It seems like Microsoft is accepting the outcome of the appeal case yesterday. The company has released an update for OEMs in the United States that strips the infringing feature from the ubiquitous word processor. “The following patch is required for the United States.”
The patch removes the ability to edit custom XML elements. “After this patch is installed, Word will no longer read the Custom XML elements contained within DOCX, DOCM, or XML files,” Microsoft said on its website, “These files will continue to open, but any Custom XML elements will be removed. The ability to handle custom XML markup is typically used in association with automated server based processing of Word documents. Custom XML is not typically used by most end users of Word.”
This patch has been in the making for a while now, as OEMs were notified of the then-upcoming patch in October of this year. With the release today, OEMs have about three weeks to modify the machines in their channels to comply with the court order.
“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 to ComputerWorld, “Therefore, we expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for US sale and distribution by the injunction date.”
Existing copies of Word do not fall under the ruling, and do not have to be modified.
The patch is required for microsoft to make and distribute to the OEMs, it is NOT required for the OEMS NOR the USERS to apply the patch.
It’s kind interesting that it doesn’t become the default.. it must be much easier to make such a thing the default.. nothing to worry about, except keeping this thing – worldwide. But now, they break it down.. it’s required here.. for some.. seems like a hassle to me.
Not so surprising. The patch disables functionality the patent prevents them from shipping in the United States. Why disable functionality for non-US customers if you don’t have to?
Because it could possibly result in incompatibilities in your product line, even among the exact same release? Office’s compatibility between versions is sketchy enough in some cases, this is just going to make it worse.
You have to wonder, knowing that they’re infringing from the start, if they don’t already have patches to remove the infringing code.
I’d think that, as far back as MS-DOS 6.x and the Stac incident, they were ready with two versions of MS-DOS.
Microsoft should join the Open Innovation Network to try and limit the damage that patent trolls can do to them.
The patent in question sounds utterly ridiculous, and more than a little bit worrying – being able to create custom XML elements? Not only do Scribus and Inkscape infringe on that, but also Gedit, Kate and every text editor ever invented.
I must agree. By no means am I a Microsoft fan but this kind of thing shouldn’t be pulled on anyone even Microsoft.
i4i wasn’t trolling. The patent covers technology that was the core of their business product. While I don’t agree with software patents, they had the patent before they ever showed the technology to Microsoft. Moreover, Microsoft emails indicated that they KNEW they were stealing the technology. i4i negotiated for years to get Microsoft to license the technology. Microsoft blew them off. i4i deserves more than what they were awarded. Funny how Microsoft likes using patents against people like TomTom, yet they themselves don’t want to play by the rules. Microsoft was clearly and absolutely in the wrong on this one.
Edited 2009-12-24 00:39 UTC
If all of this is true, as indeed it appears to be, then logically ISO are now obliged to withdraw ISO 29500.
i4i have no intention that their proprietary technology should be promulgated as part of a standard for all and sundry to use. ISO have no right to make it so.
Other technologies are covered by patents but are also an ISO standard; for example H.264 / ISO 14496-10
This is true. The patent holders must want for their technology to be a standard, and they must offer the technology to the ISO for use as (or as part of) a standard under RAND terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Lice…
This is not the case for i4i’s “custom XML” technology, which is called out as part of the ISO standard 29500.
It is interesting that my previous post, which raises the point, has been modded down. Apparently some OSAlert readers cannot handle the truth.
Since this apprears to be controversial to some readers, here is some backup, from Microsoft OOXML supporter Rick Jelliffe:
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/12/microsoft-loses-appeal-on-cust…
“Microsoft has to remove CustomXML support, so I expect that IS 29500 would have it removed.”
Edited 2009-12-24 10:08 UTC
…but only if you’re the one who holds them.
..Microsoft will reconsider the subject of software patents.. Maybe not..