Microsoft: Word ban would cause "irreparable harm"
By Stuart Turton
Posted on 19 Aug 2009 at 08:05
Microsoft has warned that "major public disruption" would be caused if a court ruling forcing it to redesign Word is allowed to stand.
Last week, a court found that Microsoft had wilfully infringed a patent relating to the creation of custom XML documents, and ordered it to stop selling Word in its current form in the US.
The software giant has filed an emergency motion against the injunction, claiming that: "Even if Microsoft ultimately succeeds on appeal, it will never be able to recoup the funds expended in redesigning and redistributing Word, the sales lost during the period when Word and Office are barred from the market, and the diminished goodwill from Microsoft's many retail and industrial customers."
Customers will be stranded without an alternative set of software
It also asked the court to consider the impact on retail partners by arguing that Best Buy, HP and Dell would "face the imminent possibility of a massive disruption in their sales".
The company also risked the wrath of Open Office and Google Docs advocates by suggesting that taking Word off the market would leave customers "stranded without an alternative set of software" during the period required to re-engineer the word processing suite.
While the filing sounds dire, the company claimed it was all part of the process: "These filings are not unusual in patent cases," says a Microsoft spokesperson. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrates that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid."
Indeed, analysts claim Microsoft is simply following the patent suit script: "Appeals and other legal wrangling are intended to eliminate any short term impact," says Rob Enderle, principal analyst with the Enderle Group.
"Microsoft won't risk Word, it is a pillar product, and has plenty of cash to either litigate or license (and may end up doing a bit more of the former to drive down the cost of the latter)," he finishes.
From around the web
Innocent until proven guilty
Surely this should be a case of once the court has proven that MS has infringed the patent then it should be ordered to stop selling word, not before.....
By KryptosSol on 19 Aug 2009 
They have been proven guilty
Yes, it is a case of once the court has proven that MS has infringed the patent then it should be ordered to stop selling word. They did that last week. Now Microsoft are appealing.
By steviesteveo on 19 Aug 2009
Big companies like to tie these things up in the court for years, by which time the product the case relates to has been superseded, so its all a waste of time. MS has form on that.
As steviesteveo says its a ruling not an ongoing case. MS seems to be saying that it shouldn't suffer financially just in case it wins an appeal.
By davidsoap on 20 Aug 2009
Who needs Word?
Word is too complicated for its own good. I have had more problems with it than the rest of my software put together.
Stick to Open Office writer or Lotus Wordpro, I say.
And of course Microsoft should end up out of pocket in this case; they have failed to keep the law.
By Paul_Sandford on 20 Aug 2009
Who Needs MS Office
With the impending new release of open source office, which readers of this magazine should by now have read the review. Could there be an alternative on the horizon?
By roberttrebor on 20 Aug 2009
Horizon?
I have been using Open Office quite happily for several years now on both Windows and Linux. If you are thinking about the horizon that is behind you then yes :-)
By admered1 on 20 Aug 2009
OpenOffice is no comparison
Can anyone explain why the so called "Open Document" format XML is allowed to be used by OpenOffice but not Microsoft Office? I think this is another case of trying to kill the BEST product.
By webbens on 22 Aug 2009
Stupid Patent System
This is the result of the fatally flawed US patent system, which allows software patents and does not properly check the validity of patent applications, leaving the detailed validation to lawyers and courts.
Patents are supposed to be a means of giving LIMITED protection to inventors, allowing them to recoup development costs, but to then allow others to benefit from those inventions and so promote innovation.
Instead, they remain in force for far too long, and are seen as a source of revenue by the patent holders, far above the actual value of the patent. This results in cases like this, or worse - scares people off from innovation and developing new products, because it is practically impossible to develop a new product without infringing on some IP Troll's patent.
By rabigo on 24 Aug 2009
advertisement
- Chrome's shine getting lost in translation
- BytePac: the cardboard hard disk enclosure
- How tech loosens our grip on reality
- Hokum watch: Safer Internet Day
- Why I'm deleting Adobe from my PC
- Prepare to be patronised: it's Safer Internet Day
- Dear Sony, Samsung and every other tech company in the world: stop trying to be Apple
- Will Apple's Final Cut Pro X update placate the pros?
- Smartr Contacts for iPhone review
- Switching to Office 365's Outlook Web App
- How to make Google AdWords work for your business
- The curse of sloppily written software
- Paying for your crimes with Bitcoin
- Behind the scenes: tech support for Formula 1
- The security risk of fat fingers
- Why Windows Phone 7 isn't quite ready for business
- When will Microsoft stop fiddling with Windows 8?
- Flash down the pan?
- Metro Style apps vs desktop applications
- Coping with Facebook changes
advertisement
Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk