PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft Word Banned From Being Sold in US



Sealbhach
August 12th, 2009, 01:56 PM
i4i, based in Toronto, Canada, claimed that Microsoft "willingly violated" a patent granted in 1998 concerning methods for reading XML, a kind of programming language. XML allows users to customise the format of word-processing documents, enabling them to be read by various word-processing programs. Microsoft Word's ability to read and write XML documents is a crucial feature of the popular software.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/6015902/Microsoft-banned-from-selling-Word-in-US.html


Stupid patents. All I can say is lol!:)


.

t0p
August 12th, 2009, 02:08 PM
Stupid patents. All I can say is lol!:)

Indeed. I hate the very idea of software patents. But it is amusing to see Microsoft brought down for violating one.

What's the state of play in the EU viz-a-viz software patents? Last I heard, some parties were pressing for them to become enforceable in Europe. (No doubt Gordon Brown was among them - he's a good friend to big business, considering that he used to be a socialist.) But other parties were against the idea. Has that scrap been decided yet?

dragos240
August 12th, 2009, 02:11 PM
Wow this is big. And am I happy. Word is BANNED!!

JillSwift
August 12th, 2009, 02:11 PM
Well, this sure explains why Microsoft filed a similar patent recently (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1235580).

dragos240
August 12th, 2009, 02:20 PM
You know what would be better? If microsoft was banned from selling windows in the US.

Barrucadu
August 12th, 2009, 02:22 PM
You know what would be better? If microsoft was banned from selling windows in the US.

Ok, somebody tell SCO that Windows has some UNIX code in it (or something similar). That'll keep them busy for the next decade.

Ozor Mox
August 12th, 2009, 02:24 PM
Haha! While it is very amusing that Microsoft are the victims of this, it does reinforce my belief that software patents are moronic. We do not want them in Europe, go away!

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 02:29 PM
Ok, somebody tell SCO that Windows has some UNIX code in it (or something similar). That'll keep them busy for the next decade.

I figured the guy claiming the patent on the computer "icon" would really slow them down.

Sealbhach
August 12th, 2009, 02:36 PM
Haha! While it is very amusing that Microsoft are the victims of this, it does reinforce my belief that software patents are moronic. We do not want them in Europe, go away!

Agreed. Hopefully this decision will hasten the end of the patent nonsense. It's funny how these courts are always in East Texas? What's up with that?

.

Assim
August 12th, 2009, 02:37 PM
Awesome, now let them use OpenOffice with Ubuntu. ;)

Nevon
August 12th, 2009, 02:49 PM
Too bad. Microsoft Word is a really nice text editor.

RiceMonster
August 12th, 2009, 02:53 PM
Too bad. Microsoft Word is a really nice text editor.

It's a word processor, not a text editor. Yes, those are two different things.

Swagman
August 12th, 2009, 03:15 PM
I suspect he was being sarcastic.

Anyway... Document Processor is a far more apt description of modern word processors.

Nevon
August 12th, 2009, 03:26 PM
It's a word processor, not a text editor. Yes, those are two different things.

True enough. Still, it's a very nice word processor.

sydbat
August 12th, 2009, 03:29 PM
True enough. Still, it's a very nice word processor in my opinion.There. Fixed it for you.

credobyte
August 12th, 2009, 03:37 PM
You know what would be better? If microsoft was banned from selling windows in the US.

And even better .. if we wouldn't dream about it ( it'll not happen .. at least not in this century ) :)

Grenage
August 12th, 2009, 03:50 PM
I was reminded of the same thing, JillSwift. I would have actually felt sorry for MS, if they themselves hadn't just run through a patent for XML variations (amongst a thousand other things).

Patents are one of those things that must have sounded great at the time, but in reality it's nothing but a headache. Companies should succeed because they produce a superior product, not live off patents and licensing fees (*cough*Sony,etc.*cough*).

Regarding the other posts, such as banning windows etc:


And even better .. if we wouldn't dream about it ( it'll not happen .. at least not in this century )

You want a system where programs can and are arbitrarily banned? Yay for freedom...

Stevie78
August 12th, 2009, 03:55 PM
All hail Judge Davis !! :)

LowSky
August 12th, 2009, 03:57 PM
I do find it funny that people sue over a piece of code.
I cant wait for Microsoft to sue the entire PC industry over the page up/page down keyboard command, that they some how patented

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-218626.html

Swagman
August 12th, 2009, 04:04 PM
I wonder how much damages Amiga Inc can claim for patent abuse over Auto run Cd's !!

Johnsie
August 12th, 2009, 04:04 PM
Open Office opens XML files too right? Looks like OO could be in hot water too. I think MS will probably appeal this and win. People with money can pretty much do anything they want and get away with it.

bodyharvester
August 12th, 2009, 04:06 PM
i know M$ makes a lot of money, but how much do they spend on legal BS like this instead of trying to make a better product and allowing innocent ignornt users to be threatened by viruses and s***!

xir_
August 12th, 2009, 04:07 PM
I find this quite funny. My hope is that maybe it could lead to others to claim similar things and for Microsoft to push for patents on software to be dropped. Rather than the MAD option,

computerkid2000
August 12th, 2009, 04:17 PM
OPEN OFFICE FTW!
good thing they banned word in the us! now thats pretty much the end for microsoft office and *sniff* clippy! but oh well!

coldReactive
August 12th, 2009, 04:18 PM
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Great job Microsoft.

Eisenwinter
August 12th, 2009, 04:19 PM
All I can say is... :lolflag:

Microsoft's game backfired at it. This was bound to happen sometime.

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 04:21 PM
OPEN OFFICE FTW!
good thing they banned word in the us! now thats pretty much the end for microsoft office and *sniff* clippy! but oh well!


No. Microsoft will probably buy out the other company and all their assets.

coldReactive
August 12th, 2009, 04:22 PM
No. Microsoft will probably buy out the other company and all their assets.

Doubtful, Oracle already bought Sun. I doubt they will buy out i4l either.

sydbat
August 12th, 2009, 04:23 PM
No. Microsoft will probably buy out the other company and all their assets.This.

And, with all the patents they have been getting for stuff that has been around forever, Ballmer will eventually be able to show everyone the 'hundreds' of patents that Linux is infringing...

Grenage
August 12th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Word will be back out shortly, once they've changed it and stopped it infringing on the patent. In the mean time, they can contest the decision.

RiceMonster
August 12th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Doubtful, Oracle already bought Sun. I doubt they will buy out i4l either.

What does Oracle buying Sun have to do with Microsoft buying i4i?

Screwdriver0815
August 12th, 2009, 04:27 PM
Indeed. I hate the very idea of software patents. But it is amusing to see Microsoft brought down for violating one.

What's the state of play in the EU viz-a-viz software patents? Last I heard, some parties were pressing for them to become enforceable in Europe. (No doubt Gordon Brown was among them - he's a good friend to big business, considering that he used to be a socialist.) But other parties were against the idea. Has that scrap been decided yet?

nothing yet. The EU has set up a catalogue of 4 questions which should clearify whether software is something like an invention and therefore able to be patented.
These questions are answered by (e.g) IBM, Canonical and Red Hat but there is still no decision yet.

Merk42
August 12th, 2009, 05:20 PM
Agreed. Hopefully this decision will hasten the end of the patent nonsense. It's funny how these courts are always in East Texas? What's up with that?
The courts there are notoriously patent-friendly.



Wow this is big. And am I happy. Word is BANNED!!

Awesome, now let them use OpenOffice with Ubuntu. ;)

All hail Judge Davis !! :)
You all do know that just because something bad happens to Microsoft it isn't good for Linux, right?
Johnsie is the only one that actually read into past "Microsoft gets sued"

Open Office opens XML files too right? Looks like OO could be in hot water too. I think MS will probably appeal this and win. People with money can pretty much do anything they want and get away with it.
So if i4i wins the case, which you all seem to want, guess who's next?
OpenOffice.org infringes on the same patent

Icehuck
August 12th, 2009, 05:30 PM
The courts there are notoriously patent-friendly.





You all do know that just because something bad happens to Microsoft it isn't good for Linux, right?
Johnsie is the only one that actually read into past "Microsoft gets sued"

So if i4i wins the case, which you all seem to want, guess who's next?
OpenOffice.org infringes on the same patent

You're not allowed to make intelligent conversation here.

