Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Files "Emergency Motion" To Ship Word

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the my-word dept.

Microsoft 221

adeelarshad82 writes "Several days after a judge ordered Microsoft to halt sales of Word and handed down $290M in fines, the software giant has moved to stop the ban. On Friday Microsoft filed an emergency motion to stop the judgment and waive the bond requirement, according to court filings. The actual document was filed under seal, so the full contents of the request have not yet been made public."

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For the love of money (1, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099127)

While reading, I kept hearing the song "For the love of money" from the '70s in my head. The one from the O'Jays that goes "money,money,money,money, mooo...neeey" ;-)

Well; "waive the bond requirement, according to court filings. The actual document was filed under seal, so the full contents of the request have not yet been made public."

It sure helps having money to settle court cases in your favor, doesn't it ?

I figure that (4, Funny)

Winckle (870180) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099149)

the sealed bond is just the publicly available document and the rest is just stuffed with $100 bills.

Re:I figure that (4, Funny)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099173)

and cocaine [slashdot.org]

Re:I figure that (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099363)

Of course, because if there is one thing I have learned from Slashdot in the past few months, it is that any judgment that I disagree with must automatically have come about because the judge is corrupt and has been showered with money by evildoers.

It is, of course, impossible that the law could favour my enemies. I mean that is just ridiculous. I'm right and therefore I should win every time. Hell, it works that way in comic books.

Re:I figure that (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099653)

You obviously need to work on your reading comprehension.

This is the evildoers who got owned by the court attempting to "buy" their way out of losing the case.

Strange situation.

Gooooooooo Ballmer! You fucking kill those guys!

Re:I figure that (4, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | about 5 years ago | (#29099809)

Oh no. Very few judges are bribed or corrupt these days. Politicians go so much cheaper and are more effective.

Re:I figure that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099553)

And I thought that the "emergency motion" was when Old Bill shook his ass for Jerry Seinfeld.

Re:I figure that (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 years ago | (#29099687)

I'm sure it's a detailed synopsis as to how the US patent system is utterly broken, how it allows the most obvious ideas, and even ideas with a long history of prior art, to be patented. It probably goes into great detail as to how this is severely damaging both the US and global software industries, and how it burdens large companies with having to maintain vast portfolios to defend against just such attacks, and raises prices and creates uncertainty due to licensing costs.

Of course, it's sealed, because while Microsoft doesn't want to be the victim of this moronic and corrupt system, it also doesn't want to preclude being a potential beneficiary either.

Re:I figure that (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 years ago | (#29099919)

What's with the moderators? I guess there are a lot of patent trolls with mod points.

Re:I figure that (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#29099971)

Occam's razor suggests

there is a trolls with mod points.

[1] [slashdot.org]
[2] [slashdot.org]

Re:I figure that (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#29099973)

s/trolls/troll/

Re:I figure that (4, Funny)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | about 5 years ago | (#29099737)

From the filing:

"Okay, maybe my we did steal XML, but so what? Computer software is built on plagiarism! If it weren't for someone plagiarizing Xerox, we wouldn't have Windows 3.1! If someone hadn't ripped off Apple, there'd be no Vista! iPod, Zune, XBOX? Google, Bing, MSN Live. Your honor, if you take away our right to steal ideas, where are they gonna come from?"

Re:I figure that (1)

SBrach (1073190) | about 5 years ago | (#29100465)

<ajaxToolkit:AnimationExtender id="SteamboatItchy"
    runat="server" TargetControlID="MyPanel">
    <Animations>
        <OnClick>
            <FadeOut Duration=".5" Fps="20" />
        </OnClick>
    </Animations>
</ajaxToolkit:AnimationExtender>
<!-- To Roger Myers, keep drawing, your moxie more than makes up for your
lack of talent. Your pal, Chester J. Lampwick, September 3, 1919 -->

It's a freakin' word processor. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29099155)

This is nothing more than Microsoft bashing and jumping on the anti-Microsoft sentiment bandwagon. Which will get a lot of airtime on /., but this will never stand.

