M.S. Word is illegal because it uses XML!

@Zecc said:
Someoneh needs to holdh ~~back~~ the forth, or the enemies wouldh surely gain vantageh over our kingdomh.
FTFY.

Ah, thanks. I'm a native speaker, but not of English.

dhromed

@Zecc said:

Ah, thanks. I'm a native speaker, but not of English.

HTH, but your location says "Australia". Expat?

@dhromed said:

@Zecc said:
Ah, thanks. I'm a native speaker, but not of English.

HTH, but your location says "Australia". Expat?

Antipodes: any two places or regions on diametrically opposite sides of the Earth; "the North Pole and the South Pole are antipodes"

I only put "Australia" in my (previously empty) location after my response to this post; as a kind of acknowledgement of Zemm's existence, but mostly for the what-the-hell factor.

dhromed

So you're not really at an Australian antipode?

I mean, unless you live on a boat.

@dhromed said:

So you're not really at an Australian antipode?
I mean, unless you live on a boat.

I am, for a large enough size of an antipode.

Ok, so my antipodes are closer to NZ and still on a boat. Whatever.

PS: it's nice to know that Australia would fit nicely in the North Atlantic.

Lingerance

A update for you all

Master_Chief

If the patent was held by the company in 2001, surely the two year period expired by the time Word 03 was released, and DEFINITELY was expired before Word 07.

And OMG! You mean one company did better what another company did before with the intent to take away their customers!?! Holy fucking shit, somebody call the national guard, capitalism is working again!!!

bstorer

@Master Chief said:

If the patent was held by the company in 2001, surely the two year period expired by the time Word 03 was released, and DEFINITELY was expired before Word 07.

What the hell 2-year period are you talking about? Patents last 20 years, and this one was filed in 1994.

@Master Chief said:

And OMG! You mean one company did better what another company did before with the intent to take away their customers!?! Holy fucking shit, somebody call the national guard, capitalism is working again!!!

Seriously, WTF. The judge's whole argument seems to stem from Microsoft's "intent to bury" i4i. Right, and this is relevant in a patent infringement case because...?

I reiterate my earlier assertion of the necessity to educate patent judges with a clue-by-four. This idiot has somehow convinced himself that a patent means nobody is allowed to make a competing product!

I'm guessing that this judge, to quote Dave Barry [on an unrelated case], "probably got his job less on the basis of being knowledgeable in matters of law than on the basis of having attended the most company picnics."

I anyone is actually deluding themselves into thinking that this lawsuite matters at all the please take a look at the 5 day stock chart of MSFT and the top company news for MSFT from google or bloomberg.

Master_Chief

@bstorer said:

What the hell 2-year period are you talking about? Patents last 20 years, and this one was filed in 1994.

Foiled by my interlaced display again. Dammit.

Master_Chief

@Aaron said:

Seriously, WTF. The judge's whole argument seems to stem from Microsoft's "intent to bury" i4i. Right, and this is relevant in a patent infringement case because...?
I reiterate my earlier assertion of the necessity to educate patent judges with a clue-by-four. This idiot has somehow convinced himself that a patent means nobody is allowed to make a competing product!
I'm guessing that this judge, to quote Dave Barry [on an unrelated case], "probably got his job less on the basis of being knowledgeable in matters of law than on the basis of having attended the most company picnics."

No shit right? By this logic, Ford could sue basically every car company in existence excluding a few very new ones for using an assembly line, not to mention every other countless company that uses assembly lines.

The tech inquestion should certainly be patented, but the pantent they are presenting is astoundingly vague. It could apply not only to XML but to HTML as well, and probably a lot of other types of Data storage, maybe even SQL.

@Master Chief said:

No shit right? By this logic, Ford could sue basically every car company in existence excluding a few very new ones for using an assembly line, not to mention every other countless company that uses assembly lines.
The tech inquestion should certainly be patented, but the pantent they are presenting is astoundingly vague. It could apply not only to XML but to HTML as well, and probably a lot of other types of Data storage, maybe even SQL.

It most certainly applies to databases. Anything where there is a schema describing the format of the data.

Master_Chief

@tster said:

It most certainly applies to databases. Anything where there is a schema describing the format of the data.

How can any judge take this patent seriously? This is akin to suing (or sueing?) IBM because you discovered electricity.

tgape

@Master Chief said:

No shit right? By this logic, Ford could sue basically every car company in existence excluding a few very new ones for using an assembly line, not to mention every other countless company that uses assembly lines.

Actually, that's exactly what they did until their patents ran out - which is why the model T had such a long run.

After that, they started innovating again.

And *that* is the real issue with the patent system.

havokk

@tster said:

Honestly, your argument is way off on the software, but you are just making it look worst by trying to argue your point in the pharmaceutical industry, which is probably the industry where patents are the most important for the advancement of the science.

If I try and extend the Word-XML-patent scam to the pharmaceutical industry, would it go something like this?

I get a patent, today, for something vague like "the process of using chemicals to reduce pain in humans".

I sue all the drug companies who make pain killers for breach of my patent.

I aply to a Texas judge to force injunction to stop all those companies from selling pain killers while they argue against me.

The drug industry is not itself free from patent issues. As far as I am aware, you don't need to actually produce a drug to patent it, just have an idea. This stifles innovation, not encourages it.

B

Lingerance

@havokk said:

If I try and extend the Word-XML-patent scam to the pharmaceutical industry, would it go something like this?
I get a patent, today, for something vague like "the process of using chemicals to reduce pain in humans".

Not applicable. The patent in question was filed in 1994, back when word wa still using some proprietary binary format.

@Lingerance said:

@havokk said:

If I try and extend the Word-XML-patent scam to the pharmaceutical industry, would it go something like this?
I get a patent, today, for something vague like "the process of using chemicals to reduce pain in humans".

Not applicable. The patent in question was filed in 1994, back when word wa still using some proprietary binary format.

What does Word's internal file format have to do with this? Do you even know what the patent is for?

TwelveBaud1

@havokk said:

I get a patent, in the late 1960's, for something vague like "the process of using multiple chemicals to reduce pain in humans".
I sue all the drug companies, like McNeil Consumer Healthcare, who make pain killers like Tylenol with Codeine for breach of my patent in the early 1980's or a few years earlier.
I aply to a Texas judge to force injunction to stop all those companies from selling pain killers while they argue against me.

You're essentially correct, but you forget that your patent needs to be innovative. Remember, in 1994 when the patent was filed, most companies were going "extensi-what markup what?" Now that i2i has the patent, it can use it against Microsoft et al for things they've done since then.