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 05:38 PM
So if i4i wins the case, which you all seem to want, guess who's next?
OpenOffice.org infringes on the same patent

The difference being, OO.Org is a open source product that last I knew generated no direct profit.

Merk42
August 12th, 2009, 05:42 PM
The difference being, OO.Org is a open source product that last I knew generated no direct profit.

Doesn't matter, i4i could sue for "lost wages". Just because you give something away for free doesn't make it immune to patent infringement.

jadhav333
August 12th, 2009, 05:57 PM
News Flash..

Microsoft banned from selling 'any' software 'any'where forever.. :P

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 05:57 PM
If the patent is actually "ability to open XML documents" then I'd hazard a guess that there are quite a few infringements.

They'll appeal, they'll win and the world will continue spinning.

Bodsda
August 12th, 2009, 05:57 PM
Doesn't matter, i4i could sue for "lost wages". Just because you give something away for free doesn't make it immune to patent infringement.

I'm not hot on patents and laws and legal stuff but, would the infringement not lie with the user? Free software is distributed as is, when you recieve the code, you own that copy of code dont you?

Again, hit me with a stick and call me susan if I'm wrong, but it just seems odd to me that you can sue someone for typing a bunch of stuff into a few files and then giving it to your mates << Office suite.

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Doesn't matter, i4i could sue for "lost wages". Just because you give something away for free doesn't make it immune to patent infringement.

When you're not taking any profit, and thus not harming the profits of others-I see a great deal less ground to go SCO on someone.

Also, with OOo, the XML functionality could just be turned off I suppose. As with the FAT32 patent the TomTom linux implementation supposedly violated.

What I am curious about-is that the USPTO JUST granted a patent to Microsoft for their XML functionality in word processing. Do they have a room full of Retarded Ewoks reviewing patent applications there or what?

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 05:58 PM
I'm not hot on patents and laws and legal stuff but, would the infringement not lie with the user? Free software is distributed as is, when you recieve the code, you own that copy of code dont you?

Again, hit me with a stick and call me wesley if I'm wrong, but it just seems odd to me that you can sue someone for typing a bunch of stuff into a few files and then giving it to your mates << Office suite.

I suspect the owners of OO would be the ones done for it

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 06:00 PM
When you're not taking any profit, and thus not harming the profits of others-I see a great deal less ground to go SCO on someone.

Also, with OOo, the XML functionality could just be turned off I suppose. As with the FAT32 patent the TomTom linux implementation supposedly violated.

What I am curious about-is that the USPTO JUST granted a patent to Microsoft for their XML functionality. Do they have a room full of Retarded Ewoks reviewing patent applications there or what?
OO might not be making a profit, but if they are giving functionality away for free that this other company have plans on selling then yes, there is a BIG case there for going to court.

They've went for MS because they've realised they'd get more money.

Bucky Ball
August 12th, 2009, 06:02 PM
Oh, boy, there goes the neighbourhood!

Well, a friend was saying the other day, "hey, there's two words they should never have put together: Microsoft Works!!! But that is pretty big news ...

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 06:03 PM
OO might not be making a profit, but if they are giving functionality away for free that this other company have plans on selling then yes, there is a BIG case there for going to court.

They've went for MS because they've realised they'd get more money.

In all honesty, this company suing Microsoft sounds like a patent troll/squatter. They've had the patent since 1998-why did they not do anything with it?

I can honestly say I've never heard of them before this, nor do I have ANY idea what their products are--if any.

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 06:04 PM
It's not really that big of news.

Anyone who actually things this is the end of Word needs their head looked at.

Bucky Ball
August 12th, 2009, 06:04 PM
And even better .. if we wouldn't dream about it ( it'll not happen .. at least not in this century ) :)

They won't have to ban it. Get back to me in 10-20 years (probably less). If there wasn't money and manipulation involved for years it would probably be an item in a Museum of Obsolete Technology now.

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 06:05 PM
In all honesty, this company suing Microsoft sounds like a patent troll/squatter. They've had the patent since 1998-why did they not do anything with it?

I can honestly say I've never heard of them before this, nor do I have ANY idea what their products are--if any.

This is what a lot of businesses do. And it is a LEGITIMATE business practice.

You can own patents for things, things you thought of, but instead of bothering with production etc you can simply license it out to whoever wants to use it.

This company has probably been preparing this case for years now and its probably been on trial for a long time.

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 06:10 PM
This is what a lot of businesses do. And it is a LEGITIMATE business practice.


The practice is equally common in copyright. Which REALLY pisses off researchers, as there are whole libraries of material, which are copywritten but not published--someone just sits on it and does nothing with it...making the material unavailable to everyone. I'm banging my head against this practice right now in my field of research actually.

Legitimate or not-it only hurts the consumer in the long run.

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 06:15 PM
It's quite popular outside of the Software world. I can understand both sides of the argument.

If you invent something you deserve to earn the money associated in the usage of it. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of someone sitting on a load of ideas. It stifles entrepreneurship.

It's also easy money. If people are paying you to use your patent you just sit there reeling in the cash while they are the ones doing the work. Sounds great to me!

Icehuck
August 12th, 2009, 06:18 PM
In all honesty the USPTO has gotten off the track on what should or shouldn't be allowed. How is it possible to patent the Human Genome? Everyone has it, but only a few facilities are allowed to research it and have to pay royalties.

krendar
August 12th, 2009, 06:21 PM
Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other


Abstract
A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.


Patent Link (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,787,449&OS=5,787,449&RS=5,787,449)

Basically they patented anything using metadata to display information. That is more far-reaching than Word or XML.

JayKay3000
August 12th, 2009, 06:22 PM
Asking a silly question but why only the us? Would they have to start proceedings in all countries to get it banned globally?

Chronon
August 12th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Too bad. Microsoft Word is a really nice text editor.

I disagree. For text editing I would prefer an editor that displays line numbers and offers syntax highlighting without cluttering the interface with useless options like text formatting. (Maybe you're confusing a text editor with a word processor?)

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Asking a silly question but why only the us? Would they have to start proceedings in all countries to get it banned globally?

Because thankfully, US patent law is just that. Our patent law has no force elsewhere.

Chronon
August 12th, 2009, 06:51 PM
Patent Link (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,787,449&OS=5,787,449&RS=5,787,449)

Basically they patented anything using metadata to display information. That is more far-reaching than Word or XML.

I noticed this with a quick scan of the patent:

The invention does not use embedded metacoding to differentiate the content of the document, but rather, the metacodes of the document are separated from the content and held in distinct storage in a structure called a metacode map, whereas document content is held in a mapped content area.

I don't know enough about OO formats to know if they infringe in this way or not. By my reading, if the content part of the document contains any metatags then this patent is not infringed upon. TeX, for example, would not seem to infringe on this because the formatting instructions exist both in the header (preamble) and in the body of the document itself. (Not to mention that TeX precedes this patent by almost a decade, so it would constitute prior art.)

KiwiNZ
August 12th, 2009, 07:07 PM
This is one of the most ridiculous legal decisions I have seen in a very long time.:confused:

ViperChief
August 12th, 2009, 07:15 PM
You know what would be better? If microsoft was banned from selling windows in the US.

How would that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be taking freedom away from those who like Windows, like myself (I run multiple Operating Systems). I wouldn't want to see Windows banned, just as I would not want to see Linux, BSD or Solaris banned.

As for this case. I think this will get overturned in the Court of Appeals. If there is patent infringement, they will probably just rule in favor of royalties and some fines, but I don't see this ruling standing. But, since this could get drawn out I, for one, am glad that I recently purchased my copy of Office 2007. :) I usually use OO or even Symphony, just to try it out, but I need Access.

Chronon
August 12th, 2009, 07:25 PM
This might help clear up the document structure that the patent actually covers:



In the case where an existing document is decomposed into its distinct metacode map and mapped content, either in whole or in part, and a new document, optionally, created therefrom, the following steps in general should be followed:

(a) the content of the document is read until a metacode is found;

(b) the content is copied and stored in the mapped content means;

(c) an entry in the map is made noting the metacode and its position in the content (in the case of purely textual content the position could be stored as the number of characters in the mapped content before the code);

(d) steps one to three are repeated until the document has been completely read; and

(e) the original document may optionally now be discarded since the mapped content together with the metacode map completely describe it.

