CAFC Upholds Huge Fine; Injunction Against Selling Microsoft Word
from the does-mercexchange-mean-nothing? dept
Another example of how the patent system is being used to hinder, rather than help, innovation. While we're no fans of Microsoft's view on patents these days, that doesn't mean we approve of ridiculous lawsuits against the company either. The one that got all the attention this year was a tiny Canadian startup, i4i, that claimed a patent (5,787,449) on editing an XML document, and then sued Microsoft and won (in Texas, of course). Not only did the company win, but the court ruled that Microsoft owed $98 per copy of Microsoft Word for this minor feature. On top of that, the court issued an injunction saying Microsoft could no longer sell Microsoft Word with this feature. Given the MercExchange ruling that said that injunctions don't always make sense in patent cases, it was hard to defend such an injunction as being necessary.But... never let common sense get in the way of how the judicial system works when it comes to patents. The appeals court (CAFC) has now upheld the lower court ruling, requiring Microsoft to pay the $290 million and bars further sales of any copy of Microsoft Word with this feature as of January 11th. Microsoft's response is that it will simply remove this "little-used" feature. So this feature is rarely used, and yet it's worth $98 per copy of Word sold? How does that make sense?
Meanwhile, the tiny Canadian company is thrilled. It just made hundreds of millions of dollars for stating the obvious. And, rather than encouraging innovation, it's forcing a company to remove features. How is that innovative? How does that do anything at all to "promote the progress"? While some Canadian law professors might like to make up facts as to why these types of rulings make sense, I'm still at a loss as to how progress has been promoted here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cafc, injunction, patents, xml
Companies: i4i, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
; P
I wonder if I could patent the wheel... or the tire. Or tire tread or something common that everybody uses. My BS patent would be worth a fortune!
How would I word that... "grooved friction inspiring devices to overcome road anti-friction coefficient effects." or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll make trillions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft had approached i4i and was interested in their custom XML for searching documents quickly. After seeing the results of how i4i's product worked, Microsoft went off and simply added it to their own existing product. There may have even been some allegations of direct copying of code, I do not remember.
Then, Microsoft on numerous occasions refused to license the functionality from i4i. Internal Microsoft emails brought to light during the trial indicated that Microsoft was aware of these details, and that they had intended on simply squashing the smaller company i4i, as they were much larger.
Just for the record, I do not believe that software should be patentable. At home, (where I have control over the software I use) I only use FOSS. However, if the system allows for software to be patented, then i4i was within their rights to defend their product.
If i4i were simply a patent troll, as is often assumed, they would have attempted to pursue legal suits against OpenOffice and other products that are similar. However, instead, they have publicly announced that they have no intention of doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Microsoft duplicated i4i's product in Word 2007. i4i is not a patent troll, the copied product was originally created for Word 2000 and is not the only product that they offer.
The problem lies in the patent itself. The patent itself is not a description of the duplicated functionality. It is, in fact, an overly broad patent covering the separation of a documents content from its structure, in other words, parsing XML.
I believe that what actually happened is that M$ (in their typical fashion) duplicated their product which angered i4i. They used a patent that, although related, did not actually cover the functionality. Combined, they offer enough evidence (to a layman) that M$ infringed. Without a doubt M$ engaged in some questionable actions in regard to this issue, but it was not patent infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why texas "of course"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why texas "of course"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tooth4Tooth
Or would that infringe upon the i4i patent ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether the patent is worth $98/unit or not, I commend the system for holding accountable a big business that appears to have profited from stealing the little guy's IP. It is a step in the right direction towards making it less profitable to steal and more profitable to create new and innovative technology, or at least license it from those who do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In software, licensing pieces is a greater hindrance to development than anything else imaginable. Software is iterative and reusable. When you use building blocks that cost money and require licensing, the costs of a potential end product grow infinitely because it's software built on top of software built on top of software ... etc.
There's 2 reasons royalties/licensed building blocks are used: (1) A standard has been built on them, and it's impossible to rewrite something to reproduce similar functionality (2) Short sighted thinking (intentionally or unintentionally) that gives the software developed no chance of growth or being reused elsewhere.
The friction created by royalties and licensing in software is immense, and growing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's EDITING a (XML) document. Kindergardeners are *aware of the concept.*
I'm sure there was a presentation and all, and once they realized that the only person on the frakin' planet who would think this is noteworthy is Almis R. Jankus, they just rolled their eyes and carried on.
The fact that Almis R. Jankus, Idiot, is a USPTO Examiner obviously escaped their notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they are idiots too. Or shills. The whole *point* of SGML (XML is a sorta-subset) is to keep content and markup separate. Anybody who submits a patent application like that should be shot to prevent further mischief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Informed comments help to stimulate debate. In this regard your comment at 36 is sorely lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I may be so bold, why not read a court's decision before launching off on yet another all too predictable tirade?
For those who might actually want to better inform themselves of the pertinent issues, the CAFC's opinion can be found at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-1504.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The court agreed that Microsoft infringed on several of the concepts in the patent, and awarded i4i 200 million dollars for this infringement. Microsoft put together a product that included a myriad of concepts, a thousand times more than what's in the patent application that people wanted to buy and convinced them to do so. They succeeded in the market with their own code. I4i filed a patent application for some concepts that gave them a monopoly on the idea, which they attempted to sell to Microsoft.
Which is the sort of innovation you want to encourage? Patenting concepts or creating products? This reads like a repeat of windshield wiper dude to me ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recovery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair...
i4i => me for me => screw you (5 years from now i4i won't even exist.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fishy name...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad to see M$ taken down a notch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Glad to see M$ taken down a notch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where word processors can only edit letters...
One company...
Had the courage to include a XML editor.
Greg Kinnear stars in...
Microsoft Word of Genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hooray, small guy gets big payout from big company, who cares why or if it makes any sense at all, it's a compelling story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an eye for an eye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A panel of the CAFC unanimously upholds the trial court's decision. proof that the CAFC is populated with judges who in substantial measure are found wanting when it comes to common sense.
Fortunately, our judicial system examines contested matters at a far more detailed level than seems to be the case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]