Microsoft continues battle to save Word

The case involves i4i's XML-based technology

Microsoft has appealed a final judgment against it in a patent infringement case brought by i4i LP.

The case concerns i4i's XML-based technology, which received Patent No. 5,787,449 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1998.


Related stories:

Imagine a world without Word
Microsoft gets little sympathy from federal (non)fan base
Federal future cloudy for Microsoft Word
Court ruling puts brakes on sales of Microsoft Word


At stake are sales of Microsoft Word in U.S. markets, which will be enjoined, according to the final judgment. However, Microsoft's appeal states that the ruling will affect "all versions of Word and Office currently available. ..." Microsoft can't distribute copies of Word containing i4i's patented "custom XML" technology, according to the ruling by a U.S. District Court judge, who confirmed a jury verdict. The prohibition on Word sales takes place 60 days from the judge's ruling, or around Oct. 10.

Microsoft's appeal, filed recently with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, essentially argues that the district court's judge was incompetent as a "gatekeeper" and in striking the "delicate balance" needed in patent law disputes.

"That balance can be lost if the district court does not protect the process, and patent litigation then becomes a tax on innovation rather than its guardian," the appeal states.

In a released statement, i4i Chairman Loudon Owen said Microsoft's appeal "captures the hostile attitude of Microsoft toward inventors who dare to enforce patents against them. It is also blatantly derogatory about the court system."

According to the Microsoft's appeal, i4i's patent was only disclosed to "a handful" of Microsoft employees in some marketing materials. Microsoft later came out with a version of Word with functionality similar to i4i's patent.

The appeal continues, "In late 2002, Microsoft released a beta version of Word 2003 that contained all of the functionality accused of infringement. i4i, Inc., which was a member of Microsoft's Developer Network, got an advance copy and evaluated it. But i4i, Inc. did not accuse Microsoft of infringing, even though it knew in fall 2002 that Word did exactly what it later accused of infringement."

The patent doesn't apply to older Office document formats, such as .DOC and .DOT. Rather, it applies to XML document formats (.XML, .DOCX and .DOCM) that "contain custom XML," according to Microsoft's brief.

i4i's patent describes a mapping system that stores metadata separately from the content of the XML document. However, Microsoft's appeal disputes that Word uses this technology.

"Because i4i's own experts admitted that Word does not store a metacode map in a separate file from content, and does not allow for independent manipulation of a metacode map and mapped content, the jury's infringement verdict should be reversed," Microsoft's appeal states.

Microsoft claims "irreparable and immediate" losses for the company if the judgment is upheld. The company was ordered by the district court to pay more than $240 million in damages and other penalties. Microsoft's appeal asks for a reversal of the judgment and a finding of noninfringement. Otherwise, Microsoft is requesting a new trial.

Toronto-based i4i plans to issue a response to Microsoft's appeal on Sept. 7. Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled for Sept. 23.

Microsoft's position is supported by filings by Dell and HP, according to Microsoft's press agency, and company spokesperson Kevin Kutz indicated Microsoft will continue to fight.

"We believe the court erred in its interpretation and application of the law in this case and look forward to the Sept. 23 hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals," Kutz said in a statement.

About the Author

Kurt Mackie is the online news editor for the 1105 Enterprise Computing Group sites, including Redmondmag.com, RCPmag.com and MCPmag.com.

Rising Stars

Meet 21 early-career leaders who are doing great things in federal IT.

Featured

  • SEC Chairman Jay Clayton

    SEC owns up to 2016 breach

    A key database of financial information was breached in 2016, possibly in support of insider trading, said the Securities and Exchange Commission.

  • Image from Shutterstock.com

    DOD looks to get aggressive about cloud adoption

    Defense leaders and Congress are looking to encourage more aggressive cloud policies and prod reluctant agencies to embrace experimentation and risk-taking.

  • Shutterstock / Pictofigo

    The next big thing in IT procurement

    Steve Kelman talks to the agencies that have embraced tech demos in their acquisition efforts -- and urges others in government to give it a try.

  • broken lock

    DHS bans Kaspersky from federal systems

    The Department of Homeland Security banned the Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab’s products from federal agencies in a new binding operational directive.

  • man planning layoffs

    USDA looks to cut CIOs as part of reorg

    The Department of Agriculture is looking to cut down on the number of agency CIOs in the name of efficiency and better communication across mission areas.

  • What's next for agency cyber efforts?

    Ninety days after the Trump administration's executive order, FCW sat down with agency cyber leaders to discuss what’s changing.

Reader comments

Wed, Sep 2, 2009 Phil

Micri$oft is a victim of it's own drive for software "patents", "hoist with (their) own petard". i4i is merely reading directly from M$'s play book. Their decades long unscrupulous unethical misbehavior makes me laugh out loud when they whine about "'irreparable and immediate' losses". All that being said, I agree the ruling is wrong. The real issue is the issuing of "patents" for software. This has got to stop. There is a legitimate argument for copyright, but not patents.

Mon, Aug 31, 2009 RayW

With Microsoft's history, 1. They probably did what i4i (whomever they are) said they did, and 2. Never happen, M$ has deep pocket$ and the best politicians in power now that they can buy. Now back to trying to work with the VISTA downgrade I just got, and the loss of programs that we can not afford to buy since the old ones do not run under VISTA US government version.

Mon, Aug 31, 2009 MBA

Yep. The judge is completely incompetent, as are most of the people sitting on our benches these days. The trouble with most of them is that they understand the technical aspects of our legal code: and nothing else.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group