Creating a new document as mapped content plus a metacode map is done as follows:

(a) all content is placed into a mapped content storage means;

(b) for each metacode applied to the content an entry in the metacode map is created which describes the metacode and gives its position;

(c) the mapped content area and metacode map is updated as changes are made; and

(d) the mapped content area and the document map are individually stored.

The first block involves, apparently, importing a document in another format into the patented format.

koenn
August 12th, 2009, 07:28 PM
In all honesty, this company suing Microsoft sounds like a patent troll/squatter.
[...]
I can honestly say I've never heard of them before this, nor do I have ANY idea what their products are--if any.


[...] --someone just sits on it and does nothing with it...making the material unavailable to everyone.
Google them.
Their website says they're into design and development of collaborative content solutions and technologies, document management and such, that they're a leader in this fields, that they exist since 1993 and that their solutions heavily depend on XML and the things you can do with it. Presumably they have pattented at least some of that.
Doesn't sound like a patent troll to me.

benj1
August 12th, 2009, 07:29 PM
I noticed this with a quick scan of the patent:


I don't know enough about OO formats to know if they infringe in this way or not. By my reading, if the content part of the document contains any metatags then this patent is not infringed upon. TeX, for example, would not seem to infringe on this because the formatting instructions exist both in the header (preamble) and in the body of the document itself. (Not to mention that TeX precedes this patent by almost a decade, so it would constitute prior art.)

my reading is that this patent is similar to CSS, im not sure how thats affected by this tho

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 07:31 PM
I don't think Microsoft will appeal this, it's too dangerous. Microsoft will settle this for hundreds of millions of dollars instead, with the stipulation that they can continue selling Word (probably having to pay some of their yearly profits from Office until the patent expires).

But seriously, it's always great to see Microsoft get a taste of their own medicine. They are the easiest patent target by far. :)

koenn
August 12th, 2009, 07:31 PM
... but I need Access.
it's terrible when things like that happen.

ViperChief
August 12th, 2009, 07:42 PM
I don't think Microsoft will appeal this, it's too dangerous. Microsoft will settle this for hundreds of millions of dollars instead, with the stipulation that they can continue selling Word (probably having to pay some of their yearly profits from Office until the patent expires).


Can they just do that now? Since it was a ruling, Doesn't either the Appeals court or the judge that ruled have to reverse it? I don't think the plantiff can just change it.


it's terrible when things like that happen.

Not really. I like Access.

RiceMonster
August 12th, 2009, 07:48 PM
it's terrible when things like that happen.

Why? I need many Windows only programs for work, and I don't think it's a bad thing.

KiwiNZ
August 12th, 2009, 07:52 PM
I guess the Judge needed to make a name for himself . Obscurity is bad for him I guess. But making a hugely ridiculous decision will bring another kind of notoriety that he did not intend.

Oh well onto the next peice of OMG what next ....

ViperChief
August 12th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Interesting thing about the judge. Prior to law school, he worked as a programmer.

http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/Judges/Davis/Davis-Bio.htm

I wonder what he worked on.

MikeTheC
August 12th, 2009, 07:59 PM
50 Intergalactic Credits says Microsoft buys up the company within the 60 day grace period, uses their influence to bury this news story, and nobody ever hears about it in the public. As it is, the general public is too stupid to understand any of this anyhow.

But, here's my hypothetical: If Microsoft were unable to solve this satisfactorily, then does that mean my professor can drop Word from his curriculum for the Microcomputer Skills class I have to take as part of my degree? I would love to see that happen.

Oh, hey, legal eagles on UF, here's a question for you folks. How does patent law read regarding the continued usage of a patent-violatory program? Meaning, is it legal for any who've bought the thing to continue using it even though it's in violation of patent law? I would just *love* to see the cluster-f... that would ensue if every American licensee of Word had to get rid of it.

Hehehehehehehe...

Skripka
August 12th, 2009, 08:03 PM
50 Intergalactic Credits says Microsoft buys up the company within the 60 day grace period, uses their influence to bury this news story, and nobody ever hears about it in the public. As it is, the general public is too stupid to understand any of this anyhow.

But, here's my hypothetical: If Microsoft were unable to solve this satisfactorily, then does that mean my professor can drop Word from his curriculum for the Microcomputer Skills class I have to take as part of my degree? I would love to see that happen.

Oh, hey, legal eagles on UF, here's a question for you folks. How does patent law read regarding the continued usage of a patent-violatory program? Meaning, is it legal for any who've bought the thing to continue using it even though it's in violation of patent law? I would just *love* to see the cluster-f... that would ensue if every American licensee of Word had to get rid of it.

Hehehehehehehe...

Technically--technically:

According to almost ANY EULA that comes in commercial software... You only have a very limited lease to use the software that you paid money for, that lease coming from the Company that wrote it. As such, technically-on the grounds of this suit, I don't see how it would be ANY kind of difficult reach to hold all those Word EULAs null and void., since Microsofts right to grant the EULA would be questionable. As far as getting compensation from present consumers of course, I doubt that will ever happen.

rifak
August 12th, 2009, 08:03 PM
im just curious why this isnt getting more attention?

MikeTheC
August 12th, 2009, 08:06 PM
im just curious why this isnt getting more attention?

Because the news media is comprised of a bunch of biased, ignorant and paid-off morons.

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 08:07 PM
im just curious why this isnt getting more attention?

Because it's not that big of a deal! It's being overhyped

wrtpeeps
August 12th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Because the news media is comprised of a bunch of biased, ignorant and paid-off morons.

Yes. Indeed. :rolleyes:

Such rubbish.

Merk42
August 12th, 2009, 08:08 PM
im just curious why this isnt getting more attention?

Because it has to do with technology and patents, something the average person knows little about.

koenn
August 12th, 2009, 08:15 PM
Why? I need many Windows only programs for work, and I don't think it's a bad thing.
I was reffering to MS Access, not "many windows programs"


Not really. I like Access.
I used to, till I found out what a nightmare it can be to maintain .mdb's with VBA code, SQL statements , and calls to obscure micro's, all scattered all over the place in a jungle of control properties, without any means to follow the general flow of things (other than actually running it)

DeadSuperHero
August 12th, 2009, 08:29 PM
I personally think it's ridiculous that they're banned from selling their own products in the US. Isn't the whole point of having a free market enterprise is allowing any company to sell their products, as long as they're legal?

Why is it that Microsoft in particular can't sell an operating system with their browser bundled in one part of the world, and now isn't allowed to sell their office suite in another? Apple sure is able to get away with this, as was Amiga Inc, NeXT, Be Inc, Sun Microsystems, etc. I personally liked Word 2007, and I think it's messed up that now they can't sell their products while their competitors are certainly allowed to do so.

rifak
August 12th, 2009, 08:38 PM
I personally think it's ridiculous that they're banned from selling their own products in the US. Isn't the whole point of having a free market enterprise is allowing any company to sell their products, as long as they're legal?

Why is it that Microsoft in particular can't sell an operating system with their browser bundled in one part of the world, and now isn't allowed to sell their office suite in another? Apple sure is able to get away with this, as was Amiga Inc, NeXT, Be Inc, Sun Microsystems, etc. I personally liked Word 2007, and I think it's messed up that now they can't sell their products while their competitors are certainly allowed to do so.

i do agree to some extent, but if they are going to play this patent/copyright game with others, then others should be allowed to do the same to ms. and obviously suing and getting into patent cases is the only game ms knows how to play...not to mention back door methods to get their software into users computers

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 08:40 PM
I personally think it's ridiculous that they're banned from selling their own products in the US. Isn't the whole point of having a free market enterprise is allowing any company to sell their products, as long as they're legal?

According to this judgment, Microsoft deliberately stole patented ideas of the plaintiff in order to create Microsoft Word. This is of course, not legal.

Barrucadu
August 12th, 2009, 08:42 PM
Why is it that Microsoft in particular can't sell an operating system with their browser bundled in one part of the world

Because that creates a monopoly, which is a Bad Thing.

KiwiNZ
August 12th, 2009, 08:45 PM
Because that creates a monopoly, which is a Bad Thing.

No it doesn't

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 08:49 PM
No it doesn't

According to the United States Department of Justice, and European Competition Commission, it does. They of course, have real authority to make binding decisions on things like this. That of course, comes from massive experience in law.

