# Court orders Microsoft to stop selling Word



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From Yahoo:


> ...But it's no joke. In August of this year, a court sided with a small Canadian company called i4i that holds a 1998 patent on the way the XML language is implemented, finding that Microsoft was in violation of that patent. The result: Microsoft was told to license the code in question from i4i or reprogram it, or else Microsoft Word would have to be removed from sale in the market. The original ruling gave Microsoft until October to get its legal affairs in order, but appeals pushed that out a bit.
> 
> Now a federal court has upheld that original ruling -- plus a fat, $290 million judgment against the company -- imposing the new January 11 D-Day on the matter. Microsoft Word and Microsoft Office will both be barred from sale as of that date -- though naturally you'll still be able to use copies of Word and Office that you already own, and Microsoft will be allowed to keep supporting those copies.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

From Yahoo



> SEATTLE - A federal appeals court ordered Microsoft Corp. to stop selling its Word program in January and pay a Canadian software company $290 million for violating a patent, upholding the judgment of a lower court.
> 
> But people looking to buy Word or Microsoft's Office package in the U.S. won't have to go without the software. Microsoft said Tuesday it expects that new versions of the product, with the computer code in question removed, will be ready for sale when the injunction begins on Jan. 11.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I just got this in my email:








Interesting "fix.":sure:


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Statement by Kevin Kutz, Director of Public Affairs, Microsoft 
*REDMOND, Wash. - Dec. 22, 2009 - *We have just learned that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied our appeal in the i4i case. We are moving quickly to comply with the injunction, which takes effect on January 11, 2010.

This injunction applies only to copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007 sold in the U.S. on or after the injunction date of January 11, 2010. Copies of these products sold before this date are not affected.

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 in motion to remove this little-used feature from these products. Therefore, we expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date. In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction. 

While we are moving quickly to address the injunction issue, we are also considering our legal options, which could include a request for a rehearing by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals en banc or a request for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. 

--Kevin Kutz, Director of Public Affairs, Microsoft Corporation


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Sounds like the fire drill is about over.

My 2 copies of Office 2007 are fine then, and those still moving to it have little to worry about.

Thanks for all the updates on this topic.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Sounds like a non-issue.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

The thread title is misleading. They were not ordered to stop selling Word. They just can't sell Word with the infringing XML function.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I wonder whose code they stole to replace the code they got caught stealing? :lol:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

davemayo said:


> The thread title is misleading. They were not ordered to stop selling Word. They just can't sell Word with the infringing XML function.


The thread title is "ripped from the headlines" of the Associated Press.

Most of the retail packaging out in the marketplace includes the code so they will be prohibited from selling those copies as of January 11th.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

This is not a big deal to me. I've been using the free and fully compatible 'Open Office'.

www.openoffice.org


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Nick said:


> This is not a big deal to me. I've been using the free and fully compatible 'Open Office'.
> 
> www.openoffice.org


no thanks, no exchange integration and do not feel like running a open source system through all the software validation that is required.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It sounds like somehow, this judge was able to see a clear path to action in a patent infringement case. I wonder why another judge in a similar case (hint, hint) can't do the same?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Nick said:


> This is not a big deal to me. I've been using the free and fully compatible 'Open Office'.
> 
> www.openoffice.org


I'll bet you're not utilizing any Object Linking & Embedding or the COM Automation features that MS Office 'system' offers advanced users.

--- CHAS


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

HIPAR said:


> I'll bet you're not utilizing any Object Linking & Embedding or the COM Automation features that MS Office 'system' offers advanced users.
> 
> --- CHAS


You would win that bet -- just ordinary, everyday civilian usage.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It sounds like somehow, this judge was able to see a clear path to action in a patent infringement case. I wonder why another judge in a similar case (hint, hint) can't do the same?


It also seams the loser in this case is acting somewhat reasonable and actually following the court order.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Moot point, they already have a patch for the word for the copies that are in the distribution chain and they are not required to retroa-actively patch or remove the functionality of copies that are already in the end users hands.

http://pcworld.about.com/od/office2/Microsoft-Yanks-Custom-XML-Fro.htm

"Rather than stop selling Word 2007, and the money-making Office 2007 that includes the word processor, Microsoft will yank the offending XML editing technology -- dubbed "Custom XML" -- from Word. Tuesday, the company said it had been planning for the eventuality, and would have its ducks in a row by Jan. 11.

"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 in motion to remove this little-used feature from these products," said Kevin Kutz, the director of public affairs for Microsoft, in an e-mail. "Therefore, we expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date."

Microsoft is not obligated to modify already-purchased copies of Word via a software update, but only to remove the i4i technology from the programs sold starting Jan. 11.

Although Microsoft will be responsible for revamping Word and Office for retail distribution, then swapping out new copies for those on shelves, many computer makers pre-load the popular suite on their PCs. They would need time to get the revised Word and Office onto new machines, and those machines into their retail and distribution channels.

According to Bott, Microsoft's OEM partners were first notified Monday via e-mail of an upcoming patch required for Office 2007. The Tuesday release of the patch gives OEMs just under three weeks to re-load already-built PCs or replace them with machines with the revised Office 2007 before the Jan. 11 deadline."


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Apparently it ain't over even after it's over:



> Microsoft appeals over XML spat, again
> 
> Andrew Thomas | Mon 11th Jan 2010, 05:51 am
> 
> ...


http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/45432-microsoft-appeals-over-xml-spat-again


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

It sounds like Microsoft has done their homework and discovered that the "fix" they planned to offer isn't working out. I find the language in the TGdaily article about not loading certain document files disturbing.

The implication that the judge's hands were somehow tied in the case seems a little odd.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Thursday, June 09, 2011
> 
> (CN) - Microsoft must pay a $290 million fine because some versions of its Word software infringed patents held by i4i, a small Canada-based technology company, the Supreme Court affirmed Thursday.
> Lower courts previously found that Microsoft had infringed on i4i's patents for XML, or Extensible Markup Language, which allows computers to interpret and display text. The Toronto-based i4i, which has about 30 employees, filed a patent for a "customized XML" tool in 1998.


Continued: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/09/37240.htm


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> Continued: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/09/37240.htm


Good find. Justice Sotomayor's comment was classic: _"Squint as we may, we fail to see the qualifications that Microsoft purports to identify in our cases"_

Squint, judge? Really.


----------