Re:It's a freakin' word processor. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29099181)

So wait, you're saying that Microsoft is jumping on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon by making Microsoft look bad in an attempt to curry favour with the judiciary?

Ingenious; and fruity - hubba bubba.

I hope they win! (-1, Redundant)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099161)

I do hope they win!

seems reasonable (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099175)

Even if this is unquestionably a patent violation, the Supreme Court has already held, in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006), that an injunction prohibiting sale of the infringing product is not necessarily the appropriate remedy in all cases. Rather, the traditional four factors for issuing an injunction must be balanced: 1) that the injury is irreparable; 2) that there are inadequate alternate remedies to compensate for the injury; 3) that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff; and 4) that an injunction does not harm the public interest. Microsoft has an least a plausible argument that they are not satisfied in this case, and that alternate remedies (perhaps money damages) would be better than an injunction against sale, even if indeed Word is infringing.

Re:seems reasonable (5, Interesting)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099241)

From what little I've read on this, it seems that Microsoft basically incorporated the plaintiff's product into Word. So essentially it would put the plaintiff out of business, and could result in irreparable damages to the plaintiff. So it is likely to withstand that test...IANAL, but from what little I know it seems reasonable.

Also, it's about time this happened, given how many times Microsoft has done this to others.

Re:seems reasonable (2, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 5 years ago | (#29099339)

Who's to say that anyone en masse would have bought their software even if Microsoft hadn't done this?

Re:seems reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099983)

according to TFA there was indeed a fair amount of demand for i4i's product, which suddenly dried up once this feature was incorporated into Word.

Re:seems reasonable (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29100031)

I4i had 200 employees and was a growing, thriving business when MS came calling after 9/ll to learn how to do what I4i was doing. That's right. MS visited I4i to learn just how to do what I4i was doing. That's just how obvious and non-novel I4i's patent was at the time. It also proves MS knew the technology was covered by a patent.

MS blatently ripped off I4i and now they are crying because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They stole both I4i's technology and customer base. How? After incorporating I4i's technology into their own products they began to aggressively attack I4i's customer base. At the time I4i had 200 employees. Now they are approximately 1/7th of the size they were.

I'd say that it's pretty clear that I4i has been irreparably harmed by MS's unethical actions.

Re:seems reasonable (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 years ago | (#29099721)

It's a fucking XML-encapsulated document structure. The entire point of SGML and SGML derivatives like XML is to encapsulate data into documents and other file structures. If this use of markups can be patented, then I'm heading down to the patent office to patent CSS.

Re:seems reasonable (4, Informative)

AmyRose1024 (1160863) | about 5 years ago | (#29099871)

Too late. Microsoft beat you to it. http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Disclosures [w3.org]

Re:seems reasonable (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 5 years ago | (#29099927)

Though it's pretty clear it was a defensive patent to HELP promote the CSS standard (and prevent bullshit like this patent on embedding XML data in a document):

any W3C member or other party will be able to obtain a license under Microsoft's US Patent No. 5,860,073 to implement and use the technology described in W3C Recommendations for Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and the EXtensible Style Language (XSL) for the purpose of supporting such standards, on a royalty-free basis. One condition of this license shall be the party's agreement to not assert patent rights against Microsoft and other companies for their implementation of those standards

Re:seems reasonable (2, Insightful)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | about 5 years ago | (#29099483)

Even if this is unquestionably a patent violation, the Supreme Court has already held, in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006), that an injunction prohibiting sale of the infringing product is not necessarily the appropriate remedy in all cases. Rather, the traditional four factors for issuing an injunction must be balanced: 1) that the injury is irreparable; 2) that there are inadequate alternate remedies to compensate for the injury; 3) that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff; and 4) that an injunction does not harm the public interest. Microsoft has an least a plausible argument that they are not satisfied in this case, and that alternate remedies (perhaps money damages) would be better than an injunction against sale, even if indeed Word is infringing.

If Microsoft can't post a $290 million bond without suffering irreparable harm, then what chance to they have to pay even larger money damages for future infringement?