KiwiNZ
August 12th, 2009, 08:52 PM
According to the United States Department of Justice, and European Competition Commission, it does. They of course, have real authority to make binding decisions on things like this.

If MS blocked installation of other browsers in Windows then possibly they may be right.
But we all know , Firefox, Chrome, Safari , Opera.............. can be installed . Thus no monopoly. Cash cow for various governments yes

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 08:59 PM
If MS blocked installation of other browsers in Windows then possibly they may be right.
But we all know , Firefox, Chrome, Safari , Opera.............. can be installed . Thus no monopoly. Cash cow for various governments yes

That might be your opinion, but it's not my opinion. But both our opinions aren't binding anyway. The opinion of a ordained justice is. And interestingly enough, their opinion almost matches mine. :)

Even though justices have the power to turn their opinions into actions, they must write very detailed (often hundreds of pages long) rationals for their decisions. These extremely detailed judgments are public, so if you want to know why the justices found Microsoft liable, you just have to look.

koenn
August 12th, 2009, 09:02 PM
According to the United States Department of Justice, and European Competition Commission, it does. They of course, have real authority to make binding decisions on things like this. That of course, comes from massive experience in law.


If MS blocked installation of other browsers in Windows then possibly they may be right.
But we all know , Firefox, Chrome, Safari , Opera.............. can be installed . Thus no monopoly. Cash cow for various governments yes
Err ... no.
The monopoly in question is the (quasi-) monopoly of the Windows OS on PC's. Bundling other programs with this OS is abusing the monopoly to promote usage of said programs. That's what they were convicted for, and that's why Win 7 will have that 'what browser do you want to install' thingie.

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 09:03 PM
Err ... no.
The monopoly in question is the (quasi-) monopoly of the Windows OS on PC's. Bundling other programs with this OS is abusing the monopoly to promote usage of said programs. That's what they were convicted for, and that's why Win 7 will have that 'what browser do you want to install' thingie.

Yes, you are right. :P

Personally I rather have a BallotOS then a BallotBrowser. But one step at a time.

t0p
August 12th, 2009, 09:05 PM
The practice is equally common in copyright. Which REALLY pisses off researchers, as there are whole libraries of material, which are copywritten but not published--someone just sits on it and does nothing with it...making the material unavailable to everyone. I'm banging my head against this practice right now in my field of research actually.


I don't understand why it should be a problem that someone doesn't publish something they've written. The words that they wrote may be protected by copyright, but that protection does not extend to the research they did. There's nothing stopping you from carrying out the same research and writing it up yourself.

Patents protect ideas. Copyright does not protect ideas. It is not a breach of copyright to "copy" someone's idea. Hell, writers steal each others' ideas all the time! It's called "being influenced by" someone else's work!

Merk42
August 12th, 2009, 09:15 PM
Yes, you are right. :P

Personally I rather have a BallotOS then a BallotBrowser. But one step at a time.

No actually what they got in trouble for was not so much having IE installed, but telling OEMs they'd have to pay more for Windows licenses if the OEMs installed Netscape.

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 09:17 PM
No actually what they got in trouble for was not so much having IE installed, but telling OEMs they'd have to pay more for Windows licenses if the OEMs installed Netscape.

It was a multitude of things actually.

KiwiNZ
August 12th, 2009, 09:23 PM
I love that term Quasi - monopoly .. it wasn't a monopoly so lets create a term to justify the position.:(

But thats a another story.

If MS went under who will they turn to next ? I know the milk companies :P

t0p
August 12th, 2009, 09:28 PM
If MS went under who will they turn to next ? I know the milk companies :P

I dunno, I rather think it's the cows who are monopolising the milk business...

Jimleko211
August 12th, 2009, 09:30 PM
We keep saying that Microsoft has a monopoly..but they don't!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

As far as I was aware, most of us here use some sort of a GNU/Linux distrobution, mostly Ubuntu. As long as one person uses an alternative of ANY sort to Windows, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Same with Office...as long as one person uses OpenOffice or Gnome Office or KOffice or something! then they don't have a monopoly.

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 09:31 PM
We keep saying that Microsoft has a monopoly..but they don't!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

As far as I was aware, most of us here use some sort of a GNU/Linux distrobution, mostly Ubuntu. As long as one person uses an alternative of ANY sort to Windows, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Same with Office...as long as one person uses OpenOffice or Gnome Office or KOffice or something! then they don't have a monopoly.

Monopoly doesn't mean ownership of a market, just control of a market. "Control" of course is somewhat subjective (how do you quantify control of a market?). But in my opinion, I would say Microsoft does have a monopoly on operating systems.

MikeTheC
August 12th, 2009, 09:32 PM
I love that term Quasi - monopoly .. it wasn't a monopoly so lets create a term to justify the position.:(

I dunno if you've ever watched Babylon 5, but this reminds me of a scene from one of the episodes, where Ambassador Mollari and Vir Coto were talking about a report Vir was working on. Londo basically tells him to use use the word "dubious" in describing an aspect of Minbari culture. "It doesn't actually mean anything," he said, "but it scares people."

ugm6hr
August 12th, 2009, 09:35 PM
We keep saying that Microsoft has a monopoly..but they don't!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly

Scroll down to the legal dictionary definition.

koenn
August 12th, 2009, 09:35 PM
I love that term Quasi - monopoly .. it wasn't a monopoly so lets create a term to justify the position.:(

err ... no.
I used the term quasi-monoply, because in my mind, 'mono' means 'single' or 'there is only one', and I acknowlegde the few % market share of OSX and Linux combined.

IANAL but in the legal/economic world, they' probably just say monopoly (without the quasi) to mean the situation "when a specific vendor has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition"

(based on a definition by wikipedia. We can now start to discuss whether wikipedia is an acceptable source for such matters)

EDIT : thanks ugm6hr

Tibuda
August 12th, 2009, 09:37 PM
I love that term Quasi - monopoly .. it wasn't a monopoly so lets create a term to justify the position.:(

It is not a monopoly, but it got much concentration. The Merger guidelines (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/horiz_book/15.html) states that if the HHI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index) is above 1800, the market is highly concentrated. Using the median data from five sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems), the OS market HHI is 8645.16! Almost 5 times the highly concentrated limit! I don't expect anything different in the office suite market, but there are no data available.

phrostbyte
August 12th, 2009, 09:41 PM
err ... no.
I used the term quasi-monoply, because in my mind, 'mono' means 'single' or 'there is only one', and I acknowlegde the few % market share of OSX and Linux combined.

IANAL but in the legal/economic world, they' probably just say monopoly (without the quasi) to mean the situation "when a specific vendor has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition"

(based on a definition by wikipedia. We can now start to discuss whether wikipedia is an acceptable source for such matters)

Another definition: "exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill".

But it's important to know that law is completely subjective. It's up to justices to interpret it.

Yes, I can interpret law, you can, anyone can interpret it, and maybe someone interpret Microsoft to not qualify as a monopoly.

But let's be realistic, unless that someone happens to be justice with a strong knowledge of law and it's history, his/her opinion is almost worthless. And the fact is, the opinion of people with actual authority is Microsoft is a monopoly. So by matter of actual authoritative law, Microsoft is a monopoly.

HappinessNow
August 12th, 2009, 09:52 PM
i4i, based in Toronto, Canada, claimed that Microsoft "willingly violated" a patent granted in 1998 concerning methods for reading XML, a kind of programming language. XML allows users to customise the format of word-processing documents, enabling them to be read by various word-processing programs. Microsoft Word's ability to read and write XML documents is a crucial feature of the popular software.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/6015902/Microsoft-banned-from-selling-Word-in-US.html


Stupid patents. All I can say is lol!:)


.Yet another reason Google Documents and eventually Google Chrome OS will reign supreme! I guess it pays to NOT be evil!

ZarathustraDK
August 12th, 2009, 09:58 PM
Question here :

Suppose i4i is inhabited by an army of Richard Stallmans...

...can they deny settlement? Can they say "Up yours, you're violatin', stop it please".?

This should be fun :popcorn:

MikeTheC
August 12th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Oh, one could only hope.

Methuselah
August 12th, 2009, 11:37 PM
As someone said, for the benefit of those who love definitions, scroll down to the legal definition of 'monopoly'
Microsoft is a monopoly and has been found so by multiple courts of law.

I have mixed feelings about this patent decision.
On the one hand, 'karma is a bitch'.
On the other hand, software patents suck.

