Still, even if it's Microsoft, I don't ever want a patent troll to succeed... so I guess, this one time, I'm on Microsoft's side. Wow, that feels weird to write that. Obviously the best thing would be the elimination of software patents altogether, but I don't see that happening especially in our corrupt legal system where money buys verdicts in the big cases.

Don't let your hatred of Microsoft cloud your judgement here,

It will be naive, but if what you said is true, then it covers LaTeX as well, which is clearly a prior art.

Actually, it doesn't just cover XML documents. The (ridiculous!) patent covers a "Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other," for any type of document.

Yes, thank goodness OpenOffice doesn't use an XML based format and is therefore immune to this patent!

What an odd turn of events. I'm just trying to imagine a Word-less US. If the decision isn't appealed, this doesn't rule out future Word programs though, does it? Only 2003 and 2007? If it does rule out any Word program forevermore, businesses won't have much to turn to except for OpenOffice.org (which wouldn't be a bad thing, I suppose) aside from some other less-known proprietary programs. I have to say-- that seems a bit harsh. Very surprising, too. I bet it won't be hard for them to repeal the decision, though. At least for being able to still sell Word.

"Yes, thank goodness OpenOffice doesn't use an XML based format and is therefore immune to this patent!

The injunction reads:

Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.

This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.

I'm internally divided over this matter. Frankly, Microsoft should know better and be more careful when it comes to matters like these. The gazillions of trials they had in which they ended up paying multi-million settlements for misconduct or infringement should have taught them that. But a court ruling like that is just ridiculous. Is there really legislation allowing a judge to prohibit a company to sell or support their product (i.e., Office) altogether? Also, it's OFFICE(!); think of the economic damages, not only for Microsoft (which may end up outweighing the settlement), but for any company or individual around the globe using Office. That would mean that they, too, have effectively just a few days to completely transfer everything to OpenOffice. And as history has shown us; they won't.

PJ: Tell that to Microsoft. They are pushing for patents on standards to be considered "open standards". Ah. The judge just gave them a lesson on that theme, did it not? The chickens have come home to roost. But for the rest of us, an object lesson. This is what life is like when you allow software patents, even on standards. How do you like it? Keep in mind that in this case, it affects only one company. When it is a standard everyone uses, it affects the entire market. By the way, I hear ODF is a standard that does not allow Custom XML in documents, so in this case it's just Microsoft and its users who are impacted. And by the way, here is an article on the XML patent Microsoft was granted on August 4 by the oh-so-clueful Patent Office, which, the article says, "would appear to cover all usage of XML and XSDs in word processing document, which would effectively leave all other modern word processors - and other software that used their documents - liable to licensing by the company."

You probably think I am delighted. I am not. I hate software patents. And this is precisely why. It is karmic that this happened to Microsoft, who bullies Linux with patent threats and just got an XML patent of its own on August 4th that could, presumably, be used against the entire market. How stupid do we have to be to grant patents on software? On software *standards*? This is what happens. Now do you see it?

FOSS has been taking the lead in trying to educate the world that patents are toxic for software. They disrupt and they block innovation. Software and patents need to get a divorce. You might like to read Red Hat's amicus brief that it submitted in the Bilski case to see why software patents are particularly destructive to the FOSS development model.

As for Microsoft's recent effort to define "open standards" to, as Dana Blankenhorn describes it, "mandate standards bodies to consider patented, protected, proprietary technology on a par with truly open source offerings", what has just happened to the XML standard gives what I consider the absolutely final and complete answer to such a specious argument. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present Exhibit A. It's not open if a judge can shut it down. Or a vendor. Is that hard?

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5787449 Download the PDF and read it. It's quite astonishing that they got this Patent while they cite SGML predating exactly what they patented. Seriously, this is a crock. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION lists it intent.

"Both XML and XML Schema are long-established open standards, designed to do exactly this, among many other functions."

Just curious how CSS isn't covered by this patent.

Style sheets have existed in one form or another since the beginnings of SGML in the 1970s. Cascading Style Sheets were developed as a means for creating a consistent approach to providing style information for web documents.

Although I don't know the full details of this patent it may even stretch to include such things as classic MacOS's resource / data fork model - which has been around since Adam was in shorts, and certainly would have huge implications on the use of XML. It would actually be good to see a number of the large players get together and support Microsoft on this one...

i4i don't appear to be patent trolls to me. They actually have several products regarding document management and conversion that appear popular in the pharmaceuticals industry.

They have software that works from within Word to create and use XML document templates.

What matter has already been decided by the experts at the USPTO.

who have already conducted extensive investigation to exclude the possibility of extant prior art.

Yes, it stinks to high heavens. But that is the reality of the situation.

Fairly sure I read something a while back about i4i approaching Microsoft with XML processing technology (I assume for product licensing) and they claimed that MS took the idea and built it straight into Office.

"What matter has already been decided by the experts at the USPTO.

"who have already conducted extensive investigation to exclude the possibility of extant prior art.

Now, the USPTO is one of those government organizations which is entirely self-supporting. Its revenue comes from the fees it charges the applicants. (And every USPTO employee's paycheck comes out of that.) Thus the applicants are their customers and sole source of revenue. So when you ask them to withdraw a patent, you are asking them to anger a customer. And if the customer happens to be a patent troll, you are asking them to anger a *regular* customer

But a court ruling like that is just ridiculous. Is there really legislation allowing a judge to prohibit a company to sell or support their product (i.e., Office) altogether? Also, it's OFFICE(!); think of the economic damages, not only for Microsoft (which may end up outweighing the settlement), but for any company or individual around the globe using Office. That would mean that they, too, have effectively just a few days to completely transfer everything to OpenOffice. And as history has shown us; they won't.

While I hate patent trolls (and software patents altogether for that matter) and don't support them in any way, I must say the irony in this ruling is just too delicious. Still, even if it's Microsoft, I don't ever want a patent troll to succeed... so I guess, this one time, I'm on Microsoft's side. Wow, that feels weird to write that. Obviously the best thing would be the elimination of software patents altogether, but I don't see that happening especially in our corrupt legal system where money buys verdicts in the big cases.

It only affects the US, and it only affects Office 2003 and 2007, and it only affects future sales. All the installed copies will continue to work.

We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete