A judge in Texas has ordered Microsoft(more info) to stop selling its cashing cow MS Word(more info) due to patent infringement. Judge Leonard Davis has issued an injunction that prohibits Microsoft from selling versions of Microsoft Word products that has the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files containing XML formats. Toronto-based i4i Inc has filed a suit against Microsoft in March 2007 for violating its 1998 patent (No. 5,787,449) on a method for reading XML. Moreover the court has also asked Microsoft to pay more than $290 million on accounting to damages incurred to i4i. Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz said in a statement.
We are disappointed by the court’s ruling.We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid. We will appeal the verdict.
The court has given 60 days to Microsoft to comply on this injunction. It will be enough for Microsoft to come out from it either by taking a stay on this ruling or by settling the matter outside the court but this will probably involve Microsoft signing a big check. I am bit surprised by the whole episode. At the first place how anyone can take a patent on method of reading a XML document? This is what happens when you have people examining patents with no insight into technology behind them.
Follow-Up
The Microsoft Blog: Judge: Microsoft can’t sell Word anymore by Nick Eaton
VentureBeat: Yes, really: Judge orders Microsoft to stop selling Word by Anthony Ha
CrunchGear: Texas Judge rules Microsoft can’t sell Word anymore by John Biggs
Technologizer: Court Bans Microsoft From Selling Word by Harry McCracken
Mashable!: Judge: Microsoft Banned from Selling Word in the US by Pete Cashmore
6 Responses to “Strange To Say: Microsoft Banned For Selling Word In US”
sapna
7 months ago
Fully agreed!!!
if people not having sufficient knowledge r responsible for patent then this is what u can expect..!
SingoStar
7 months ago
Microsoft is monolithic,monopolistic (or has been for a longtime with Windows OS dominating the PC industry until the free OSes like Linux came along), very huge, very rich all of which makes it a potential or real bully. If you look at the acquisition history (i mean it buying and acquiring other software companies) you will notice that they always buy smaller companies with smarter ideas than what Microsoft has.Sometimes they just buy the patent of a smart inventor or a patent from a company that is about or is declaring bankruptcy.All of these are smart business moves–which can be used now and then but not all of the time because the company has to have an educated staff of engineers and technicians to do R&D.Microsoft is having problems with the EU on nearly similar charges- i won’t be surprised if they have infringed on the patent rights of i4iInc but given the track record of the giant software developer don’t bet yr last dollar they incapable of doing it. Microsoft, i believe would don anything to stay ahead of everyone in business; little wonder they have grown so big.
Walt Harris
7 months ago
As much as a lot of people like to bash Microsoft for alleged things like this, what about other products? OpenOffice supports the same file formats, are they getting sued? Where do you draw the line? Only companies that are making a profit?
The act of purchasing smaller companies, or companies that are going out of business (especially due to bad/flawed business models) or just mismanaged companies is essentially a form of innovation and evolution — the strongest survive, the others die. You take the technology that “works” and market it often improving on it along the way. The rest, you don’t use.
Do I like how MS does business? Not always, but this is the nature of Free Market Capitalism. Regardless of how I feel about Bill Gates’ personal views is irrelevant, the fact is as a business man, I respect his ability to find a niche and do it well. Microsoft is a product of our Free Market – for good or ill. I believe that they do have some good products as well as some not so great ones. But I don’t believe that they are “the Great Evil Empire”.
I would love to see other options like Linux “make it big”, but the sad truth is, they probably never will. The next real challenger will almost certainly have to play with Microsoft and Google to compete — we know that’s not Apple’s stick either. While I actually like OS X, I just hate the thought of switching and not having my apps that I depend on. And yes, I know you can run Boot Camp, Parallels, etc, it’s just not the same thing.
While I personally like the myriad of distributions of Linux available, I really don’t ever see them having the financial means to do what is needed. I could be wrong — I hope I’m wrong. Linux today is still not easy enough for my parents to use — they do and can use Vista and XP fairly well.
Back to the root of the problem, the US Patent and Copyright systems need a major overhaul. Too many patents/copyrights get rubber stamped and the people doing so are getting overwhelmed with requests. On top of this, the people approving said patents typically do not understand what they are patenting.
Mayank Agarwal
(Twitter: @ mayank25may )
7 months ago
@SantigoStar : thanks for the insight in the latter part of ur comment.
@Walt : well.. that was an entire blog post! i would agree with you in most of what u have written.
Sacha Sommer
7 months ago
Microsoft is no good example for free market if free market is about choice. Microsoft made sure that free market stayed out of its business model. It’s contracts with hardware vendors were designed to keep possible competitors outside. If a hardware producer pays Microsoft bucks for each machine sold even without Windows on it, then that vendor is not interested in selling anything else. Microsoft has made sure that the consumer does not have the say on what OS is on his computer. Microsoft has taken away that choice from most of the customers. It is a deal between Microsoft and the PC vendor. Consumers are not involved in that process. This business model has nothing to do with free market at all
Walt H arris
7 months ago
I’m sorry Sacha, I have to disagree with you there. Regardless of what people want to hear, Microsoft is in the business to make money, and if PC vendors decide to “get into bed with Microsoft”, that is not entirely Microsoft’s fault — they are simply doing what they are in the business to do. Microsoft has a product that the majority of the people (in the US anyway) like and want and regardless of how they got there, they’re the dominant player.
Also, you do have a choice. You may not like it, but there are smaller groups that sell PCs w/o operating systems on them, or you can build them yourself and put whatever O/S on it you want. If you want a pre-built machine, you can always buy a Mac. The hardware itself is nearly the same now. I’m not going to discuss cost differences as that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say, I’ve built many machines for myself and others that are running FreeBSD, OpenBSD or some distribution of Linux in addition to the Windows boxes I’ve built. These machines also tend to run far better — is it because of the OS, or the hardware? I use superior quality parts when building machines…
Because of the Free Market, it would seem that one large company would have a monopoly on an item (ie AT&T pre-divestiture or Microsoft now), but the difference is, Microsoft does have competition, AT&T/Bell really didn’t. In order to unseat the “power-player”, one must come up with a truly innovative replacement. When that happens, one of two things will happen, the company will thrive, or be absorbed. Regardless of which option, it is by the will of the Free Marekt. If the company is absorbed into MS, it’s because THE OWNERS of that innovative idea chose to sell the IP to MS…
I may seem like I’m defending MS here, and to an extent I am. Personally I prefer other options like FreeBSD and OS X, but I’m also a realist… I make my money with MS – the others simply don’t pay enough. I used to be an AIX admin and it paid well, but when they “upgraded” to Linux, I lost out.
I tried to look for a decent paying *NIX job for a few years, and discovered regardless, I can make more doing Windows programming. This too is a product of the Free Market. You’re paid to the value of what you can bring to market, and if what you provide has little or no value, you get paid little to no pay.
Would you rather have Government dictate what you’re paid? Not me…