Something I care about could be on the receiving end of such a decision.

MaxIBoy
August 13th, 2009, 01:28 AM
i4i, based in Toronto, Canada, claimed that Microsoft "willingly violated" a patent granted in 1998 concerning methods for reading XML, a kind of programming language. XML allows users to customise the format of word-processing documents, enabling them to be read by various word-processing programs. Microsoft Word's ability to read and write XML documents is a crucial feature of the popular software. This has to be the least accurate description of anything, ever.

Anyway, as RMS says, I don't cheer when Microsoft is threatened by software patents, because anyone else could be next.



If MS blocked installation of other browsers in Windows then possibly they may be right.
But we all know , Firefox, Chrome, Safari , Opera.............. can be installed . Thus no monopoly. Cash cow for various governments yes
Oh, please. When was the last time you actually uninstalled IE cleanly? When was the last time Windows online update worked on another browser besides IE? When was the last time you could browse help files with another browser? IE remains on the system, and is used behind the scenes for various processes. And since it's such an atrocious security liability, even if you aren't directly using it, I think this qualifies as abusive behavior.

How can they solve this? Create a publicly-documented API for the browser components to interface with the rest of the system. Five or six viable alternatives would come out of the woodwork overnight!

Sealbhach
August 13th, 2009, 01:37 AM
This has to be the least accurate description of anything, ever.

Anyway, as RMS says, I don't cheer when Microsoft is threatened by software patents, because anyone else could be next.

That's true but it's kinda satisfying to see M$ get trolled like this after the TomTom thing.

.

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2009, 01:54 AM
This has to be the least accurate description of anything, ever.

Anyway, as RMS says, I don't cheer when Microsoft is threatened by software patents, because anyone else could be next.



Oh, please. When was the last time you actually uninstalled IE cleanly? When was the last time Windows online update worked on another browser besides IE? When was the last time you could browse help files with another browser? IE remains on the system, and is used behind the scenes for various processes. And since it's such an atrocious security liability, even if you aren't directly using it, I think this qualifies as abusive behavior.

How can they solve this? Create a publicly-documented API for the browser components to interface with the rest of the system. Five or six viable alternatives would come out of the woodwork overnight!

still does not stop the installation of other browsers. Which was my point.

as for unistalling , yes

red_Marvin
August 13th, 2009, 02:02 AM
I have mixed feelings about this patent decision.
On the one hand, 'karma is a bitch'.
On the other hand, software patents suck.
Perfectly expressed!


This has to be the least accurate description of anything, ever.
I know how to make 1337 programs in html? Funny that they didn't even look up the abbrevation...

Mateo
August 13th, 2009, 02:11 AM
Monopoly doesn't mean ownership of a market, just control of a market. "Control" of course is somewhat subjective (how do you quantify control of a market?). But in my opinion, I would say Microsoft does have a monopoly on operating systems.

No, it means a company that blocks or builds high barriers (almost unscalable) to a market. A company could be the ONLY company in its market, but unless it is doing something that makes it nearly impossible (or actually impossible) for competition to arise, it is not a monopoly. Some times government allow monopolies (and become the barriers themselves) because they believe it to be optimal (in some situations).

Windows and Office are not monopolies because the barriers to entry are very, very low.

JawsThemeSwimming428
August 13th, 2009, 02:18 AM
Let's be realistic, MS has the power to do just about whatever they want. They have appealed the ruling. I don't think Word is going anywhere.

starcannon
August 13th, 2009, 02:25 AM
i4i, based in Toronto, Canada, claimed that Microsoft "willingly violated" a patent granted in 1998 concerning methods for reading XML, a kind of programming language. XML allows users to customise the format of word-processing documents, enabling them to be read by various word-processing programs. Microsoft Word's ability to read and write XML documents is a crucial feature of the popular software
.
While true, I would point out that MS would have done the same thing if it would have benefited them, had the tables been turned. I just see a litigating bully getting a little bit of their own medicine for a change. I'm fine with that.

Mateo
August 13th, 2009, 02:34 AM
While true, I would point out that MS would have done the same thing if it would have benefited them, had the tables been turned. I just see a litigating bully getting a little bit of their own medicine for a change. I'm fine with that.

What you just described is the definition of hypocrisy.

CJ Master
August 13th, 2009, 02:34 AM
They have appealed the ruling.

[citation needed]

shafin
August 13th, 2009, 02:42 AM
BTW, why isn't apple required to do the browser ballot in EU, or linux? Anyone care to explain?

I-75
August 13th, 2009, 02:53 AM
My thoughts.....

I see a settlement or a offer to buy the company. Whether we like Microsoft or not...their products...including WORD are important to the business community. (Yea I know Open Office is great..it is!).

As such MSFT will end up settling this ASAP, whatever they have to pay...they will and it will be yet another business expense to them and the expense (no doubt) will simply tacked on to the the price of some future release of a Microsoft product.

The biggest threat to Microsoft are "Open Source Mandates" such like those in Russia where the school district/agency will have to use open source software ...or pay for the proprietary software themselves. Mandates are mandates and no back room "sweetheart" "deals" can change a mandate.

The second biggest threat to Microsoft are free and open software alternatives to Microsoft products...but run under a Windows environment like Open Office.

Microsoft is still big enough to weather this latest storm. My opinion however is that their best days are behind them even though Windows 7 looks like it will be a success. The glory days of 99 % market share are long over.

Merk42
August 13th, 2009, 03:13 AM
BTW, why isn't apple required to do the browser ballot in EU, or linux? Anyone care to explain?

A bit off topic, but neither are considering monopolies.

Also, while Apple makes OSX and Safari, they also make the hardware so they are free to do what they want.
Linux, on the other hand, I think is free because of its minuscule marketshare and the fact that the OS is made by a different company than whatever browser is in by default.

Mateo
August 13th, 2009, 03:39 AM
My thoughts.....

I see a settlement or a offer to buy the company. Whether we like Microsoft or not...their products...including WORD are important to the business community. (Yea I know Open Office is great..it is!).

As such MSFT will end up settling this ASAP, whatever they have to pay...they will and it will be yet another business expense to them and the expense (no doubt) will simply tacked on to the the price of some future release of a Microsoft product.

The biggest threat to Microsoft are "Open Source Mandates" such like those in Russia where the school district/agency will have to use open source software ...or pay for the proprietary software themselves. Mandates are mandates and no back room "sweetheart" "deals" can change a mandate.

The second biggest threat to Microsoft are free and open software alternatives to Microsoft products...but run under a Windows environment like Open Office.

Microsoft is still big enough to weather this latest storm. My opinion however is that their best days are behind them even though Windows 7 looks like it will be a success. The glory days of 99 % market share are long over.

Disagree strongly. The biggest threat to any dominant player (I'm referring to Office here, not the entire company, which is much to broad of a topic) is innovation. The open source alternatives are not innovative. Innovation is coming from Zoho and Google Docs. The ability to have your docs on every computer you use, always guaranteed to be synced, is a huge huge convenience. Microsoft is trying to adapt to this, but from what I've seen their online product is more like a check-in check-out system. That can be good for businesses, but I don't think it's the same kind of "good" that Zoho and Google Docs are.

Twitch6000
August 13th, 2009, 03:42 AM
This just shows how stupid software patents are...

bshosey
August 13th, 2009, 03:45 AM
This is ironic for this to happen to Microsoft. Almost funny! But the truth is I am so sick of this whole paten thing. It does not matter how much I dislike Microsoft, This is BS!

Software Patens are handicaps for Innovation!

coldReactive
August 13th, 2009, 04:13 AM
Software Patens are handicaps for Innovation!

You can say the same thing about hardware patents.

LookTJ
August 13th, 2009, 05:05 AM
and I think it's messed up that now they can't sell their products while their competitors are certainly allowed to do so.
What competitors of Microsoft Word is selling? I surely haven't one, as both OpenOffice.org and Abiword is free(in both sense). Unless I am missing another word processor that sells for profit, may you kindly point me to it?

Thanks :)

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2009, 05:09 AM
What competitors of Microsoft Word is selling? I surely haven't one, as both OpenOffice.org and Abiword is free(in both sense). Unless I am missing another word processor that sells for profit, may you kindly point me to it?

