bjoernvold.com

In August 2009, a US court awarded the damages to i4i which claimed Microsoft had infringed its patents.

The patents cover the use of XML, a mark-up language that preserves data formats across different programs.

The judgement also required Microsoft to remove the i4i technology from its Office software suite and stop selling the infringing programs.

The injunction on sales began in January 2010 and applied to any Microsoft Office software, specifically Word 2003 and 2007, containing the infringing patents.

Micosoft has since stripped the code in question out of the Office programs, but neverteless they appealed. And lost again. A major point in the descision was that Microsoft knew exactly what they were doing - meaning they knew the software was patented before they used it in their programs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8563852.stm

Yeah, I really really love this story, because M$ keeps screaming that Linux infringes patents, but I can't think of a single patent suit that any Linux distro has lost; no one has sued to my knowledge, because they know it isn't true at the end of the day. (How many legal suits has M$ lost now??? How much do they owe the EU??? lol)

And, they just lost to the supreme court...

Yes and they lost 290 million Dollars too. Apple is now bigger than Microsoft and Intel together. I think MS has to reevaluate their court strategies. Software patents are crap because it makes almost any programing impossible.
At the very least you need four lawyers working for four years before you can even start. So now Microsoft got to taste their own medicine - I bet it was bitter. And I bet they will lose against Opera too - (Google is Ganging up with them to get back on MS for some other claims).
The patent system is a pure gang system where you need to be big enough to hurt your competition more than they can hurt you. The biggest bully wins. And Ballmer needs to take in the impossible: He is not the biggest anymore.
The ones suffering are the creative well meaning, smaller companies without a legal department.
And no one can tell me that these procedures are constructive or creative - thus making us all loose out on brilliant solutions that are strangled in the beginning or killed before they reach the market.

MS has been the driving force in this nonconstructive procedure , so I think this loss serves them well. But if I know them correctly they will use this decision for what it is worth in their for ever ongoing, suits against other companies.
"Looky here, we have lost a similar case so it is only fair that our opponent loses this one to us"
The tap dance continues.......

viking60 wrote:But if I know them correctly they will use this decision for what it is worth in their for ever ongoing, suits against other companies.
"Looky here, we have lost a similar case so it is only fair that our opponent loses this one to us"

Well, then they'll lose every time here in the states. The attitude here in the states is "Oh, you've done this before? Well guess what. You just did it again."

This the one and only time I'm glad they are as they are here. 3 strikes, you're out in criminal cases, and if you've done it before in civil ones, you've done it again (for the most part). I'm just glad that i4i won the suit, that they had the guts to take it all the way. Microsoft can no longer appeal. This is as far as it gets, baby.

Yes but when we put our love for MS aside for a bit and take a look at the principles involved we have a clear decision for a patent holder against a software company who used it.
That can be turned around by Microsoft and If I know them correctly - it will be. Not in this case of course - it is permanently lost. But Microsoft will claim that others use their patented software in other cases, and use this one as an example.
The supreme court could have done itself a favor by saying OK Microsoft wins this one because it is IMPOSSIBLE to to claim that two lines of code makes the whole enchilada illegal.
In other words "Software patents are out"!
It is like removing "don't cry for me Argentina" from the song (or stopping it) because Che Guevara has patented "Argentina" and Opera has patented "Cry" an Obama has patented "don't".
The problem has been solved before but I don't know how successful it was:

viking60 wrote:That can be turned around by Microsoft and If I know them correctly - it will be. Not in this case of course - it is permanently lost. But Microsoft will claim that others use their patented software in other cases, and use this one as an example.

Not as long as people, and businesses, like i4i are around, and willing to step up to the plate.

To me, the real justice out of this, would be for i4i to start using Open Source software, and just use the money they made to expand their business with it (thereby saving money, and creating jobs both). In fact, it would also be for other businesses to see this decision and follow suit. I'm sure there's much, much more that M$ could be sued on. People will find those ways eventually. People in general are getting too sick of their bullshit.

You are in the trench shooting at MS my dear. Mrs Justicia is blind and she does not care if it is MS or any body else, she will treat everybody the same.
If the sentence had been "Software patents do not apply" then Microsoft would have been the real looser. Somewhat richer but still the looser. No more suing, what on earth should they do? Well they could start making good software I suppose
....But it will be hard to restructure the company from a Law firm to a software company.
Edit:
I see what you mean by others stepping up to the plate now though. In most cases MS will just buy the company and throw the patent in the face of others. By refusing to sell they would be stepping up, and we could have an interesting situation.

Yes, they now have hope that it can be done, and the more that do sue, the more money that M$ has to pay out... eventually M$ becomes bankrupt, or at the very least could not continue to go after others on false premises as they do - they will no longer afford to be able to fight the suits coming at them.

It is true, there should not be software patents, but I also think that this is a step in the right direction for Open Source, if businesses take up on it. We know now, in concrete black and white, that Microsoft would be nothing but hypocrits to call those of us in the Open Source world patent violators, for this suit proves that they are the violators themselves (while using Linux servers no less).