Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


No easy fix for Word legal woes

Now, I am not a lawyer. But, I've been reporting on IP (intellectual property) law issues for years now, so I know something about how these issues are resolved, and when I see that one attorney thinks there's an "easy technical work-around" for Microsoft's patent violation in Word, my alarm bells go off. There is no easy fix here, and, short of waving the white-flag, Microsoft may very well have to stop selling Word, and thus Microsoft Office, this fall.

Here's why the "easy" solutions really don't work.

First, there's the suggestion from the attorney that "All Microsoft has to do is disable the custom XML feature, which should be pretty easy to do, then give that a different SKU number from what's been sold so it's easy to distinguish the two versions." Oh yeah, that's easy.

The custom feature, described by patent # 5787449, covers a fast way of saving XML (eXtended Markup Language) documents. Microsoft uses it to save documents in Word 2003's default .DOCX and Word 2007's default Open XML format. If you think for one second that changing something so fundamental as how documents are saved and their formats is easy, you've never done any programming at all. Even if you could magically change that, there are endless processes in Word that would need to be modified to deal with the new way of saving and reading documents.

That leads me to my next point. Let's say a miracle happens, and Microsoft does make the changes in Word and it actually works. What about all those billions of documents that are already in the old format styles? What about the hundreds of millions of users still using the older versions of Office? Every Office user in the world would end up having to fight with incompatible files and conversion woes. That would go over really well don't you think?

I've also heard it suggested that the i4i patent be over-turned. Oh kid, if over-turning patents were easy, everyone would be doing it.

Once in place, even the worst patents take years to overturn. And, the i4i patent, now that I've had a chance to read it more closely, isn't that bad. I dislike all IP patents, but since we're stuck with them, to my inexpert eye it appears there's enough differences between what this patent describes and what's done with historical SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) that the patent would probably stand up in court.

Not, mind you that that whether a patent is valid really matters. Bad patents, like the ones used by NTP against RIM (Research in Motion) in the Blackberry patent case, work just as well as good ones for shaking money out of companies. In NTP vs. RIM, for example, all of NTP's patents have run into serious trouble, but RIM was still forced to pay NTP $612.5-million to keep everyone's Blackberries running. Oh, and three years later, the NTP patents, although regarded by everyone, outside of NTP's owners and employees as junk, have still not been finally over-turned and they may not be finally thrown out for another half-dozen years.

In short, Microsoft can forget about getting this patent over-turned as a quick way out of its Word troubles.

I also think that Microsoft shouldn't put too much hope in the idea that it can dodge this patent bullet by delaying things in court. Microsoft has already tried ignoring the matter. What they got for that was U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Davis slapping them with an additional $40 million in "enhanced damages" for Microsoft's "willful infringement." All together, the court has upped Microsoft's fines from $200-million to $290.6 million. I think starting a long appeals process with this judge is just asking to be slapped with more damages.

I predicted that when RIM paid off NTP, we'd only see more patent lawsuits and that that this in turn would mean higher costs for business technology users and less innovation. Well, here we are, and this time it's Microsoft instead of RIM facing a no-win patent law situation. There is no easy way of these situations with our current patent legal system.

Microsoft says they won't settle. So did RIM. They'll settle. The only fast way out of a patent lawsuit that's reached this point is surrender and that's exactly what Microsoft will end up doing.

Ironically, if Microsoft hadn't insisted on shoving its own proprietary Open XML standard down users' throats and had whole-heartily supported the truly open ODF (Open Document Format), Word would have an option for its users that would have avoided the i4i patent mess. Oh well, too late now!

What People Are Saying

Forced Upgrades?

I like MS Office. I use Word 2003 at home and 2007 at work. Like many people and businesses, I did not buy 2007 for home as I did not see enough new needed value to justify the cost. I don't tend to beleive in every conspiracy theory, however, I think people may be looking at this in the wrong way. This may be exactly what MS wants. A new round of forced upgrades.

P.S. I really like and support OOorg and used it in college (MBA school at that), however, it still has it's short comings. I continue to watch it improve with each release. I also make sure my children are fimiliar with it as they may be the generation that will be able to capitalize on this great project.

The Microsoft guy said that

The Microsoft guy said that disabling xml was the easy fix, but you talk about re-writing the xml plugin so it doesn't infringe any patents.

While you are right that re-writing such a plugin so that it is also backwards compatible is almost impossible given the current situation, I don't think that's what they were seeing as the easy fix.

Basically, what I got is that they wanted to ship a lame version of Word that just has all xml disabled.
Which again, would cause compatibility problems with 2007.

I guess they are screwed...

You want a patent nightmare scenario ?

How about i4i instead of suing Microsoft, going after end users of Word and sue them for infringing its patent ? How about i4i instead of asking end users to quit using Word, they would ask them to buy the "permission" to continue to use an infringing product ?

