Microsoft: Word case has "run amok"

An i4 an i

Do these small companies exist simply to sit on a patent and then wait for a larger company to breach it? It seems that there are lots of these cases where some unheard of company magically has some patent (that it's doing squat with) which allows it to claim millions froma large corporation and then, presumably, retire on!

By Grunthos on 27 Aug 2009

... or poetic justice?

Some do, though I don't believe that's clearly the case with i4i. There is more than a hint of "pot calling the kettle..." here, though, considering Microsoft's own behaviour towards other (much smaller) companies. Remember the Tom-Tom case?

That said, though, I hope that Microsoft does win in this case, and in the process put a nail into the coffin of software patents.

By robhogg on 27 Aug 2009

@Grunthos, so if I have a great idea for something and not the cash to employ my idea, to protect my idea I patent it, because maybe in the future somebody will help me develop and implement this idea.

Sounds like what you're saying is that because I am 'nobody' I am allowed to be trampled on by 'somebody' else.

By nicomo on 27 Aug 2009

Patents protect inventions, not mere ideas

The idea of a patent is to stop your competitor looking at your product and replicating it so that you have to absorb the costs and risks of developing it.

It's not supposed to support a guy who has a cool idea that he's not going to do anything with.

It sounds like what you're saying is that nobodies - people who don't produce anything with their idea - should be allowed to stop other companies making products.

By steviesteveo on 27 Aug 2009

Patent problem

The real problem with these patents is that many of them are so ill defined and spurious they should never have been granted in the first place.

By clairjoe on 27 Aug 2009

I can't help agreeing with Microsoft here. From what I've read elsewhere this is just the sort of routine idea a software developer could write on the back of an envelope and implement in hours, rather than days or weeks. It seems to be silly to patent ideas. We should go back to the days when a patent had to be represented by a unique artefact before it is granted.

By c6ten on 27 Aug 2009

Inventor Protection

No offense people, but how many actually know or understand the purpose of a patent? It was designed to protect the inventor from entities looking for new ways of making money, as well as recognizing and legitimizing their achievement.

If most of the concepts and ideas put into Word were exactly the same as in the patent, then it must have been proven that Microsquash attempted to steal another idea and got caught. To reward them by setting aside patent laws and allowing them to reap the rewards of someone else's hard work would be criminal. Next, you'll be saying that spammers are only misunderstood and are just forcing information for our own good...wait, I think I just described government.

If a company expends the resources to develop a product and patent it, they should be able to enjoy the knowledge that they are protected from intellectual theft. Those that argue against it are probably the same ones who think illegal downloads are ok.

I guess that makes Microsoft hypocrites as well as thieves.

By SectionOne on 27 Aug 2009

AMOK

Amok is where too many laws contradict one another to the affect that nobody knows what the actual law is.
Any lawful court should be treated with respect by ALL parties present to ensure justice prevails.
If intellectual ideas have been patented they will be held on record.
It is bizarre, however that a UFO could be patented without existence.

PS. Where my PREVIEW Editor?

By lenmontieth on 27 Aug 2009

Inventor Protection

No offense people, but how many actually know or understand the purpose of a patent? It was designed to protect the inventor from entities looking for new ways of making money, as well as recognizing and legitimizing their achievement.

If most of the concepts and ideas put into Word were exactly the same as in the patent, then it must have been proven that Microsquash attempted to steal another idea and got caught. To reward them by setting aside patent laws and allowing them to reap the rewards of someone else's hard work would be criminal. Next, you'll be saying that spammers are only misunderstood and are just forcing information for our own good...wait, I think I just described government.

If a company expends the resources to develop a product and patent it, they should be able to enjoy the knowledge that they are protected from intellectual theft. Those that argue against it are probably the same ones who think illegal downloads are ok.

I guess that makes Microsoft hypocrites as well as thieves.

By SectionOne on 28 Aug 2009

Inventor Protection

Sorry guys...reload seemed to resend my last message.

By SectionOne on 28 Aug 2009

The devil is in the details

No one likes a corporate giant less than me...BUT...from what I understand the lawsuit is about using 2 xml files, one that stores your data and the other that tells a program how to display that data. That is an Open Standard! Many many programs are written that way...It is a high level idea which is basic to programming. How they managed to patent it is beyond me.

By DInBama on 28 Aug 2009

"from what I understand the lawsuit is about using 2 xml files, one that stores your data and the other that tells a program how to display that data"
Actually, when I read the stuff it wasn't that - though it's the impression you get from most of the online articles.
What i4i have patented is the idea that you take the XML data file and split it in 2. The contents of the XML tags file - no tags, nothing other than data. The XML tags are then put into a separate file and point to the data not by enclosing it, but by enclosing(?) a number representing the displacement of the start of the data for that tag.
How on earth this can be patented I have no idea since locating data items through displacement goes right back to the days of Assembler programming. Manipulating such data described by displacements is surely an "obvious" algorithm that could be worked out by any competent programmer, so surely fails test of patentability.
I also think it a bl---- stupid idea anyway since in proper XML you can, if necessary, hack the contents of a tag to lengthen or shorten the data for that tag and do it with no effect on anything. In the i4i idea, you would need to amend all subsequent displacements in the 2nd file if you altered the data in the first.

By AdrianB on 31 Aug 2009