Re:seems reasonable (1)

gravesb (967413) | about 5 years ago | (#29099657)

The injury is to the plaintiff, not Microsoft. MS is probably arguing that any harm to the plaintiff is not irreparable, and that later monetary damages will cure any harm.

Re:seems reasonable (1)

Helldesk Hound (981604) | about 5 years ago | (#29099955)

In this case there is negligible impact against Microsoft as a result of the injunction, as MS Office already has proprietary file formats owned by Microsoft that can be used.

I hate taking Microsoft's side... (0, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099177)

I hate to be on Microsoft's side but they are right on this one. Maybe if they fight off enough patent trolls they will join in efforts to reform patents out of self preservation.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29099213)

You are correct to be on Microsoft's side. I know it won't go over well on Slashdot, but the facts are the facts.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (3, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099217)

Nope. MS got what it deserved.

They did not question patent's validity in fear that it might undermine their portfolio. So let them suffer.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099261)

They did not question patent's validity in fear that it might undermine their portfolio.

They argued both that the patent was invalid and that they didn't infringe on it, in any case. They lost on both points, but they certainly made the argument.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (5, Informative)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 5 years ago | (#29099405)

Except, there are no patent trolls in this case. i4i ships and sells an actual product, the patented code for which Microsoft actually stole after working with them.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29099547)

Except, people's opposition to patents is not restricted to just the case of patent trolls (although they are one demonstration of the problem). Some people have the radical notion that perhaps an idea can't be owned by one person. And whilst there may be some argument for some kinds of patents, software patents are a particular evil, that I do not believe we should have (and in my country, the UK, we don't have them).

Microsoft have an actual product too. If they really "stole" it from them (you probably meant to say "copied"), then why not sue them for copyright infringement?

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (5, Insightful)

walshy007 (906710) | about 5 years ago | (#29099939)

Some people have the radical notion that perhaps an idea can't be owned by one person.

The patent system was not made for people to own ideas, it was made for people to own IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas, this is where patents tend to fall flat on their ass with software. With every man and his dog patenting 'the ability to do x'.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29100477)

i4i created and sold a product that M$ stole. That product is indeed an IMPLEMENTATION, this is where your comment falls flat in its ass.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 years ago | (#29100287)

I'd compare MS's pilfering of i4i's product (which should never have been patented in the first place) to a pirate's pilfering of RIAA soundtracks (which enjoy far too draconian protection under copyright law).

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (0, Troll)

Trogre (513942) | about 5 years ago | (#29100495)

What did they steal, exactly?

I'm pretty sure you're using the wrong word there. i4i weren't actually deprived of anything were they? And if you say "profit" or "a secret", then I'm going to conclude that you must also support calling copyright infringement "theft".

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (3, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 5 years ago | (#29099451)

I hate to be on Microsoft's side but they are right on this one. Maybe if they fight off enough patent trolls they will join in efforts to reform patents out of self preservation.

The problem is that they themselves patent just about everything under the sun.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (3, Informative)

InlawBiker (1124825) | about 5 years ago | (#29099719)

The system is so broken that they'd be sued by every small-time squatter who had the gumption to slip an idea through the patent office. It's cheaper to just register everything you can think of and then out-lawyer your competition. Microsoft ain't the only ones doing it either.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (1)

Shados (741919) | about 5 years ago | (#29099773)

Defensive patents...

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (5, Informative)

Tanman (90298) | about 5 years ago | (#29099503)

Except that the plaintiffs are not patent trolls and have a real and verifiable grievance.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (1, Flamebait)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29099587)

So now that it's Microsoft, software patents are okay, just so long as the company suing are not "trolls"?

Maybe Microsoft should change its Bilski breif? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099879)

> So now that it's Microsoft, software patents are okay, just so long as the company suing are not "trolls"?

No, they're not okay. But it's hard to see how Microsoft isn't getting its just deserts.

Perhaps Microsoft should rethink its amicus brief in Bilski and start arguing that these sorts of patents should be invalid? There's at least a credible claim that Bilski could be used to invalidate this patent. And it's pretty clear, ironically, that Microsoft's amicus brief is arguing that Bilski should NOT be held to do that (at least, not in general).

