Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Jan 2010 22:23 UTC
Legal "Microsoft has filed a second appeal in their XML patent case, claiming the original ruling could be dangerous for future patent cases. Last month, the software giant lost to tiny Canadian company i4i, and removed all infringing custom XML editing abilities from its Office 2003 and 2007 suite. Microsoft also paid USD 290 million in damages."
Thread beginning with comment 403436
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: I wonder..
by zegenie on Sun 10th Jan 2010 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I wonder.."
zegenie
Member since:
2005-12-31

I'm sorry for the blatant insult, but can you even read? Linking to that patent and describing it the way you did, is like posting a picture about a bear and then describe a unicorn(!)

All questions about patentability of software patents aside... The patent in question is fairly specific, and covers a specific function that the company invented, which is related to parsing and comparing differences between documents stored as XML.

And it's not like we have a patent troll here - they had a product which were sold to many customers - and they even offered Microsoft to license the functionality for a fee. However, Microsoft - rigorous defenders of software patents - choose to ignore the existing patent (which describes a specific function, albeit related to parsing XML - but absolutely not "storing files as XML" as you try to portray it) and instead just copy the functionality into their own product, effectively rendering the existing product worthless.

You may disagree with software patents, but Microsoft has chosen to play this game, in fact they want everybody to play this game, so they deserve every little bit of this. Stop spreading misinformation and lies - Microsoft is *not* the victim here.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: I wonder..
by Laurence on Sun 10th Jan 2010 18:23 in reply to "RE[6]: I wonder.."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm sorry for the blatant insult,


Clearly you're not sorry otherwise you wouldn't have still posted it.
You may have just as well said "No offence, but you're an idiot!" :p

The patent in question is fairly specific, and covers a specific function that the company invented, which is related to parsing and comparing differences between documents stored as XML.

What's this specific function?
It's a fairly lengthy patent and I'm not great at deciphering technical legal documents (computer jargon I'm fine with but that document was struggle)


And it's not like we have a patent troll here - they had a product which were sold to many customers - and they even offered Microsoft to license the functionality for a fee.


You've still not stated what this product is exactly.
Parsing and comparing XML documents is still a very generic evolutionary description and not very clear about what i4i have developed that is worthy of patenting.

I'm not out to defend MS - I just want to understand what the hell i4i own because thus far nobody has stated anything specific (or am I missing the obvious?)

You may disagree with software patents, but Microsoft has chosen to play this game, in fact they want everybody to play this game, so they deserve every little bit of this. Stop spreading misinformation and lies - Microsoft is *not* the victim here.

After insulting my ability to read, you then go on to completely miss the comments I made about not having any sympathy for MS then go on to reiterate my point as if to counter my argument. *sigh*

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: I wonder..
by zegenie on Sun 10th Jan 2010 18:42 in reply to "RE[7]: I wonder.."
zegenie Member since:
2005-12-31

"I'm sorry for the blatant insult,


Clearly you're not sorry otherwise you wouldn't have still posted it.
You may have just as well said "No offence, but you're an idiot!" :p
"
I was only sorry for the fact that it was so obvious. I still think it is well beyond stupid to have such strong opinions on something you - with your own words - don't understand. If you cannot grasp what the patent covers, something you admitted you didn't - then you should probably leave it to someone that does to defend or dismiss it. I'm not saying I'm that guy, but even skimming through the patent reveals a lot more than you admittedly managed to understand.

"The patent in question is fairly specific, and covers a specific function that the company invented, which is related to parsing and comparing differences between documents stored as XML.

What's this specific function?
It's a fairly lengthy patent and I'm not great at deciphering technical legal documents (computer jargon I'm fine with but that document was struggle)
"
Yes that document was not the most well-formatted document I've read, but you always have google. One quick look at "i41 patent" on google, revealed several good articles on the subject, and many of them describe the patent with less "technical legal document" jargon. Here is a good one:
http://milan.kupcevic.net/custom-xml-microsoft-office-word-data-sto...

"
And it's not like we have a patent troll here - they had a product which were sold to many customers - and they even offered Microsoft to license the functionality for a fee.


You've still not stated what this product is exactly.
Parsing and comparing XML documents is still a very generic evolutionary description and not very clear about what i4i have developed that is worthy of patenting.

I'm not out to defend MS - I just want to understand what the hell i4i own because thus far nobody has stated anything specific (or am I missing the obvious?)
"

This is described in many of the articles mentioned above. See the one I linked, and zdnet also mentions it here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22595

Apparently it's something that's big in the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not big there so I don't know enough about it to be able tell you more than what you can read from those articles.

After insulting my ability to read, you then go on to completely miss the comments I made about not having any sympathy for MS then go on to reiterate my point as if to counter my argument. *sigh*


Yes, I mixed your comment and another comment there. Sorry for that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: I wonder..
by zegenie on Sun 10th Jan 2010 18:46 in reply to "RE[7]: I wonder.."
zegenie Member since:
2005-12-31

I'm not out to defend MS - I just want to understand what the hell i4i own because thus far nobody has stated anything specific (or am I missing the obvious?)


Just wanted to pop this in as well - which probably goes to show Microsofts behaviour in this case:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/176685.asp

A few select quotes:
The Jan. 22, 2003, e-mail was written by Martin Sawicki, then a member of Microsoft's XML for Word development team. He was responding to another Microsoft employee who forwarded him an i4i e-mail that explained its products and mentioned the patent.

"We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators," Sawicki wrote, according to a memo (PDF) written by Davis. "Word 11 will make it obsolete. It looks great for XP though."


"In sum, the evidence shows that Microsoft knew of i4i's patent protection in 2001 and 2003, did no investigation, and never formed a good-faith belief of non-infringement," Davis wrote. "The evidence further shows that Microsoft started using the infringing products beginning in 2002 and did not conduct an infringement investigation after being notified of the patent again in 2003.

"Microsoft's arguments that somehow i4i's evidence is weak, insubstantial, or unsupported are baseless."

Reply Parent Score: 1