Talk:I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)
 Info on PACER
Can something like this go in the article, or is it too subjective?
The issue at stake was a claimed patent infringement by Microsoft's implementation of "custom XML", a proprietary extension within Word's native OOXML standard document format. Microsoft may be forced to withdraw current versions of Word and to cripple or remove the OOXML format from future versions.
This is a good example of why swpats are so bad (even though, ironically, it hurts one of their strongest exponents). The i4i patent is very broadly worded and the appeal judge has decided that it applies in areas which one might expect to be beyond the original intent. As a result, the infringing party may soon face withdrawing or crippling their product, with the result that millions of users around the world may suffer crippling changes to their everyday software.
steelpillow 07:32, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
- Added. Subjective comments are fine (as long as they're not insults against persons or organisations that could get us in trouble). At worst, overly subjective comments will get fixed in the medium term, but it's better to have poor text than no text. In this case, the text is good already. Ciaran 08:57, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
- I replaced the word "crippled" with "will have to reduce functionality". Someone once told me that using "crippled" in a wholly pejorative way can be offensive to people who'd be called "crippled". Not sure if that's true, but I err on the side of caution. Ciaran 09:01, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
 Does this belong? It's very rant-y and out of place IMO
"However, clearly this seems to be a problem within Redmond. On the one hand, we are told that companies who have been pillaged by Microsoft are trolls, yet on the other, Microsoft lays claim to patents that can only be described at best, as more than somewhat dubious. Microsoft's history with the F/OSS movement is well documented, as is their history with those they have partnered; Microsoft takes on the FREE World
The last jack booted mob of thugs that tried to take on the free world didn't fair to well. They also supported a monoculture, in their own image, which was also enforced with little disregard for anyone not embracing the philosophy. When the United States government decides to fix their very broken Patent system, then and only then can patents for Small Business's be revoked. Until then, convicted Monopolists should simply accept that they have been caught out, abusing the market, again."
- That tone is out of place alright. For each paragraph, we have to assume that that's the only paragraph someone will read before making their mind up about the wiki - so it has to be clear that we're documenting the case against software patents, not attacking i4i, or Microsoft, or anyone else. I'm trying to rewrite it now. Ciaran 10:36, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
 I removed the second paragraph (same guy)
It doesn't say much and doesn't have much to do with why software patents aren't benefiting society.
- I've left a comment about that user's contributions on User talk:184.108.40.206. Ciaran 10:55, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
 Someone understand the reexamination? 90010347-4.pdf
Here's a document I don't understand:
Page 15 of the pdf is a form, and there's a list titled "Part II Summary of Action", which contains:
- 1a. Claims 14-20 are subject to reexamination
- 4. Claims 14-20 are rejected
And page 5 of the pdf contains a conclusion dismissing "The patent holder's petition for further extending the period for respsonse" - so obviously there's something that i4i wants to fight or delay.
It reads as if Microsoft successfully invalidated claims 14-20 of i4i's patent, based on obviousness in light of "DeRose" and "Cowan" - but no news story mentions i4i's patent being cut down, so I'm probably reading the document wrong.
Also, I'm not sure if this explains anything, but this article on the i4i case mentions "DeRose" and "obviousness":
- Microsoft has waived its right to challenge the factual findings underlying the jury’s implicit obviousness verdict because it did not file a pre-verdict JMOL on obviousness for the Rita, DeRose and Kugimiya references. As we explained in Duro-Last, a party must file a pre-verdict JMOL motion on all theories, and with respect to all prior art references, that it wishes to challenge with a post-verdict JMOL. Microsoft’s pre-verdict JMOL on anticipation, based on S4, was insufficient to preserve its right to post-verdict JMOL on a different theory (obviousness), or on different prior art (Rita, DeRose, Kugimiya).
(JMOL is "judgment as a matter of law")
Anyone know this story? Ciaran 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)