Judge: Microsoft can't sell Word anymore | Hacker News Reader

Judge: Microsoft can't sell Word anymore

blog.seattlepi.com

63 pointsaj66 comments

From a comment on CNET: by dennisheadley August 12, 2009 1:25 AM PDT The company in question is not a patent troll company. They actually were the first company to develop seamless use of XML from within word. This was before MS offered any such feature of its own in word. As a matter of fact MS at the time completely avoided XML, refused to support it and tried to do their own proprietary format version of it instead.
I4I the company had the world recognized top system out there for XML implementation and management in large scale companies and was the chosen to power such things as the, and this is ironic, the US patent system, the FDA's new streamlined submission system, which uses a open standard chiefly developed from two companies technologies, i4i being one of them.
While i do not usually condone these lawsuits. MS in this case realized that its efforts to avoid using XML were going against corporate customer demands, pretty much just took the best system available from a third party for this purpose and almost straight up incorporated it into word. I read quite a few articles on this when they talked about it earlier this year. And you have to remember that XML is common use now, but this was started years ago when it was not common in actual use and this companies solution was more than just a save to XML function, it was not an easy accomplishment like some of you would pretend it was.

This company made its fortune on servicing the majority of the fortune 500 companies, many of them software giants, as well as many government agencies.

Can anyone confirm?

Still sounds suspiciously like a "nickels in front of a steamroller" issue.

What does that phrase mean? I couldn't find anything using a google search.

You might pick up a few nickels, but you might also get crushed. (I'm not sure how it applies here.)

He obviously meant that if you add useful, basic functionality to a major system or app (iPhone in the original discussion, Word here), don't be surprised if it is directly incorporated into the system/app.

I'm not sure about sourcing, but it was recently used on the Stack Overflow podcast in Jeff and Joel's discussion of the profitability of creating plug-ins for another piece of software. Other considerations aside, one of the greatest threats to stability was if you created something so useful to the general userbase of the parent application, that the producers of the parent application would roll that up into the next version of their software, thereby rendering your cash cow redundant, e.g. a spell-checker for Firefox.

Joel likened this to snatching nickel from in front of an oncoming steamroller.

the phrase "picking up nickels in front of a steam roller" refers to doing something dangerous for little gain.

I have some insight into the FDA's submission system.

There are some inconsistencies in what the commenter here is claiming, and the experience of my company submitting software to the FDA for approval. I would not call their new system streamlined, and as I have been told from time to time that their database is down I am curious how it could be using XML on the backend. Is XML over HTTP part of their patent? If the patent is for XML in Word, well, Word is not even in that web-based workflow. Further, and this is just a nit-pick I realize that the guy may have misspoken. That said, assuming there is XML on the backend, and it is using an "open standard chiefly developed from . . ." i4i's tech, then it is not really an open standard is it?

In short, based on my knowledge, derived from extensive involvement in regulatory affairs in the medical imaging field, the second paragraph in that comment is highly suspect.

Here's a reddit comment/thread on the patent: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/99utb/judge_ord...

I can't confirm this but I don't think it matters. If it was true, it would prove "not patents suits involve patent trolls as plaintives" but this would not, by itself, even prove "some software patent suits have validity".

Sure, they might have done something before MS and patented it. But processing XML is not rocket-science and thus, to me, this patent stinks. Further, if this validated either MS buys them and they go after everyone else OR they just go after everyone else on their own. Either way you get monopolistic rent extraction.

Sorry if this give any new or exciting angles on this subject.

Note: this only applies to files with custom xml, not all doc files. So Microsoft could remove that capability and keep selling word.

BTW I have to say this injunction is stunningly stupid. Usually you make an injunction if there is harm that must be stopped now. But with this, it's just monetary damages - let it go to trial - what's the rush?

But with the 60 day stay, perhaps it's a "fake" injunction, intended to be canceled.

In the article it says: "XML essentially is a programming language..." Well, it's a markup language used for content presentation in a compact form (not so compact as in s-expressions, though), so it's not a programming language. XSLT is.

programming language, markup language ... tuh-mey-toh, tuh-mah-toh

Seriously? Are tuh-mey-tohs and tuh-mah-tohs completely different fruits?

Depends on your definition of "programming language" as well as "markup language". One could argue that XML isn't anything but a specification of a syntax (Similar to s-expressions). But then "markup language" is an imprecise term (regardless of what the abbreviation stands for). It's a "syntax".

So, if by "markup language" you mean "syntax", then I'll give that they are different categories, but then I would also argue that you're using the wrong word.

Markup language: describes content.

Programming language: performs tasks.

There are languages that fit both (such as Tex, and consequently, Latex), but this does not preclude us from drawing a distinction between the two in clear-cut cases (such as HTML versus C).

> ... drawing a distinction between the two in clear-cut cases (such as HTML versus C).

If anything, declarative languages (or markup languages if you prefer) are a sub-category of programming languages. Imperative languages are another sub-category.