Thanks :)
Word perfect suite is one

LookTJ
August 13th, 2009, 05:14 AM
Word perfect suite is one
Is WordPerfect closer to the functionality and capability of Word or OpenOffice, or is it just one of the very basic word processor?

And KiwiNZ, thanks I knew I was missing, I couldn't think of the name. Long time since I had heard that name, I think my dad has one of the old versions.

EDIT: One screenshot of WordPerfect 12 looks like Word 97 or something.

gletob
August 13th, 2009, 06:12 AM
What the hell I was under the impression that all pantents wore off after 7 years and that adds up to some time in 2005

Chronon
August 13th, 2009, 06:32 AM
my reading is that this patent is similar to CSS, im not sure how thats affected by this tho

I can see some connections, for sure. However, CSS still applies to an HTML file that contains tags (or is invoked in the header of such a file or even inside of a tag). I don't quite see how that fits with the described document structure. The same goes for XML, which requires, as I understand it, opening and closing tags around the content. It seems like this format requires a total sequestration of metadata from the content itself. LaTeX appears safe because while some (most usually) of the formatting information is invoked in the preamble of the document, it is still necessary to surround the content in a "document" environment. It appears to me that in order to violate this patent, the document must completely separate markup from the content of the document (i.e. absolutely no inline tags).


In the case where an existing document is decomposed into its distinct metacode map and mapped content, either in whole or in part, and a new document, optionally, created therefrom, the following steps in general should be followed:

(a) the content of the document is read until a metacode is found;

(b) the content is copied and stored in the mapped content means;

(c) an entry in the map is made noting the metacode and its position in the content (in the case of purely textual content the position could be stored as the number of characters in the mapped content before the code);

(d) steps one to three are repeated until the document has been completely read; and

(e) the original document may optionally now be discarded since the mapped content together with the metacode map completely describe it.

Of course this is all armchair analysis. I couldn't tell you how Word violated this, nor confirm that this description of the format contains the key to understanding the violation. It just seems to me that markup languages are an old art and the only novel thing I recognize in the description that I read lies in the metacode map. At the moment I don't really see what XML has to do with the patent since it doesn't, according to my understanding, use such a metadata map.

MaxIBoy
August 13th, 2009, 06:41 AM
You can say the same thing about hardware patents.
...and as a matter of fact I do.


Patents in general need to be phased out in favor of copyright law (without DMCA, and including fair-use provisions.) It's just that software patents are the most urgent target, because that is where the most innovation is currently going on.

ugm6hr
August 13th, 2009, 06:58 AM
Patents in general need to be phased out...

This is a very "open source" argument, and is popular amongst academic rather than industrial / commercial communities.

However, lots of inventors like to ensure they get very rich from their inventions.

I am not a patent lawyer, but it does appear that while "hardware" patents have to be specific (consider the Dyson patents and the subsequent similar bagless vacuums that do not infringe on their patents), it appears software patents can be very far-reaching and theoretically prevent anyone's use of any desktop GUI.

I sincerely hope that the EU does not bend under this. At least they remain a safe-haven (for the time being) for open source development.

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2009, 07:35 AM
Patents should stay

MaxIBoy
August 13th, 2009, 07:43 AM
This is a very "open source" argument, and is popular amongst academic rather than industrial / commercial communities.

However, lots of inventors like to ensure they get very rich from their inventions.First of all, would a real inventor stop inventing just because no one else can innovate based on their ideas? I'm not an inventor, but my guess is it's an art as well as a science, the way I know programming to be. A true artist won't stop creating art just because others might also benefit from their invention.

Second of all, most hardware patents belong to big companies which employ hundreds of inventors and pay them fixed wages. These companies have enough patents to implement any ideas their employees come up with, or if they don't they have enough money to license them. An independent inventor has very little chance of breaking into the business without selling the idea to a company. Any engineering project ties together a lot of other components, and usually only one or two of these are actually newly-invented, the rest having already been patented in the past. I'm not saying that this is the case 100% of the time, but it happens a lot. Without patents, this would NOT be a problem, independent inventors would have fewer obstacles to profit from their work.

Finally, patents, in my opinion, are Communist. Communism is often implemented through government-enforced monopolies. If the government enforces patents, and patents are used to maintain monopolies, then the government is directly enforcing a monopoly. Communism simply doesn't work, it results in collapsing countries. Think about that for a moment.

Viva
August 13th, 2009, 07:44 AM
********. Software patents are bad for the industry. Lets not forget that its not just Microsoft who'll be violating the patent. They'll get out of the situation by paying a huge sum to the company, but the smaller companies and the open source software will suffer much more if they decide to sue.

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2009, 07:49 AM
Finally, patents, in my opinion, are Communist. Communism is often implemented through government-enforced monopolies. If the government enforces patents, and patents are used to maintain monopolies, then the government is directly enforcing a monopoly. Communism simply doesn't work, it results in collapsing countries. Think about that for a moment.

What ????

Err the communist regimes do not recognize them

Inventors are seldom associated with monopolies.

One of the biggest economies and the only one without recession is communist.

Reds under the bed paranoia went in the eighties

Just a few observation

MaxIBoy
August 13th, 2009, 07:54 AM
What ????

Err the communist regimes do not recognize themYes, in communist regimes, inventions belong to "the people." But if there's only one state-sanctioned shoe factory per city (silly example,) then that's a monopoly. And if only one company is state-sanctioned and allowed to manufacture product X, that's a monopoly on that product.


Inventors are seldom associated with monopolies.This is true.


One of the biggest economies and the only one without recession is communist.Are you referring to China? Because China is one of the most flagrantly capitalist countries in the world right now, doesn't matter what anyone says.


Reds under the bed paranoia went in the eighties

Just a few observationI very much appreciate that you took the time to form an opinion on my post. :)

koenn
August 13th, 2009, 09:08 AM
I am not a patent lawyer, but it does appear that while "hardware" patents have to be specific (consider the Dyson patents and the subsequent similar bagless vacuums that do not infringe on their patents), it appears software patents can be very far-reaching and theoretically prevent anyone's use of any desktop GUI.


It used to be that patents in general had to be rather specific : you'd patent a machine, a very well defined production process (including the machines needed in it, .... things like that. If you look up Edisons's electric lightbulb patent, you see he has a lot of those, eacg describing a spicific type of bulb, a specific way of improving them, detailed instructions on how to manufacture them, ...
The purpose was that you'd be able to design something like this, and possibly allow others to manufacture them under a license you grant them if you didn't want to go i production yourself. Any which way, you'd be able to recover R&D costs and make some money.

A computer program can be seen as a machine : you put something in, it gets processed, , something comes out on the other end. So to some extend, one could understand that people would want to patent programs.

The whole thing got crazy when the (mainly US) patent office started granting patents for mere ideas, concepts, general algorithms, ...

koenn
August 13th, 2009, 09:13 AM
Finally, patents, in my opinion, are Communist. Communism is often implemented through government-enforced monopolies. If the government enforces patents, and patents are used to maintain monopolies, then the government is directly enforcing a monopoly. Communism simply doesn't work, it results in collapsing countries. Think about that for a moment.

THis only holds if you equal communism to 'government monopoly', which is not correct.

It reads like a (failed) attempt to play into the US aversion to communism. Won't work.

ganeshmallyap
August 13th, 2009, 09:25 AM
Does this court verdict affect any of the open source softwares also ?

schauerlich
August 13th, 2009, 09:27 AM
Finally, patents, in my opinion, are Communist. Communism is often implemented through government-enforced monopolies. If the government enforces patents, and patents are used to maintain monopolies, then the government is directly enforcing a monopoly. Communism simply doesn't work, it results in collapsing countries. Think about that for a moment.

Patents are one of the most capitalistic ideas in our economy. "Hey, this is mine, only I can make money off of it."

Johnsie
August 13th, 2009, 09:31 AM
OpenOffice is definitely breaching this patent. Their organisers should be fined too.

bodyharvester
August 13th, 2009, 09:33 AM
OpenOffice is definitely breaching this patent. Their organisers should be fined too.

sssssh...dont tell anyone ;)

Chronon
August 13th, 2009, 10:54 AM
Second of all, most hardware patents belong to big companies which employ hundreds of inventors and pay them fixed wages. These companies have enough patents to implement any ideas their employees come up with, or if they don't they have enough money to license them. An independent inventor has very little chance of breaking into the business without selling the idea to a company. Any engineering project ties together a lot of other components, and usually only one or two of these are actually newly-invented, the rest having already been patented in the past. I'm not saying that this is the case 100% of the time, but it happens a lot. Without patents, this would NOT be a problem, independent inventors would have fewer obstacles to profit from their work.

