_2828

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2009
48
0
18,530
0
If Microsoft doesn't win the case. I think they should start selling Word without DOCX or XML abilities. Then make a free "i4i" compatibility patch that allows them to use the docx or XML file types.
 
[citation][nom]danish_2828[/nom]Can you imagine if AutoDesk would start filing lawsuits as well for all the numerous companies that have integrated the use and manipulation of DWG and DXF files in their software? Most 3D drafting such as: ProE, 3D Studio Max, Libra, and others some how can import, create and manipulate those files. Heck even Photoshop CS4 can manipulate 3D DXF files now. Does that mean those companies shouldn't be using that file format and they should be taken off the shelf? Should Adobe Illustrator 5-CS4 be taken from shelf since it can manipulate 2D DXF and DWG files?No. I feel that the ability of software companies to use the same file types creates competition towards the advancement of better product. While at the same time making it possible for those softwares to be compatible with each other and if a customer decides that the competition has better software they can upgrade or change to it comfortably.[/citation]
Well said!
 

hakesterman

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2008
563
0
18,980
0
Microsoft abuses any patient that they feel they can astract money from. They would just soon run you over than look at you. They are so obcesed with being number one that they would probably sell their own mother for a buck if it was in the best interest of the company.

 

backbydemand

Distinguished
May 26, 2008
81
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]tester24[/nom]Has anybody heard of i4i before this?[/citation]

No, prior to this story, no one had ever heard of i4i and I challenge a single person on this forum to say they have without being called a big fat liar.

[citation][nom]hakesterman[/nom]Microsoft abuses any patient that they feel they can astract money from.[/citation]

What, you mean like when Apple does it with the company logo from the Beatles, the iPhone name from Cisco, the iPod menu system from Creative, etc etc etc etc onto infinity?

Get over it, even if i4i did own the patent, where are the millions of successful copies of their software being sold. Oh, hang on, isn't it something that is used for Open Source (ie FREE) software?
 

geoffs

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
276
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]backbydemand[/nom]Get over it, even if i4i did own the patent, where are the millions of successful copies of their software being sold. Oh, hang on, isn't it something that is used for Open Source (ie FREE) software?[/citation]No, i4i has stated that Open Office does NOT use XML in a way that violates the patent. It's only MS's use of "Custom XML" in docx (Word 2007/2008) files that violates the patent.

i4i had a product (targeted at a limited market) that uses it's patented technology, so all the complaints/arguments about them just patenting an idea, not using it, not producing a product, etc are all simply from people who haven't looked into this, many of the articles on this injunction mention that i4i does actually have a product that uses this technology and has since the late 1990's.

I've read the patent application and I'm not convinced the patent should have been issued, I'm pretty certain there is prior art that should invalidate it, but that remains to be demonstrated.

The big problem for MS is that they have internal email showing they knew of the i4i patent and chose to violate it for commercial gain anyway. Had they challenged the patents validity, I might have some sympathy for MS, but they didn't. Instead, they willfully violated the patent and now want to be excused from the consequences of that choice. You knowingly break the law....

What, you mean like when Apple does it with the company logo from the Beatles, the iPhone name from Cisco, the iPod menu system from Creative, ...?
Trademarks and copyrights are completely different rules than patents. There was never any confusion between Apple Computer and Apple Records, that was bogus from the start. iPhone was settled between Apple and Cisco. The Creative patent covering the menu system will be invalidated on prior art if anyone ever challenges it (yes, I do know of prior art on that one).
 

geoffs

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
276
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]danish_2828[/nom]If Microsoft doesn't win the case. I think they should start selling Word without DOCX or XML abilities. Then make a free "i4i" compatibility patch that allows them to use the docx or XML file types.[/citation]Can't do that, it's illegal to violate a patent regardless of whether you sell, give away, or only use the offending product yourself. Patents are "EXCLUSIVE", you can not use it without a license from the patent owner.
 

ThisIsMe

Distinguished
May 15, 2009
171
11
18,685
0
What about OpenOffice.org? It technically uses the exact same method of editing and injecting xml code into files for formatting purposes. The end result is even the same, and they do it on purpose so that it is compatible with MS Word.

Well, I guess since it isn't Microsoft, they don't get bashed. Besides, they'd probably just use the "Well, they did it first!" argument anyways
 
G

Guest

Guest
G

Guest

Guest
Microsoft is blatantly at fault this time.

They knew about i4is ip, they wanted to licence it for word, the deal fell through, but microsoft used the technology anyway.

I hate our stupid patent system, but this time, its working as it should.
 

geoffs

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
276
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]Linux_revolutionary[/nom]OK, I just lost a lot of sympathy for MS on this case[/citation]Good, MS doesn't deserve any sympathy on this case. If MS had chosen to fight the patent, I would have some sympathy for them, and might even be supportive of that action. However, they chose to willfully violate a patent, and for that, they deserve what they're getting.

I'm going to refrain from speculating why MS chose to implement docx w/custom XML rather than use the OpenDoc or "standard" XML.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS