Live data from Hacker News

Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

news.yahoo.com

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#11
post #9

I don't understand how much of anything dealing with XML can fall within the "non-obviousness" requirement of a patent. Who fills these juries for the trial? From the view of the general public I think the majority of things dealing with computers would be considered "non-obvious, and would therefore be worthless. Why aren't these decisions being made by professional peers?

This is a classic forum shopping case brought by a Canadian company against an international company headquartered in Seattle, with neither company having any connection whatever with the venue (Eastern District of Texas) other than that MS Word happens to be sold there.

This particular district is famous for being wildly receptive to patent claims and is therefore used routinely by patent trolls searching for large verdicts and, indeed, a $240M verdict (plus add-on items totaling $50M), plus a permanent injunction, is a pretty big prize for "custom XML" technology that constitutes a very minor part of Word's functionality.

Not that there isn't a form of justice in Microsoft being bitten by patent abuses when it has benefited for years from patent abuses that it has heaped upon others.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#13

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#14
post #7

The Yahoo news item is rather trite. Is there a link to a better story with more information about the patent that was infringed upon? Edit: Nevermind, someone else already posted a better link. I propose that the item link should be updated though.

"Rather trite" is rather trite.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#15

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

I'd say it's still a one-sided sword. The side that crushes real innovation (and brings on crap suits like this) is sharp as hell, the one the 'protects' small startups is pretty blunt.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#16
post #4

Anyone know the specifics on what patent violation entails?

In this particular instance it was literal infringement meaning Microsoft literally copied i4i's patented technology. First of all, i4i is not a patent troll, they are a document management company that actively deploys the technology on which they have a patent. One notable case of such is that they used it to overhaul the USPTO's own internal database. Microsoft came to i4i and contracted them to help them move Wor…

This happened in Texas. I don't care what the backstory might be, 110% of the suits that come out of TX are complete BS.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#17

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

They're far more often used as bludgeons to drain the defense coffers of small software studios and startups. By the time a patent is granted, that startup has moved on to something better - show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. Not the patented mechanism (that's generally obvious and we all know it), just what the invention is supposed to solve.

Software patents are an abuse of the patent system.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#19

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

> "legitimate software patents"

I think the issue here is a lot of people don't think there is such a thing.

Re: Court: Microsoft violated patent; can't sell Word

#20

This is good. We need more of these things to happen so that we can get some power behind the anti-software-patent lobby. Software patents have to become too dangerous to keep around, and that happens by things like this; right now, Microsoft and others use patents to lord over Linux and make vague threats about litigation. This is an important part of Microsoft's strategy, so software patents are important to them.…

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

Protection results in a racket as its ultimate end. I see small studios and startups doing just fine right now without patents, which are expensive and require a lot of specialized knowledge to apply for. Who is being protected from what by patents, exactly?
Post reply on HN