Actually, patents provide a way for independent inventors to get paid. You correctly identified that the big companies will buy patents from such inventors. Without patents an inventor can't sell their idea. Additionally, companies have little incentive to share their ideas. Why divulge an idea that gives you an edge if there's no government protection of it. Without the patent system, the only way for someone to profit from their big idea is to keep it a secret and secure the resources necessary to actually produce the item and sell it in the marketplace. For many ideas this is simply not feasible.

By removing patents you force an inventor to go through the process of seeking investors, securing venture capital, hiring R&D personnel, testing and refining instances of their idea, packaging the product, and finally selling it in the market for a profit. You effectively shackle the inventor to any idea that they wish to profit from instead of allowing them to seek protection for the idea, sell it and move on to something new.

Swagman
August 13th, 2009, 11:40 AM
By removing patents you force an inventor to go through the process of seeking investors, securing venture capital, hiring R&D personnel, testing and refining instances of their idea, packaging the product, and finally selling it in the market for a profit. You effectively shackle the inventor to any idea that they wish to profit from instead of allowing them to seek protection for the idea, sell it and move on to something new.


And that's how it should be.

No-one deserves either kudos or pay for just sitting on their arses thinking without doing.

speedwell68
August 13th, 2009, 12:27 PM
OpenOffice is definitely breaching this patent. Their organisers should be fined too.

I have been thinking about this. I am happy for anyone to prove me wrong here, I have no actual evidence to support my theory.

IIRC OpenOffice is an open source development based on Sun's StarOffice. Sun's StarOffice is a 'paid for' software suite, so is it not feasible that Sun have already paid i4i for using XML?

koenn
August 13th, 2009, 12:28 PM
No-one deserves either kudos or pay for just sitting on their arses thinking without doing.
And why not ?
Some people are extremely good at thinking, and it would be a waste to have them just do stuff and not think.

Chronon
August 13th, 2009, 12:35 PM
And that's how it should be.

No-one deserves either kudos or pay for just sitting on their arses thinking without doing.

So, you're against research then? I think doing without thinking sounds no better (possibly worse) than thinking without doing.

koenn
August 13th, 2009, 12:52 PM
By removing patents you force an inventor to go through the process of seeking investors, securing venture capital, hiring R&D personnel, testing and refining instances of their idea, packaging the product, and finally selling it in the market for a profit. You effectively shackle the inventor to any idea that they wish to profit from instead of allowing them to seek protection for the idea, sell it and move on to something new.
True, and that's more or less the intended use of patents : it either buys you time to develop and market your invention yourself, or allows you the 'sell' it to someone who will develop and market it

note that I say invention rather than idea. I don't think a mere idea should be patented.
Take Alfred Nobel. He did not go 'jeez, it would be great if we had some kind of device or substance that creates shock waves strong enough to blast rock, so I can build roads and bridges more easily - hm, sounds like an idea, let me patent that'.

In stead he invented (and patented) very specific implementations of that idea : one was a mixture of nitroglycerine and silica to create a more or less solid but mallable explosive, convenient for insertion in drilled holes : dynamite. The patent is even quite explicite about the ratios on which the compnents should be mixed, and about appropriate methods of mixing them.
An other patent was on blasting caps that detonate dynamite or nitro by shock rather than by heat.

Those are 'ideas' of a rather different nature than, say, "hey, lets have a 'start' button on the GUI of a computer system" or "oh, wouldn't it be cool to be able to browse through a text file by page ... hm, I'v just invented the 'Page Up / Page Down' feature, let me patent that"

gpullinger
August 13th, 2009, 01:01 PM
"We are disappointed by the court's ruling," said Kevin Kutz, a spokesman for the software giant. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid."

Judge Roy Bean, of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (and LAW west of the Pecos), ruled that Microsoft should be hung from a cactus until buzzards pick it's patents.

Swagman
August 13th, 2009, 01:01 PM
True, and that's more or less the intended use of patents : it either buys you time to develop and market your invention yourself, or allows you the 'sell' it to someone who will develop and market it

note that I say invention rather than idea. I don't think a mere idea should be patented.
Take Alfred Nobel. He did not go 'jeez, it would be great if we had some kind of device or substance that creates shock waves strong enough to blast rock, so I can build roads and bridges more easily - hm, sounds like an idea, let me patent that'.

In stead he invented (and patented) very specific implementations of that idea : one was a mixture of nitroglycerine and silica to create a more or less solid but mallable explosive, convenient for insertion in drilled holes : dynamite. The patent is even quite explicite about the ratios on which the compnents should be mixed, and about appropriate methods of mixing them.
An other patent was on blasting caps that detonate dynamite or nitro by shock rather than by heat.
<snip>



That's both Thinking and Doing The two Should go hand in hand.

Only a very few peeps have the right to patent an idea with no physical effort and one of those is Stephen Hawkins. And I'd make a bet he'd swap his lifestyle for ours in less than the bat of an eyelid.

KegHead
August 13th, 2009, 01:36 PM
hi

m$ is out of touch.

who needs word?

keghead

koenn
August 13th, 2009, 01:41 PM
That's both Thinking and Doing The two Should go hand in hand.

Only a very few peeps have the right to patent an idea with no physical effort and one of those is Stephen Hawkins. And I'd make a bet he'd swap his lifestyle for ours in less than the bat of an eyelid.
Hm, the post you quote was more about the malpractice of patenting ideas rather than inventions, not so much about your statement that people should not get paid for mere thinking.

I still maintain that people who are good at thinking should not be forced to do something else just in order to 'get paid'. Hawkins is a good example. I'm pretty sure that if he could swap his wheel chair for an arm chair, he'd still be doing pretty much the same things he does now.

JillSwift
August 13th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Hawkins is a good example.
Hawking. :)

Tristam Green
August 13th, 2009, 03:32 PM
Yet another reason Google Documents and eventually Google Chrome OS will reign supreme! I guess it pays to NOT be evil!

We all know GOOG is such a shining example of how not to be evil, of course! :confused::confused::confused:

koenn
August 13th, 2009, 03:58 PM
Hawking. :)
right :)

Merk42
August 13th, 2009, 05:02 PM
hi

m$ is out of touch.

who needs word?

keghead

hi

read the thread past "Microsoft gets sued"

this could affect OpenOffice.org as well

Merk42

CJ Master
August 13th, 2009, 05:15 PM
hi

m$ is out of touch.

who needs word?

keghead

*sigh*

Many, many people need word because open office is inferior. I'm not sure how else to put that. "m$" can appeal to get Word back in the U.S, but Open Office doesn't have the funds if they decide to sue it.

Stan_1936
August 13th, 2009, 05:20 PM
"We are disappointed by the court's ruling," said Kevin Kutz, a spokesman for the software giant. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid.".....

NOT SO FAST...


The company has said it plans to appeal, and i4i actually sells XML products for Word, making that company reliant on the ecosystem. An agreement will be reached: probably one involving Microsoft signing a big check.
SOURCE: http://mashable.com/2009/08/12/word-patent/

CJ Master
August 13th, 2009, 05:22 PM
NOT SO FAST...


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

...

Some people need to get a humor detector. ;)

SunnyRabbiera
August 13th, 2009, 05:25 PM
*sigh*

Many, many people need word because open office is inferior.

Yeh not having a ribbon makes OO inferior [-(
Me I have used OO without issue, only spreadsheets seem to be funky but I am aware of Gnumeric, does fine.

motang
August 13th, 2009, 05:37 PM
Well, this sure explains why Microsoft filed a similar patent recently (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1235580).
Yeah it does expalin it doesn't it.

Chronon
August 13th, 2009, 07:58 PM
True, and that's more or less the intended use of patents : it either buys you time to develop and market your invention yourself, or allows you the 'sell' it to someone who will develop and market it

note that I say invention rather than idea. I don't think a mere idea should be patented.
Take Alfred Nobel. He did not go 'jeez, it would be great if we had some kind of device or substance that creates shock waves strong enough to blast rock, so I can build roads and bridges more easily - hm, sounds like an idea, let me patent that'.