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, as Nelson would put it, "Ha ha!"

If they'd argued that these patents should not be allowed, they would not be in this position. Of course, they could also avoid gobbling up partner's products, too, but they're the 800 lbs gorilla. If you have a banana and they want it, they're going to take it from you, laws be damned. You shouldn't do business with them and be ignorant of that fact, because it has nothing to do with patents, it's just how they operate.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (3, Insightful)

calc (1463) | about 5 years ago | (#29100273)

No, its okay because Microsoft uses patents as weapons and not just defensively, and so they are now getting what they deserve. See the TomTom case for example.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 years ago | (#29099747)

And what's that exactly? That they store documents in a single XML file? That's kinda the point of XML, and indeed of most of the SGML derivatives. The concept has been around for decades. What they have is a product based off of a rather old idea, and then Microsoft implemented that rather old idea itself, thus rendering their product worthless. That's not an argument for them getting some sort of monetary reparations, it's an argument for companies not basing their revenue stream on decades-old concepts that probably are older than most of their software engineers.

You reap what you sow (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099189)

It's good to see MS in a bind like this. This is all because of a patent troll, which MS themselves have been by accusing Linux of violating their patents (but without specifying which patents).

If MS had used their enormous power to work against software patents, and get them eliminated as in many other countries, then they wouldn't be having this problem with little patent trolls. But instead, they wanted to use them as a weapon against Linux, and they're getting burned.

Re:You reap what you sow (5, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 5 years ago | (#29099283)

You're wrong, and overmoderated.

There is no patent troll in this case.

i4i is an actual company, that sells actual products. They worked with Microsoft, and Microsoft, line for line, stole their code. i4i subsequently sued them, and won.

There is no patent troll in this case.

Re:You reap what you sow (4, Insightful)

smclean (521851) | about 5 years ago | (#29099345)

i4i is an actual company, that sells actual products. They worked with Microsoft, and Microsoft, line for line, stole their code. i4i subsequently sued them, and won.

Hi, uninformed person here. If they stole code line for line, why is this a patent case and not a copyright infringement case?

Re:You reap what you sow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099733)

i4i is an actual company, that sells actual products. They worked with Microsoft, and Microsoft, line for line, stole their code. i4i subsequently sued them, and won.

Hi, uninformed person here. If they stole code line for line, why is this a patent case and not a copyright infringement case?

Obviously because they had a patent related to the software and could get better damages from it?

Re:You reap what you sow (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099813)

actually if they did steal the code line-for-line it would be both a patent and copyright infringement case.

Re:You reap what you sow (3, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 years ago | (#29099415)

citation needed. All I see here is a patent case, which has nothing to do with copyright infringement which you accuse MS of.

Besides, any company stupid enough to work with MS and not expect to be ripped off deserves to be ripped off. They should even make a special law granting MS the right to do that, since they've done it so many times in the past yet these stupid companies keep trusting MS to not do it again.

Re:You reap what you sow (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | about 5 years ago | (#29100345)

"Besides, any company stupid enough to work with MS and not expect to be ripped off deserves to be ripped off." ?????? Are you back on the pipe?

Re:You reap what you sow (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 years ago | (#29099607)

I would be willing to bet that the same thing will happen that happened when they lost the CP/M case. They paid the 'injured' off, continued to ship product during the entire episode ( in that case, decades ), made far more then the pay off was and it was all swept under the carpet, chalking it up to 'cost of doing business'.

Normal operating procedures for a monopoly.

Re:You reap what you sow (1)

Toveling (834894) | about 5 years ago | (#29099347)

A patent troll is a company that offers no products, but files lawsuits based on patents they own. A patent troll microsoft is not. Microsoft has their fair share of crappy patents, but they have never to my knowledge used patents directly against OSS. They've made threats, but anyone can make threats.

Re:You reap what you sow (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 years ago | (#29099393)

Wrong. True, a traditional patent troll is one that makes no real products. However, MS's activity against Linux can certainly be seen as "trollish", because of their vague threats meant to stir up FUD. At least the traditional patent trolls have the decency to state which patents are being violated, even if they're BS patents.

