Microsoft Word Illegal in the US

Well well. Looks like Microsoft’s love affair with software patents may have bit them on the behind.

A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell one of its flagship products, Word, in the United States because of patent infringement.

You read that right: Microsoft cannot sell Word, the judge ruled.

Judge Leonard Davis, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ordered a permanent injunction that “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML,” according to an announcement by the plaintiff, Toronto-based i4i Inc.
^{Judge: Microsoft can't sell Word anymore - SeattlePI}

This could cause problems for all Office suite applications, not just Microsoft Word. OpenOffice.org Writer and StarOffice have all used XML for a very long time. As have Abiword, KOffice, and others.

I am very much against software patents. You should not be able to patent maths. And as a result, I am personally against this ruling by the Texas court.

A lot of people do not quite comprehend that the computer they are looking at is essentially just a very powerful calculator. In fact, cellphones are also just very powerful calculators. In fact, nearly every cellphone today is many times more powerful than a computer of only 10 or 15 years ago.

All calculators deal with 1s and 0s and the arrangements of these 1s and 0s is given meaning. Adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing the results of all these 1s and 0s allows us to calculate very large numbers that previously were not possible until the modern age of computing.

Because all software is digital, it is made up of 1s and 0s. And therefore, at its very core, all software is maths. All software is essentially the mathematical equations used to interpret and calculate information we give the computer.

You cannot get a patent for 1+1. Nor can you get a patent for a prime number. As such, you should never be allowed to have a patent for software which is essentially just very large mathematical equations.

In this one very rare case, I hope Microsoft wins their appeals. For the simple reason that it would be a massive blow against software patents.

Print article

This entry was posted by Steve on 13 August, 2009 at 6:15 pm, and is filed under Microsoft, techtalk. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

Firehazard

Technically all of existence is just different reactions between atoms, and can be expressed with impossibly complex math equations. By your logic nothing should be able to be patented. Sure these equation are impossibly complex now but 100 years ago so were the ones used to send this comment. Many artists produce worts of art that exist purely in digital form. Some people may print them out, but you could also print out of software's source code. I personally reside in the US and am against copyright laws.
http://www.google.com/profiles/113064402350615967581 kinthiri

No my logic states that the math should not be patentable. Physical ideas of new inventions can be patented. Thats not a problem. I do not have a problem with people being able to profit from their ideas. But if you look at the history of software patents, it is very rare that they are genuinely a patentable idea and used in the manner intended by the patent laws. Most software patents are used to either build up portfolios to ward off other companies, or used by trolls to litigate companies and force them into spending money on an idea that is blatantly obvious to the whole industry, but someone managed to patent.

For someone residing in the US, you make an argument FOR copyright law. Not against software patents. Artists work, whether digital or on a canvas, is protected by Copyright and cannot be patented regardless of the medium. Software source code is copyrighted whether its on a computer or printed out. Neither of those are in any way harmed by removing the ability to patent mathematical formula.

Copyright is a totally different thing again, and it is something I very strongly support in the software industry. In all industries in fact.

Copyright says that you are the owner of a particular body of work and no one may copy, reproduce, display or broadcast (or any other number of possible actions) without your permission. Copyright gives the creator of a product fair and safe means to ensure their work is not stolen. Copyright laws in the US are a joke. Unfortunately, they have also managed to start spreading to the rest of the world tagged onto treaties and trade negotiations.

I think New Zealand's copyright laws are pretty good as they are. Although there is no such thing as “Fair Use” in New Zealand, the content creators and artists are protected and the copyright term is fair to everyone. The US is screwed because the copyright term there is just going to keep extending as long as companies like Disney have such large political influence.
Firehazard

Technically all of existence is just different reactions between atoms, and can be expressed with impossibly complex math equations. By your logic nothing should be able to be patented. Sure these equation are impossibly complex now but 100 years ago so were the ones used to send this comment. Many artists produce worts of art that exist purely in digital form. Some people may print them out, but you could also print out of software's source code. I personally reside in the US and am against copyright laws.
http://www.google.com/profiles/113064402350615967581 kinthiri

No my logic states that the math should not be patentable. Physical ideas of new inventions can be patented. Thats not a problem. I do not have a problem with people being able to profit from their ideas. But if you look at the history of software patents, it is very rare that they are genuinely a patentable idea and used in the manner intended by the patent laws. Most software patents are used to either build up portfolios to ward off other companies, or used by trolls to litigate companies and force them into spending money on an idea that is blatantly obvious to the whole industry, but someone managed to patent.

For someone residing in the US, you make an argument FOR copyright law. Not against software patents. Artists work, whether digital or on a canvas, is protected by Copyright and cannot be patented regardless of the medium. Software source code is copyrighted whether its on a computer or printed out. Neither of those are in any way harmed by removing the ability to patent mathematical formula.

Copyright is a totally different thing again, and it is something I very strongly support in the software industry. In all industries in fact.

Copyright says that you are the owner of a particular body of work and no one may copy, reproduce, display or broadcast (or any other number of possible actions) without your permission. Copyright gives the creator of a product fair and safe means to ensure their work is not stolen. Copyright laws in the US are a joke. Unfortunately, they have also managed to start spreading to the rest of the world tagged onto treaties and trade negotiations.

I think New Zealand's copyright laws are pretty good as they are. Although there is no such thing as “Fair Use” in New Zealand, the content creators and artists are protected and the copyright term is fair to everyone. The US is screwed because the copyright term there is just going to keep extending as long as companies like Disney have such large political influence.
Jack Crow

That's like saying you can't patent a work of art because that would be like patenting paper and pencil lead. Opinion DENIED!
http://www.google.com/profiles/113064402350615967581 kinthiri

Well, that was intelligent and so well thought out. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

You cannot patent art work. Artwork is still covered by copyright however.

Seems to be a lot of people that don't know the difference between a Patent and Copyright and what they are actually intended to achieve. Maybe you should brush up on what you're actually talking about before making such a stupid remark.
Jack Crow

That's like saying you can't patent a work of art because that would be like patenting paper and pencil lead. Opinion DENIED!
http://www.google.com/profiles/113064402350615967581 kinthiri

Well, that was intelligent and so well thought out. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

You cannot patent art work. Artwork is still covered by copyright however.

Seems to be a lot of people that don't know the difference between a Patent and Copyright and what they are actually intended to achieve. Maybe you should brush up on what you're actually talking about before making such a stupid remark.
http://www.google.com/profiles/113064402350615967581 kinthiri

I should point out that just a few days before Christmas 09, Microsoft lost its appeal against the initial decision from August and is now legally obliged to remove the functionality from Microsoft Word and Microsoft Office. This includes all existing versions covered by the original court decision as well as all future versions, including the coming Microsoft Office 2010.

Microsoft could save themselves a lot of fuss by simply giving up on the OOXML format and adopting ODF like every other major software company is doing in their own products. It makes a lot of sense and would go a long way to ensuring good will between Microsoft and governments such as the EU. Not to mention the many millions of companies that are forced to use Microsoft Office because of format lock-in.

Unfortunately, that'd make it a lot easier for people to use products other than Microsoft Office and so will never happen. :-(

Microsoft Word Illegal in the US

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Microsoft Word Illegal in the US

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

User Login