Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Aug 2009 17:55 UTC, submitted by Laurence
Law and Order In what some will undoubtedly call ironic, Microsoft has been declared guilty of wilfully infringing upon an XML patent held by the Canadian company i4i. The judge has ordered Microsoft to pay a fine of 290 million USD, and has barred Microsoft from selling Word in the United States if the company doesn't comply within 60 days (a detail omitted by many). Microsoft has already announced it will appeal the judge's decision.
Thread beginning with comment 378238
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Word-less US
by jpobst on Wed 12th Aug 2009 18:19 UTC in reply to "Word-less US"
jpobst
Member since:
2006-09-26

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

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 7

RE[2]: Word-less US
by lemur2 on Wed 12th Aug 2009 23:47 in reply to "RE: Word-less US"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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


AFAIK, this patent applies to having the formatting codes separate from the text to be formatted. Microsoft Office and the OOXML formats do this extensively, using a feature Microsoft call "custom XML", but ODF does not. The formatting codes in ODF are unobscured and intertwined with the text element they apply to.

AFAIK, if OpenOffice.org wants to be certain that it did not infringe this patent, all that it would need to do is drop its .docx support.

Supporting reference:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200908121441548...

Edited 2009-08-12 23:50 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

RE[3]: Word-less US
by lemur2 on Thu 13th Aug 2009 02:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Word-less US"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Yes, thank goodness OpenOffice doesn't use an XML based format and is therefore immune to this patent!
AFAIK, this patent applies to having the formatting codes separate from the text to be formatted. Microsoft Office and the OOXML formats do this extensively, using a feature Microsoft call "custom XML", but ODF does not. The formatting codes in ODF are unobscured and intertwined with the text element they apply to. AFAIK, if OpenOffice.org wants to be certain that it did not infringe this patent, all that it would need to do is drop its .docx support. "

Here we go:

http://mashable.com/2009/08/12/word-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.


My bold.

The OpenOffice.org format, known as ODF or OpenDocument, is indeed an XML format, but it does not use "custom XML" at all (I think it uses metadata tags instead to hold formatting info), so it would seem that ODF would not infringe on this patent, and OpenOffice.org would not be subject to a similar order.

Here is a question: What is the penalty to be applied to the ISO for approving a standard (ISO 29500) that violates another company's patent? ISO 29500 specifies custom XML, and custom XML is i4i's technology, according to this ruling. i4i never submitted their technology to ISO for inclusion in any standard. Can this decision now be used to get the ISO standard 29500 disapproved (as it always should have been)?

Edited 2009-08-13 02:45 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5