So, unless you can come up with a better term for their despicable behavior, I'll continue to use the term "troll" for MS.

Re:You reap what you sow (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29099645)

I don't disagree - but if having actual products doesn't stop one being a patent troll, you should put this point to the people here claiming that i4i can't possibly be patent trolls.

Re:You reap what you sow (2, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 years ago | (#29099763)

This is all getting pretty pedantic, but maybe we just need a whole new term for MS's behavior, since I can't think of any other instance where a company went around bad-mouthing its competitors, claiming it has patents which they infringe, but refusing to disclose what those patents may be, just to get people to stop using the competitors' products.

Or, if we wanted to use a more lax definition of "troll", we could say it's anyone attempting to use the patent system (with its lax to non-existent safeguards against abuse) to profit in ways that don't involve direct competition. A normal company using patents does so to protect products it actually makes and sells, and only moves to litigation when a competitor violates one of those patents in its own competing product, such as with someone selling a knock-off of a patented technology. Anything other than this seems like "trollish" behavior to me, amounting to abuse of the patent system. Under this definition, i4i sounds like a troll since I don't see any "i4i" word processors on the market.

Re:You reap what you sow (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 5 years ago | (#29099637)

A patent troll is a company that offers no products, but files lawsuits based on patents they own.

That's a bit too narrow.

Justice Bradley stated, in 1882

It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures.

Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.

Those "speculative schemers" are patent trolls. It doesn't matter whether they actually use each "shadow of a shade of an idea" in a product of their own; they're patent trolls even if they make their own product, as long as they try to prevent others from using those non-novel or obvious ideas.

By that definition, i4i is a patent troll, and Microsoft has, in other instances, acted as a patent troll.

Not making a product is neither necessary nor sufficient for patent-trollism. An organization which mainly does research might legitimately obtain a patent without any intent of developing it themselves. And an organization which makes a real product might engage in patent-trolling to put competitors out of business, or to obtain a revenue stream when their own product has failed.

Re:You reap what you sow (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about 5 years ago | (#29100463)

If you actually look over the patent being sued over, US Patent 5,787,449 [uspto.gov] , you'll notice a major similarity to Microsoft's patent on LFNs. Specifically, US Patent 5,787,449 patents the idea of keeping document formating and content separate--ie, to have two separate streams of information instead of one. A simple idea for an implimentation, then, would be to have a plain .txt file and a separate tag+index file and a program that loads the two together, patches the .txt file in memory, and treats the result as an XML file.

In a similar vein, up until Windows 95, there were various schemes to overcome the 8.3 limitation of DOS filenames. Most used the idea of keeping a separate file (descript.ion for example) containing a short and long filename and merging them in memory with the directory listing for long filename supporting programs. Microsoft decided to do something similar, except they stored the long file names directly within the directory listing--ie, the took two separate streams of information and made them one.

What was my point? Merely that the idea of spliting or joining streams of related information is not at all a novel idea, inherently, although people may come up with more or less clever implementations to accomplish the goal. To that end, I'd be more than happy to support Microsoft in its efforts to stop i4i's patent, presuming of course that they too would stop suing companies like TomTom over similar patents they hold.

I have a feeling (5, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099193)

In this case it appears that the courts will not have the last word.

Re:I have a feeling (5, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099219)

Getting their way is something Microsoft excels at. It is easy when you have access to their resources and the outlook to dominate any market they enter.

Powerpoint.

Re:I have a feeling (5, Funny)

jaavaaguru (261551) | about 5 years ago | (#29099337)

Word.

Re:I have a feeling (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 years ago | (#29099819)

Bob

Re:I have a feeling (2, Funny)

NervousNerd (1190935) | about 5 years ago | (#29099663)

Yeah, I took one note for this project I have. I'm going to take it to my publisher who has the information to deliver that info on the right path.

Re:I have a feeling (1)

mgblst (80109) | about 5 years ago | (#29100233)

I guess that teaches i4i to keep their sourcesafe.