Out of this world you think ? SCO still has this dream to sue Linux end users and Microsoft has carefully crafted wording in its patent agreement with Novell in order to insinuate the possibility of suing end users for patent infringement.

US Patent system is in desperate need of wisdom.

SCO "owning Linux", what a joke

The funny thing here is that SCO doesn't even own the product they're trying to claim is violated by Linux. When Novell sold AT&T System IV Unix to SCO, there was a provision that if SCO stopped its existence, ownership would revert to Novell. When SCO was bought out by (I don't remember the company), the new parent company dismantled SCO, integrated its parts into itself and discarded the SCO name, only to pick it up again later. The truth is that the SCO who is sueing IBM and everyone over Linux is not the same SCO which bought the product. That company no longer exists and the product is once again owned by Novell.

Hmmmmm - not quite. tSCOg

Hmmmmm - not quite. tSCOg (the "New SCO") does still own what The Santa Cruz Operation (the "Old SCO") bought from Novell. Novell from the first retained the copyrights to the legacy code package in order to guarantee that the licensing revenue stream would continue; the Santa Cruz Operation didn't have the money up front to completely buy out Novell.
Nowhere in this convoluted case has anyone ever stated that what Santa Cruz bought from Novell reverted back to Novell because of being sold to Caldera.
When tSCOg tried to "revoke" IBM's "fully paid up and non-revocable license" for the legacy UNIX code in AIX, Novell did indeed waive that, and the APA between Santa Cruz and Novell gave Novell the right to do that.

You're absolutely correct

My point was to make people think what would happen if this kind of weapon falls in the hands of someone who unlike SCO, will have the ownership of those patents. I was mentioning SCO only because they started a disturbing trend suing end users instead of the vendor of that software.

Microsoft does not yet have a time machine

I'm curious how Microsoft could have used ODF for Office 2003, since OASIS was just getting started working on standardizing it then, and it didn't become an approved standard until 2005 (and won't become a good standard until ODF 1.2 is approved).

Overstating the problem...

"That leads me to my next point. Let's say a miracle happens, and Microsoft does make the changes in Word and it actually works. What about all those billions of documents that are already in the old format styles? What about the hundreds of millions of users still using the older versions of Office? Every Office user in the world would end up having to fight with incompatible files and conversion woes. That would go over really well don't you think?"

I don't agree with your interpretation. This case does not have anything to do with Word's XML-based document formats. It deals with a *very* specific method for storing structured markup in a file system or data stream

Companies that use Word's Custom XML implementation to manage very large documents, perform automated document metadata operations, etc. might be exposed if MS is forced to pull the feature out of Word. The vast majority of users will not experience any difficulty, because modifying Word in this case does NOT require stripping the ability to read or write the docx format.

This is my interpretation, and it could be wrong. But I haven't yet seen any evidence to suggest that's the case.

As for the difficulty of modifying Word to comply with the judgment, I think it's a question of relative vs. absolute difficulty. A small firm might find the process to be difficult and perhaps ruinously expensive. Microsoft, however, will probably find it to be an inconvenience, albeit a very annoying one.

I agree with M

I read the problem the same way M does. The Patent Infringement is on the method used to save XML documents.

Simply replace the save routine(s) with ones which do not infringe on the Patent. Sure, it might be slower to save XML documents, but there's no need to cripple the functionality altogether.

Roll it out as a required Update. Done.

The other solution is to license or buy out the Patent.

Big Fat Issues.

You are entitled to your opinion but it's not very convincing and there's much bigger trouble in M$ land than this. SJVN was quoting a number of lawyers and doubts the "easy fixes" they offer to exactly these problems. Free software does a good job of changing things to route around patents and other problems but M$ is notorious for never fixing anything. They consistently prefer to spend billions on perception management, "hit teams" and lawsuits rather than a few million on fixing problems through software changes.

Any difficulty with OOXML is a huge pain for a an ailing and embattled M$. They created this phony "Open" standard so they could sell it to governments and pretend it provided public access. Now they will either have to fall back to their abominable or pay the trolls. Falling back to binary formats would cost them a lot of government sales while paradoxically making it easier for government to escape them because WORD.DOC is largely conquered by free software. Vista has failed in every meaningful way and Windows 7 won't do much better. M$ needs the wave of phony open government sales that the next version of Office would have pushed. Without that, they lose more to their competitors and there's even less reason to buy Windows itself. All of this trouble is going to have people looking at easier and better alternatives. Wikis running on free software offer a much better paper flow and sharing method. Patent troubles with the 8000 page spec and ISO corruption tainted OOXML format is just icing on the M$'s expensive, virus ridden, difficult to use OS cake.

The abusive nature of the violation, for which they were further fined, also exposes their real attitude and respect for "Intellectual Property." This is the same company that fraudulently shook down dozens of companies with patents they refuse to even name in public. Now that the same thing happens to them, it's not big deal? It could not have happened to a nicer company in a country with better laws. Thanks M$, for your tireless promotion of software patents and other abuse.