In stead he invented (and patented) very specific implementations of that idea : one was a mixture of nitroglycerine and silica to create a more or less solid but mallable explosive, convenient for insertion in drilled holes : dynamite. The patent is even quite explicite about the ratios on which the compnents should be mixed, and about appropriate methods of mixing them.
An other patent was on blasting caps that detonate dynamite or nitro by shock rather than by heat.

Those are 'ideas' of a rather different nature than, say, "hey, lets have a 'start' button on the GUI of a computer system" or "oh, wouldn't it be cool to be able to browse through a text file by page ... hm, I'v just invented the 'Page Up / Page Down' feature, let me patent that"

Okay, so you don't agree that the patent system should be entirely abolished either.

Icehuck
August 13th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Okay, so you don't agree that the patent system should be entirely abolished either.

Patents actually serve a purpose. Otherwise, you end up like China who just rips off everything they see.

koenn
August 13th, 2009, 09:06 PM
Okay, so you don't agree that the patent system should be entirely abolished either.
Though question. In general, if applied the way it was intended, it doesn't seem such a bad idea. The way it's used in the US today is obviously wrong, and one might wonder in how far this is actually in flaw inherent to the system. Maybe it was an adequate solution to reward inventors and promote technological advancement in the 19th or first half of the 20th century but does not quite work so well in today's because the technology field has changed.

But I'm not an inventor, engineer, programmer, or patent office clerk, so I haven't given the matter much thought. I do see it can be used to stifle (free) software development, and that I find a problem.


Taking this one step further - a patent system only makes sense in a society that expects its members to monitize their talents if they expect to eat : in a capitalist society, if your talent has no economic value, it might as well not exist. The patent system is a fix for (part of) that problem. In, say, a "Star Trek" society that somehow sustains its members so that they can develop their talents without having to worry where their next meal is going to come from, a patent system would make no sense at all.

Sealbhach
August 13th, 2009, 10:24 PM
I don't think a mere idea should be patented.

Take Alfred Nobel. He did not go 'jeez, it would be great if we had some kind of device or substance that creates shock waves strong enough to blast rock, so I can build roads and bridges more easily - hm, sounds like an idea, let me patent that'.

In stead he invented (and patented) very specific implementations of that idea : one was a mixture of nitroglycerine and silica to create a more or less solid but mallable explosive, convenient for insertion in drilled holes : dynamite. The patent is even quite explicite about the ratios on which the compnents should be mixed, and about appropriate methods of mixing them.


Nail. Head. Hit on the.


.

murderslastcrow
August 13th, 2009, 11:30 PM
Can Microsoft Word open ODFs? Does it support other open formats that are provided in programs like Abiword and the OpenOffice.org suite? If not, I find this much more serious than the inability to read Word 2009 documents, since these are open and documented formats. Can someone verify for me if this is true or not?

JUSTINBEAIRD
August 14th, 2009, 12:08 AM
just think of how far ahead we could be technologically with out patents. all the cool devises we would have, low costs because of competition, advancements in battery life and paper would be obsolete by now

Mateo
August 14th, 2009, 01:39 AM
just think of how far ahead we could be technologically with out patents. all the cool devises we would have, low costs because of competition, advancements in battery life and paper would be obsolete by now

Competition? Why would anyone invent something when someone else with more money could steal the idea and sell it for cheaper. That's an extremist point of view.

Mateo
August 14th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Can Microsoft Word open ODFs? Does it support other open formats that are provided in programs like Abiword and the OpenOffice.org suite? If not, I find this much more serious than the inability to read Word 2009 documents, since these are open and documented formats. Can someone verify for me if this is true or not?

It supports OOXML, which is an open format.

Skripka
August 14th, 2009, 01:42 AM
Competition? Why would anyone invent something when someone else with more money could steal the idea and sell it for cheaper. That's an extremist point of view.

Perscription drugs.

In the US, they are mg for mg more valuable than gold-and just as expensive to the consumer. In India, you can get them dirt cheap. Why? Because in India you can patent a process, not a product.

Can I patent 3.141592654 and then go on an SCO style law suit spree?

murderslastcrow
August 14th, 2009, 02:36 AM
I see. Wasn't the first word format doc, a butchered and mutilated version of the XML language? Nice that it supports an open XML-formatted format.

They should definitely add some other formats, though, for spreadsheets, presentations, and word processing. I can't use it when it's got support for so few formats. :D Good thing it's illegal now.

Chronon
August 14th, 2009, 02:59 AM
Taking this one step further - a patent system only makes sense in a society that expects its members to monitize their talents if they expect to eat : in a capitalist society, if your talent has no economic value, it might as well not exist. The patent system is a fix for (part of) that problem. In, say, a "Star Trek" society that somehow sustains its members so that they can develop their talents without having to worry where their next meal is going to come from, a patent system would make no sense at all.

I think you have cut to the heart of it here and I agree with you.

starcannon
August 14th, 2009, 03:56 AM
hi

read the thread past "Microsoft gets sued"

this could affect OpenOffice.org as well

Merk42

Not likely, lawsuits are generally waged in the hope of returning a profit. MS is a great target, OOo, not so great a target.
Now, if MS ends up buying out the little company that has them on the ropes for the moment... well... now that could get bad. I wouldn't even want to venture a guess what a desperate mega corp would do then. *shivers*

Bungo Pony
August 19th, 2009, 12:07 AM
In case you haven't heard, Microsoft cannot sell Word in the US anymore:

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/680142

I'm sure they'll find a way around it, but that's a pretty big blow to the company.

Personally, I think they got what they deserved. They've been threatening everyone and their dog with lawsuits regarding software patents, including Linux. Someone else turned the tables on them and won. Hopefully Microsoft will quit shaking their multi-million dollar finger at everyone from now on.

What do you think?

yabbadabbadont
August 19th, 2009, 12:15 AM
I think this is a dupe of http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1238258&highlight=word+banned (posted 6 days ago)

You must not spend much time around here... :D

cariboo
August 19th, 2009, 12:32 AM
Threads merged

Viva
August 19th, 2009, 03:47 AM
i4i said it has looked at OpenOffice and found it doesn’t infringe on its patents.

There you go.

Tamalin
August 19th, 2009, 03:53 AM
Indeed. I hate the very idea of software patents. But it is amusing to see Microsoft brought down for violating one.

Very interesting, an overly proprietary software company brought down by proprietorship... So far, I really am crossing my fingers that the MS Office will be off the market indefinitely.

j.bell730
August 19th, 2009, 04:09 AM
An update (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/18/190227/i4i-Says-OpenOffice-Does-Not-Infringe-Like-MS-Word?art_pos=6) on this. According to i4i, OO.o does not infringe on the patent.

Frak
August 19th, 2009, 04:11 AM
While I'm a fan of Word, in a way that I have to use it every day, and I'm usually a bit of a downer on Open Source...

This news makes me EXCITED. This means that schools will be FORCED to teach something ELSE than Word. I can only see OOo as the only possible alternative (unless somebody wants to speak up, and no, Mac Office doesn't count since it's Mac only).

Tamalin
August 19th, 2009, 04:29 AM
This news makes me EXCITED. This means that schools will be FORCED to teach something ELSE than Word. I can only see OOo as the only possible alternative (unless somebody wants to speak up, and no, Mac Office doesn't count since it's Mac only).

I share your ecstasy on this news. For too long, schools have taught absolutely nothing but MS Office. They are brainwashing the youngest generation to believe that MS Office and Online games are all there is to computers. For years a single student would repeat the same lessons recursively, MS Word Documents, MS Excel Spreadsheets, and MS PowerPoint Sideshows leaving no room for the creativity connected to computer related occupations like Graphics Design, Web Design, and Programming (and really just computing in general). In reality I don't think they would care because these lessons are repeated so many times in such an uninteresting format that they would scare all students into thinking that computers are just a way to type numbers repetitively and add sums, something a lot of people don't really do for pleasure. I could rant on this for hours on end, because there is so much to criticize.

stinger30au
August 19th, 2009, 05:22 AM
the sooner everyone does some free advertising for ubuntu and send letters to the editor sections in their towns to the local news papers the quicker more people can see theres more the the world ten "microsoft click'n'grunt" (tm) garbage the better

MikeTheC
August 19th, 2009, 06:40 AM
Well, I'm going to do a run to my college with some Ubuntu CDs, and I will surely reference this legal case from time to time there.