Re:I have a feeling (1)

pionzypher (886253) | about 5 years ago | (#29099779)

Thanks for the sharepoint.

Re:I have a feeling (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29099843)

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

In fact, if you ever want to write a book I know a great Publisher.

This is all so wrong (0, Troll)

o TINY o (1611133) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099195)

State level judges should not have this much power to effect global companies. Decisions like this should only be enforceable at a supreme court level.

Re:This is all so wrong (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 years ago | (#29099305)

Other than "they are big", do you have a reason for that? How about frequent travelers? People with second homes in other countries?

Is there any good reason that being large and/or important should exempt you from the usual procedures of justice?

Re:This is all so wrong (1)

geckipede (1261408) | about 5 years ago | (#29099381)

It wouldn't be unreasonable to scale up the time taken for double checking facts in cases where so many people are going to be affected. The more significant the conse... oh sod it, I'll quote: "with great power comes great responsibility"

Re:This is all so wrong (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 5 years ago | (#29099307)

State level judges should not have this much power to effect global companies.

This isn't a "state-level" judge, its a federal judge.

Decisions like this should only be enforceable at a supreme court level.

The Constitution of the United States lays out the specific kinds of cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, other than that, all federal judicial power rests initially in lower trial courts, with the Supreme Court only hearing appeals (and, for the most part, not even direct appeals.)

Re:This is all so wrong (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 5 years ago | (#29099559)

Why should a state judge not be able to rule that a company selling a product in his jurisdiction is illegal? Just like this federal judge ruled selling a product in his jurisdiction is illegal.

By the way, global would be outside the jurisdiction of the US supreme court anyway.

I wonder if... (5, Funny)

Jahava (946858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099199)

I wonder if the request was delivered as a Word document.

Re:I wonder if... (1)

iron-kurton (891451) | about 5 years ago | (#29099459)

What if the judge can't open .docx files and he can't buy a new copy of Word? My head A-SPLODE

Re:I wonder if... (1)

freedomlinux (1072142) | about 5 years ago | (#29099659)

docx? I don't think so. IANAL, but a friend who IAL suggests that many courts in Pennsylvania at least require filings to be made in PDF.
This really makes sense because PDF is an open format and it's harder to modify after receipt than a Word file.

Re:I wonder if... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 years ago | (#29099743)

Only harder to modify if you only have acrobat reader installed. If you only have MS Word document reader, both are equally hard to edit.

Re:I wonder if... (2, Informative)

Dausha (546002) | about 5 years ago | (#29099741)

While you're being funny, if it was filed in Federal Court, the choices are Word Perfect or PDF...last I checked.

One example they might follow... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29099233)

Perhaps in the sealed document they'll point to Amazon's handling of the 1984 e-book, and offer to put a remote kill switch into any shipped copies of Word. If they ultimately lose the i4i infringement case, then - POOF - no problem!

What was filed under seal (4, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 5 years ago | (#29099281)

What was filed under seal:

Dear Judge, The world will end if we can't continue shipping Word.

I think it was more like this: (5, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | about 5 years ago | (#29099383)

The current location of your daughter is in the attached file. Unfortunately for you, this file can only be read by the latest software version of Word we're commercially releasing next week.

--
File attached: clownfart.wdoc

no one gives a fuck what you say geek. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099549)

harry potter is for faggots.

and i fucked your mom.

peace out

Re:What was filed under seal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099787)

What was filed under seal:

Dear Judge, The world will end if we can't continue shipping Word.

Because "first there was nothing, then there was the word" :)

Why can software get patented again? (4, Insightful)

Beltonius (960316) | about 5 years ago | (#29099371)

As far as I'm concerned, whoever wins in the end, all that's been demonstrated is how absurd software patents are.

Re:Why can software get patented again? (2, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 years ago | (#29099479)

No. This is EXACTLY how patents are supposed to work. Without patents, the rich get richer and the poor, small software company ALWAYS LOSES.

In this case, they have won. Now the only argument is what is an appropriate remedy from Microsoft to them.

