Microsoft loses appeal on Word injunction

The Register ^ | 22 December 2009 | Austin Modine

[ShadowAce]

[SkyDancer]

Ok - me being a dummie on all this, what does it mean to me who’s running VISTA with Office2007? What is this XML thing?

[Tamar1973]

"With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels into motion to remove this little-used feature from these products," Kutz wrote.

If it's such a "little-used feature", why are they considering going all the way up to the SCOTUS to fight it. I smell BS.

[ShadowAce]

MS uses XML to save its documents. The file format is impinging.

[Tamar1973]

It means that Microsoft is wasting their money fighting this lawsuit rather than spending that money to fix vista.

[Knitebane]

Microsoft has previously acknowledged the company had been in contact with i4i about the XML technology, but said there was no evidence proving anyone at the company actually had read the patent in question. i4i has claimed the infringement was willful and that Microsoft deliberately planned to destroy its business while publicly declaring the two were allies.

You think they would get some new moves. Playing buddy and then stealing the code is something Microsoft was doing 15 years ago.

[thulldud]

i4i has claimed the infringement was willful and that Microsoft deliberately planned to destroy its business while publicly declaring the two were allies.

Every now and again, somebody actually learns from history.

[SolidRedState]

Silly me. I thought XML was an open source “technology”.

[Da Coyote]

Interesting thing about Capitalism. I have to work with Microsoft at work because I deal with the govt.

I work with Apple and Linux machines at home because I have a choice and choose the superior operating systems.

Under Obamaloons, we’ll only have one system - and it’ll be the most inefficient. Clippy, anyone?

[Hardastarboard]

Thanks for that explanation. The way the article was written it looked like there was a custom XML editor built into Word. I was excited that it might exist. I was going to go look for it.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Silly me. I thought XML was an open source “technology”.

Have no worry.... someone will come up with the patent on how you cook your bacon and eggs in the morning -- and boy will you pay through the nose for that one, you scofflaw... LOL...

[Knitebane]

Silly me. I thought XML was an open source “technology”.

It is. But Microsoft's "contribution" to XML isn't really XML.

Microsoft, once again trying the same old "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy that has allowed them to lie, cheat and steal their way to the top, does something just a bit different.

Microsoft uses a proprietary technology to inject proprietary code into XML.

They decided to "innovate" again by buying up someone's code to do it, but the "partner" wouldn't sell so Microsoft just stole it.

Again.

[wireplay]

The file format is impinging.

No it is not. The issue was with XML editing, not the file format. It is a minor issue.

[ShadowAce]

Crap—You’re right. I got confused.

[AFreeBird]

If you don’t know, and don’t work directly with XML files, then I suspect you don’t need to worry about it.

[wireplay]

You obviously do not know the history of XML. Microsoft was one of the largest backers of XML and there is no way, that I am aware of, to make XML that is not XML. Where you came up with that is beyond me.

XML has 2 constructs: elements and attributes. It is up to the interpreter to do whatever it wants with the XML since it is simply mark-up. I have never seen XML from MS which falles outside of these 2 constructs and I work with XML every single day, mostly Microsoft. Show me an example of ‘proprietary’ XML that falls outside of an element or attribute.

[r9etb]

If it's such a "little-used feature", why are they considering going all the way up to the SCOTUS to fight it. I smell BS.

A "little-used feature" is precisely where you would want to fight something like this all the way up to SCOTUS.

The legal strategy is straightforward: this ruling sets a precedent that can be followed by anybody who can find a way to try to tag Microsoft with "improprieties," real or imagined. It's a potential cash cow for the little guys.

Microsoft would obviously want to nip that in the bud.

[FromLori]

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-will-buy-aol-next-year-2009-12

[SkyDancer]

Does it impact the .DOC file extension? And what is XML?