To me, a "programming language" is a language that allows me to express computations. Markup don't need any concept of computation, so I don't consider them programming languages.

Well, to the Von Neumann architecture, data and instructions are all the same. Just a matter of where the Program Counter points to.

Also both XML and XSLT are interpreted. Meaning a real program reads the source and manipulates the system accordingly. I really have no problem treating the two as equivalent.

For Princeton architectures, anyway :P http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Microprocessor_Design/Computer_...

Sure, we all know that, but the trick is what to write for an audience that may have close to no knowledge of how computers work.

"Sure, we all know that, but the trick is what to write for an audience that may have close to no knowledge of how computers work."

Maybe, but such writting also helps ensure that the audience never learns how computers work.

They're reading a brief news story, not an in depth analysis. Presumably they're smart enough to go elsewhere if they want to learn more. I'm not saying to write something incorrect, I'm saying the trick is to write something that's both correct, and comprehensible to the average person.

Sure, but saying XML is a programming language is wrong, however simplified it may seem.

XML is definitely not a programming language. It's not turing complete.

Oh, you can program meaningful in less than turing complete languages. See Datalog, or even SQL.

The DTD is part of the 1.0 spec.

The DTD is just a regular expression, and your document as a string to match. The validator is the interpreter that gives you a yes/no answer for any problem you can represent in those terms.

Actually... hmm. If you look closely at the entity replacement rules, the conditional inclusion entities, and the ability to include external dtd references, you may well be able to get full turing completeness.

I could write programs in XML and write a machine to run them.

<function name="main"><call function="print"><arg>Hello, World</arg></call></function>

XML isn't a programming language in the same way ASCII isn't a programming language -- in the same way CSV isn't a programming language. Not because of turing completeness, but because they are a completely different thing.

Being Turing complete is a sufficient but not necessary condition to be called a programming language.

The best necessary condition I can come up with for a language to be called a programming language is that it expresses computations.

Well, it's a markup language used for content presentation

XML is not for presenting information. It is for storing and describing it. Sorry. One of my favourite nitpicks.

Oddly enough this doesn't seem to be hurting the stock price. Usually news like this will tank a stock. I suppose it's because the current price isn't over extended.

The market has gone down pretty consistently the last 3 days, and it is pretty consistently going up today. Its hard to bet against the market :)

I think it is because nobody believes it will actually force MSFT to stop shipping word. And with a market cap of 200+ billion, a payout to i4i wouldn't hurt MSFT too much.

This is just the lower district court order. Microsoft will almost inevitably appeal the case. In patent cases, the appeals court often takes an active role in scrutinizing the patent and the case, and it often disagrees with the lower courts.

So I would hold off on worrying about the verdict too much at this point. What happens on appeal is most likely more important.

Kind of ironic considering Word processes XML for 'openness'.

The article didn't explain: what exactly is the problem?

They say it's got something to do with how Word reads XML, so what's wrong there?

Any ideas?

It's only word files with custom XML. I think that's when companies define structured documents with fields, which get entered into the xml.

For example if you were making a requisition form, and each fillable field has a corresponding xml field. This becomes interesting when you then take those word files and directly processes them, automatically extracting the info from the xml.

It doesn't apply to regular word files. (Or even files with generic fillable fields.)

The company that filed the lawsuit apparently makes some sort of plugin that does something relating to this in word. I guess they want Microsoft to remove the built in capability, and force people to buy their plugin.

Despite the title, they don't really want Microsoft to stop shipping word altogether.

"Despite the title, they don't really want Microsoft to stop shipping word altogether."

But wouldn't that be fun?

Seriously, I am divided. Part of me sees this as an abuse of the patent system, that shouldn't allow bad patents (and I assume this is a bad one), but another part is having a really good laugh.

Exactly :-).

But I really don't want anything like that to happen.

Nor do I think it will, though. I'm sure they will solve this somehow. It's simply not possible to stop Microsoft shipping Word :-).

Probably true. But it is possible to stop Microsoft.

Does MS have a history of patent abuse? AFAIK they don't. They talk about it a lot, but I don't think they actually engage much. I hate MS as much as the next Linux loving commie, but this is stupid.

Maybe they don't have a story of patent abuse through the courts, probably because they don't want to risk invalidating their patents.

And why bother suing Linux corporate users, most of them also Microsoft users?

Sowing FUD is just as good

"Does MS have a history of patent abuse?"

One well known case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics

"Stac, in an effort led by attorney Morgan Chu, sued Microsoft for infringement of two of its data compression patents, and won"

EDIT: So they have a history of sometimes infringing patents, but by abuse perhaps you meant using patents as a weapon?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html - "Microsoft, TomTom settle patent dispute". I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Some of the patents that MS was beating their war drum over are silly and ignore that the only reason TomTom uses some of these features is to support MS windows users.

I frankly hope they have to payout a half a billion dollars like they did with Eolas so they realize that no software patents is likely cheaper than paying out and paying for lawyers.

