Patent Suit Forces MSFT to Change to Word, Office

[dheadley]

@zoemayne

I believe it has been stated, maybe even by i4i itself that openoffice and other programs do not in any way infringe on their patent. I believe this is strickly being applied to Microsoft's use of i4i's method in Word.

@rockyjohn

I am not sure about how the data is submitted to the FDA or the Patent Office. If I remember correctly I believe that i4i offers a solution to do so on their website, but I am not sure if it is a plug-in for Word/Office in the same way as the custom solution in this lawsuit started out as a Word plug-in.

 

[rockyjohn]

If they required 25 million for licensing than they should of just probably gave them 25million + 10 million in damages... not 290 million.

Why only $10 million in damages? The judge charged $40 million for willful infringement. Do you think they should just get a slap on the wrist? And the $10 million leaves them better of committng willful infringement and paying such a fine later. The judge also assessed $37 million just in interest costs, and I know courts are pretty skimpy in interest rate calculations. And what about all their attorney costs and the management time involved in dealing with this and taking their time and attention away from business to right a wrong that never should have happened in the first place.

In fact, why not jail time for willful theft? Why does someone stealing a car worth say $5,000 go to jail for years but companies can willfully steal others property and the issue does not even come up? The double standard for white collar crime is ridiculous.

 

[zachary k]

when the going gets rough, file for patent infringement.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

[citation][nom]tester24[/nom]edit* "little used feature" not function sheesh I need an editor[/citation]
You're not the only one around here that needs an editor.

 

[zoemayne]

[citation][nom]zachary k[/nom]when the going gets rough, file for patent infringement.[/citation]

I dont like microsoft cause of their business practices are against open development but $290 million is too high for a license that would of costs $25 million. $80 million w interest in mind and lawyers (im guessing they filed in 06 since MS word 07 came out in 06) seems more than enough to of covered everything.

 

[zoemayne]

[citation][nom]rockyjohn[/nom]Why only $10 million in damages? The judge charged $40 million for willful infringement. Do you think they should just get a slap on the wrist? And the $10 million leaves them better of committng willful infringement and paying such a fine later. The judge also assessed $37 million just in interest costs, and I know courts are pretty skimpy in interest rate calculations. And what about all their attorney costs and the management time involved in dealing with this and taking their time and attention away from business to right a wrong that never should have happened in the first place.In fact, why not jail time for willful theft? Why does someone stealing a car worth say $5,000 go to jail for years but companies can willfully steal others property and the issue does not even come up? The double standard for white collar crime is ridiculous.[/citation]

I dont like microsoft cause of their business practices are against open development but $290 million is too high for a license that would of costs $25 million. $80 million w interest in mind and lawyers (im guessing they filed in 06 since MS word 07 came out in 06) seems more than enough to of covered everything.

 

[justiceguy216]

I'm apt to believe dheadley here, his story sounds realistic. The way Tom's has it makes i4i look like a troll and makes the US government look like a useless tool. If it sounds too ridiculous to be true it probably is, and Tom's story sounds ridiculous. (Not bashing tom's, just sounds like they've sensationalized this story a bit)

 

[rockyjohn]

I dont like microsoft cause of their business practices are against open development but $290 million is too high for a license that would of costs $25 million. $80 million w interest in mind and lawyers (im guessing they filed in 06 since MS word 07 came out in 06) seems more than enough to of covered everything.

What about some jail time for willful theft of $25 million? I guess it is the same old story, let the rich white collar ciminal pay a little more money (which is peanuts to him) and throw the poor person in jail. I know patent infringements cases can some times get knarly and "innocent" infringement can occur, but in this case there was a court finding of willful infringement. Shouldn't there be jail time for that? Throw a few executives in jail a couple of times and see how their behavior changes.

 

[ossie]

[citation][nom]tester24[/nom]I love how they put it "Little used function" like a slap in the face to i4i.[/citation]
Incidentally docx is the "new" Weird native format... of course incompatible with everything else, as usual due to m$'s monopolistic behavior.
Funny how wintarded micro$uxx fankiddies twist the reality to suit their own misconceptions... and whine wholeheartedly if their almighty $w god gets a slap on the wrists. Just m$ is allowed to "borrow" from others for the "greater good"... of m$ junk lu$ers.

 

[beayn]

I would think this isn't the general idea that has the patent but the process by which it is done as well, probably shown with code right in the patent. It's the only way this lawsuit could succeed. It would also explain the "willful patent infringement by Microsoft" statement. This wouldn't have been found true for an idea that was an inevitable step in the evolution of software but an actual identical copy of the code used by i4i in their patent.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

The huge numbers boggle my mind.

 

[species8472]

If this ultimately doesn't hurt Microsoft then that's fine with me. Way too many people picking on MS lately.

 

[th_at]

290 Million Dollars was chosen exactly to hurt Microsoft.
Seriously, if you fine a Moloch like MS with 25 Million, which is probably less then they spend on Christmas decorations, you just reaffirm their behaviour.

Way too many people picking on MS?! Oh, that poor giant...

More people should be picking on them and Google and Intel and all the non IT-corporations that are continuously working on locking in the free market. They're feeding and petting that abomination of a patent system and use it to intimidate & kill lesser competition and now that we have one of those rare cases where it actually comes to bite them in the a$$ some sheep are taking pity with them. Unbelievable!

If it was the other way around, if some small tier company willfully infringed on MS patents, you think they would be getting any kind of leeway? "Sure, keep selling your infringing product for as long as it takes you to update it without hurting your profits..."

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Zoe, the size of the judgement is to send a message to a company (and companies) so large that they are hoping for a drawn-out suit to bankrupt the patent holder, or that the 'interest' on what they should've paid would be peanuts. The concept is to avoid the willful infringement as well as to punish a company that actively tried to avoid paying and avoid accountability.

This isn't like the bunch of lawyers buying companies in order to sue, i4i makes a competing solution, and

 

[kronos_cornelius]

[citation][nom]intelliclint[/nom]The problem is the patient pretty much covers all programs that convert file that uses proprietary meta data to hold document formatting commands and converts it into SGML format like XML to hold those same commands. Really this company should have be granted a copyright for their software not a patient on the idea.This means Open Office is also in violation.[/citation]

I agree that the feature seems general enough that they should not have a patent in the first place. But I would like to read a longer explanation of why this merits a copyright instead of a patent.