Re:Why can software get patented again? (5, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#29099611)

Without patents, the rich get richer and the poor, small software company ALWAYS LOSES.

This is a rare case where the smaller company may benefit. In most cases, the larger company will just point out the numerous patents of theirs that you're infringing, and then tell you how the case will be settled. In more cases still, the new company has no chance of patenting anything, so they're unable to enter the market, or risk being sued, because of the difficulties of bringing a product to market without stepping on every software algorithm and other idea that's already been patented by someone.

And I still don't understand taking their side just because they're smaller. Bad laws are bad laws. When that random company threatened to sue every ISP on the planet because they had a hyperlink patent, was everyone rooting for the little guy then?

They may win this one (1, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 5 years ago | (#29099423)

In general, the idea behind injunctions is to minimize irrepairable harm. If this injunction stands and Microsoft then wins the case that would result in what amounts of major irrepairable harm to Microsoft given the large amount of software they would need to sell in the meantime with reduced functionality. However, allowing Microsoft to continue to sell the software will have less of an impact on the company suing since there are already so many copies of Word out there.

Re:They may win this one (4, Informative)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | about 5 years ago | (#29099513)

if this injunction stands and Microsoft then wins the case...

This isn't a preliminary injunction, they already lost the case.

Re:They may win this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099681)

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of an appeal, but it turns out they exist.

mod Down (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099617)

im4aired its JESUS UP THE

Suck it Microsoft! (1, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 5 years ago | (#29099625)

You built this mess of "software patents" and it's way past time that it started to bite you in the ass. "Motion Denied" (and also suck-it!)

Re:Suck it Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29100283)

Fuck you nigsausage!

XML but not CSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099651)

Can someone please explain to me how this patent pertains to XML documents, but not the Cascading Style Sheets? To me it seems like the same thing.
This patent seems a bit too generic...
Anyone Agree/Disagree?

more patent troll cases please (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 5 years ago | (#29099755)

Eventually big corporations will lobby the governments for some real patent reform. Once the patent system makes it impossible for businesses to turn a profit something will have to give. Hopefully when the reform comes it will be done in a way that allows for a level playing field for all. I can't think of too many ways of reform that would make things worse while giving businesses a way out of the patent troll fiasco. Any way out for them is, I believe, going to benefit everyone.

There are lots of possible solutions I can see. reduce the duration of patents. increase the filing cost(and require the increases costs provide some valuable service to the patent holder). have penalties for failed infringements(this is basically impossible because you would just file a claim in a court that favors you). Probably many more that are even better that I didn't even consider (I'm just a layperson).

Re:more patent troll cases please (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 5 years ago | (#29099963)

Eventually big corporations will lobby the governments for some real patent reform.

And it will look like:

Only corporations with gross revenues of more than $XXX,XXX.XXX will be allowed to hold patents.
They shall not be held liable for violating any patents held by smaller entities.

Re:more patent troll cases please (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 5 years ago | (#29100033)

highly unlikely.

Sealed? (2, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 5 years ago | (#29099825)

On Friday Microsoft filed an emergency motion to stop the judgment and waive the bond requirement, according to court filings. The actual document was filed under seal, so the full contents of the request have not yet been made public.

Why on Earth does a way seal court documents even exist?

Assassins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29099933)

I'm going to start an online petition. Microsoft should use the money and hire assassins to take out the entire USPTO, who wants to sign it?

Conelrad test.. (1)

Alien Being (18488) | about 5 years ago | (#29099967)

This is a useless message to test the Oligarchy Control System. Please hide under the nearest desk to avoid falling chairs from the planet Uranus.

If this had been an actual emergency, M$ wouldn't have been assfucking millions of people for so many years.

This concludes this test of the emergency ass-fuck avoidance system.

Wait, let me get this straight... (1)

jonadab (583620) | about 5 years ago | (#29099995)

Microsoft wants to *continue* selling one of its biggest products?

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Oh No! (0, Offtopic)

Phusion0 (665359) | about 5 years ago | (#29100423)

Whatever will we do!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>