"Easy Work-Around" For Microsoft Word's Legal Woes 172
CWmike writes "Microsoft can likely use an 'easy technical work-around' to sidestep a recent injunction by a Texas federal judge that bars the company from selling Word, a patent attorney said today. 'The injunction doesn't apply to existing product that has already been sold,' said Barry Negrin, a partner with the New York firm Pryor Cashman LLP who has practiced patent and trademark law for 17 years. 'Headlines that say Microsoft can't sell Word are not really true,' said Negrin, pointing out that the injunction granted by US District Court Judge Leonard Davis on Tuesday only prohibits Microsoft from selling Word as it exists now after Oct. 10. 'All Microsoft has to do is disable the custom XML feature, which should be pretty easy to do, then give that a different SKU number from what's been sold so it's easy to distinguish the two versions.'"
Really... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Right, easy.... (Score:3, Interesting)
This would remove the "extend" from "embrace, extend, extinguish (the competition)".
Also, anyone who read the judgment already knew this. This is NOT news.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Just impliment Open Document Format (ODF) like every other word processor.
Does ODF use XML format? Because if it does, it's also technically in trouble just as much as the DOCX format is for Word. If anything, that should be the cause of even greater worry for Microsoft's format. If Microsoft can't or won't defend themselves against this ridiculous patent, then any XML format that even partly resembles something technically covered by this patent would be subject to a lawsuit. And while IANAL, it would seem that having this "legal victory" under their belts against a huge company such as Microsoft, the plaintiffs can use that as precedence to go after ODF, the custom XML format I use in the applications I write, the custom XML format *you* use in the applications *you* write, etc.
I would suggest we all hope for Microsoft's lawyers to prevail in this case. It will be a victory for all of us, even if you dislike Microsoft and think they should get their comeuppance. Please save your schadenfreude for another case.
Re:Patent is "markup indirection" (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm having a hard time understanding how the technology described in this patent is actually useful at all, let alone how Microsoft has infringed on it.
It's crappy technology (and there is prior art too). However, it happens to be the format that Microsoft uses in Microsoft Office's native XML format. I think Microsoft used it because it maps more naturally onto Microsoft Office's internal data structures. The correct way to accomplish this goal is, of course, with style sheets.
ODF, instead, uses XML markup the way it was intended to, so the patent shouldn't apply.
The patent may also be the reason for Microsoft's sudden reversal and support of ODF a couple of years ago.
easy technical workaround (Score:4, Interesting)
The "easy technical workaround" for Microsoft is to dump their crappy OOXML format (which infringes this patent) and switch completely to ODF (which doesn't seem to).
Maybe this patent lawsuit is the reason why Microsoft started supporting ODF in the first place.
Re:Beware the Details (Score:3, Interesting)
if memory serves me correctly the patents main feature was storing all of the XML in a single file, Open office seems to do this as well. The difference is OO uses several files that are compressed into a single archive. You can take a OO file and run gnuzip on it and all the file uncompress; Microsoft could do the same and simple add a converter to open the old format, split it into seperate files internally and store it as a single archive.
Re:Really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ya, sorry, I was sort of giving my view on how things should happen rather than the current legal status quo on the issue.
20 years is insane.
I sort of like the idea of property taxes on intellectual property. If microsoft offers to buy the idea for 8 million, and i4i claims the software is worth 10 million, then the value of the patent is set to 10 million, and i4i would need to pay something like 10% of that per year to keep the patent, or it goes into public domain.
When patent reform actually does happen, it's going to be awesome.