Is this from that "plaintiff friendly" court in Texas? http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/21/ed-texas-no-longer-pate...

I wonder if the upcoming Patent Reform bill has any chance of improving the situation. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10210824-38.html

Seems like a new patent troll sues someone every week. Patent laws should be modified to behave more like trademark laws. If you wanna keep it, you better keep using it.

I think the point here is that i4i wanted to keep using it, but couldn't because Microsoft took everything they had and built it into Word for free. They destroyed i4i's business model (which happens sometimes) by stealing their design (which isn't legal.)

A business model based on setting a toll gate in front of an imposed monopoly is a business model that ought not to exist.

Well now, I haven't read the details of the suit, or their product, but it sounds like the plaintiff is selling an extension to Word - not unlike many companies (and myself) sell extensions to, say, Photoshop; or fibreglass spoilers for Hondas. Microsoft has frequently been caught red handed stealing other companies' ideas and converting them into Microsoft products. When a product has enough market share to become the market leader, and beyond that into monopoly status (Windows, Office, and Photoshop are ideal examples) then the owner of that monopoly only needs to fart in order to asphyxiate thousands. To roll over in bed might be a genocide. In the monopoly context, otherwise-harmless misdemeanors become positively harmful: For example, Adobe's passive-aggressive support for third party developers. In the continual drive to force upgrades and meet quarterly targets (etc), where the corporate well of originality - always rather shallow - has run dry, where else would you take your inspiration but from third parties? Anyway, I think "ought not to exist" is a bit strong, as the market for extensions would seem to be very helpful to consumers. It's just inherently dangerous to be a flea on a giant's ass.

i found this photo from of OpenOffice's afternoon meeting yesterday: http://bit.ly/G82b4

I can't believe all the down marks on this. It was kind of funny.

The downmods are because of the url shorter (which is frowned on here), and because it's a joke (and jokes are rarely liked since they don't usually add anything).

He's lucky it's only -1, usually posts like that go much lower.

thank you for sparing me, sir.

Bilski?

What goes around comes around.

Simple patent system reform suggestion: Companies can only be sued for patent infringement if they hold more than 100 patents themselves.

Sounds like there would be a lot of companies with 99 patents that all agreed not to sue each other.

Might as well just kill off software patents all together and save everyone the trouble.

Sure, that's what it would lead to eventually, but I'm quite sure that right now the 'big' companies are using patents the way they use (armies of) lawyers, simply to raise the bar to competition.

They can afford it, those who can't have very little choice but to give up.

Patents are weapons in the corporate arena, not something that has a net positive effect.

I'm sure that if it became apparent that there would be lots of companies with 99 patents that would agree not to sue each other we can make it more interesting by lowering the limit to 50 or by using that as proof that the patent systems main function is to be used in anti-competitive ways rather than to foster creativity.

It's a totally naive solution, but something really has to be done about this.

See elsewhere on the thread about how the EU patent system set up to stop counterfeit materials is now used to stop generic drugs in transit.

I've just about had enough of these tactics.

Big companies have a way of getting what they want, if we can make them want to get rid of the patent system then they'll use their lobbying power to make it happen.

Before you get to the point of morphing the patent system into something they'd want to get rid, do you not think that they'll use their lobbying power to stop you from doing that? (It's not like you'll be able to "sneak up on them" with some stealthy sweeping patent system reform.)

Sure, that's what it would lead to eventually, but I'm quite sure that right now the 'big' companies are using patents the way they use (armies of) lawyers, simply to raise the bar to competition.

That is what they were intended to be for.

The original idea (as I understand it, obligatory IANAL) was that in order to reward inventors, the government would temporarily raise the bar on competition to the point no one else could directly use that particular technology to compete at all. Anyone who wanted to compete would either have to license the technology from the inventor, or go to the point of developing a new parallel technology that achieved the same function. This was their reward for adding to human technology and it was meant to encourage inventors to do this.

One key point though is that like copyright, patents are for a limited time.

One key point though is that like copyright, patents are for a limited time.

Moreso for patents than copyrights. Number of patents that expired last week: thousands. Number of copyrights that expired in the last decade: zero.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement, but it is a point well made.

Copyrights have been extended to great lengths and retroactive extensions have been passed, so they expire at a very slow rate which is not at all fixed.

I'm not sure if you are saying that copyrights have been expiring, or if you mean that copyrights aren't expiring now but will eventually.

If the former, you have my curiosity... Could you describe a case in which a copyright's term could have expired in the past decade? As I understand it, the Sonny Bono Copyright Act extended all copyright terms by twenty years, and that was eleven years ago.

Or alternatively, incorporate a new shell corporation for each 99 new patents.

Another suggestion: don't make the patent office budget dependent on the number of patents they process. Or have them hire people more experienced than just-graduated undergrads.

The daughter of a friend worked for the Patent Office, she had a PhD in physics. The patent office was paying to put her through school to get a law degree, as well, as though there weren't enough lawyers working for the gov't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com