[Tom9729]

Quote

In court documents, Judge Leonard Davis revealed a "particularly damaging" Microsoft internal e-mail that not only acknowledged i4i's patent (No. 5,787,449), but listed the patent number and stated Word would make i4i's technology "obsolete."

http://blog.seattlep...ives/176685.asp

i4i's actual product here, and it looks like it has been around since at least 2003 (citation needed).

Someone really needs to change the title of this thread. Microsoft Word is not going to be "illegal" to own or use, i4i just wants Microsoft to either get a license or drop "Custom XML".

Quote

"The suit is not about file formats, and the verdict has no implications for Open XML,” Kutz added. “It is about the way Microsoft Word handles certain kinds of code. In addition, the particular Custom XML functionality at issue is not used by most customers."

http://gcn.com/artic...-uncertain.aspx

Also this has NOTHING to do with software piracy.

[Pwn]

I would invite you read this article on the Somali pirates and their tactics. These people have nothing and come from nothing. They hold something that a wealthy nation finds valuable for their own gain. This is pretty much the same tactics this small company is using against Microsoft. Although it's something they have a legal right to, it's still bait. They wait until the big company has enough vested interest in it, then they play their hand. Only when it would cost the big company too much money to balk at it do they take it to court. It's a strategy, a tactic. They held the patent for several years without a word, letting Microsoft get more comfortable with the product, then they file the complaint.

[Tom9729]

Pwn, on 18 Aug, 2009 - 07:24 PM, said:

I would invite you read this article on the Somali pirates and their tactics. These people have nothing and come from nothing. They hold something that a wealthy nation finds valuable for their own gain. This is pretty much the same tactics this small company is using against Microsoft. Although it's something they have a legal right to, it's still bait. They wait until the big company has enough vested interest in it, then they play their hand. Only when it would cost the big company too much money to balk at it do they take it to court. It's a strategy, a tactic. They held the patent for several years without a word, letting Microsoft get more comfortable with the product, then they file the complaint.

Microsoft knew about the patent when they added the feature.

Quote

The email is a response to another Microsoft employee who forwarded a message to Mr. Sawicki from i4i
explaining its products and specifically mentioning the ‘449 patent. Id. In the email Mr. Sawicki notes “we saw [i4i’s products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete. It looks great for XP though.” Id. The email confirms Microsoft’s awareness of the ‘499 patent, its relationship to i4i’s products, as well as Microsoft’s intention to implement similar capabilities in WORD.

http://blog.seattlep...0817i4imemo.pdf (memo written by the judge)

[Pwn]

I'm not saying Microsoft didn't know about it. The article about pirates doesn't say they didn't know the pirates existed either. On the contrary, they mentioned a running tally of how much the pirates have made.

[Tom9729]

Pwn, on 18 Aug, 2009 - 10:47 PM, said:

I'm not saying Microsoft didn't know about it. The article about pirates doesn't say they didn't know the pirates existed either. On the contrary, they mentioned a running tally of how much the pirates have made.

This is very very simple.
1) Microsoft supports software patents
2) This is how software patents work.

As I already posted, Microsoft recently sued TomTom for infringing on one of their patents.

Microsoft recently patented XML word processing documents.

Last year they received a patent for Page Up/Page Down functionality.

Shall I go on?

Your analogy only makes sense if the ships being attacked by Somali pirates were pirates themselves.

[RudiVisser]

I've only skimmed through the comments here, but 1; It's not serious, 2; Of course it's true, and 3; It won't change anything/doesn't make a difference to anyone.

Fact is that Microsoft will just settle with whoever challenges them, I mean, why wouldn't they?? Not like they can't afford to do so.

[lanec42]

So i4i believes that m$ stole from the addon? That would mean that this only applies to Word then, verdad?

I hope so, because I'm pro-XML and anti-Microsoft XD

But Word 2007 was the shit.

[Tom9729]

lanec42, on 19 Aug, 2009 - 11:32 AM, said:

So i4i believes that m$ stole from the addon? That would mean that this only applies to Word then, verdad?

I hope so, because I'm pro-XML and anti-Microsoft XD

But Word 2007 was the shit.

This is about "Custom XML", a Microsoft Office feature lifted from i4i's product. Microsoft has acknowledged this, and was aware of the patent.

[KYA]

My understanding is that Microsoft paid i4i to use the feature in Word. I could be horribly wrong though. Conflicting sources of information out there I suppose.

[bgonzales999]

I first heard about this on engadget a bit ago. Seems pretty fair to me. At least it keeps microsoft from getting above the law.

[Bladescope]

Greed is apparantly all that's left in the big businesses these days.

Has anyone else noticed that all it is now is people suing people for the most rediculous reasons?

If they noticed the copyright breach before, why did they wait so long to take action?

[gabehabe]

KYA, on 18 Aug, 2009 - 12:09 PM, said:

NeoTifa, on 18 Aug, 2009 - 05:41 AM, said:

Word sucks anyways. Works or gtfo. I've said that since I was like 10.

You actually like Microsoft Works?

That's exactly what I thought when I read that. Works is lame.

[syfran]

If this was any other company ( well, almost), I would be pissed.

This post has been edited by syfran: 02 September 2009 - 05:08 AM

[Tom9729]

Bladescope, on 2 Sep, 2009 - 06:34 AM, said:

Greed is apparantly all that's left in the big businesses these days.

Has anyone else noticed that all it is now is people suing people for the most rediculous reasons?

If they noticed the copyright breach before, why did they wait so long to take action?

I agree with you in general but not in this case, please take the time to get educated before just posting yet another knee-jerk reaction.