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 403440
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: I wonder..
by zegenie on Sun 10th Jan 2010 18:42 UTC 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[9]: I wonder..
by Laurence on Sun 10th Jan 2010 19:41 in reply to "RE[8]: I wonder.."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

Oh for gods sake drop the f--king attitude.
I wasn't stating strong opinions - I was stating the facts as I understood them.
I'm open to correction but there's no need to be abusive about it.

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,

Right, so you're just as ignorant as me yet you're the one with the superiority complex. Got it.

One quick look at "i41 patent" on google, revealed several good articles on the subject,

I did several searches before posting and the majority of pages are vague or just as clueless. So I decided to trust my own interpretation rather than another random blogger with no legal background.

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.

So basically you don't even know yourself despite acting all high and mighty on the subject. Understood.


Sorry for the condicending tone to this post, but your attitude was unnessiary and offensive.
As I said from the start - if I misunderstood the facts, then I'm grateful for the corrections.
But there's no need to offensive when you're not even in possession of the facts either.

Reply Parent Score: 2