- December 23, 2009 6:18 am
Not even 24 hours ago we heard the news that Microsoft lost their appeal to i4i — a small XML developers firm — and that the presiding judge decided to uphold the January 11th ban on Microsoft ’07. Yesterday the two most obvious choices for Microsoft were to pay up and forget about it or appeal again, risking losing more money and another court case. Microsoft however is choosing plan c. Plan C is simply selling new versions of Word ’03 and ’07 without the infringing and “little-used feature” according to Microsoft.
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 Microsoft will escape the dreaded ban hammer on their bread and butter Office Suite, they will also still be responsible for a $240 million payment as awarded by the first judge and upheld by the second. That payment however is still up in the air as Microsoft has stated they are pursuing other legal options. We shall see…
Venture Beat
Chalk this up there on the board of weirdness for Wednesday morning. Apparently a judge in Texas has ruled that Microsoft violates several XML and custom XML opening patents held by Toronto-based i4i Inc. So what exactly does it mean? Well, technically Microsoft is now banned from selling Word in the United States. Though don’t expect that to last as Microsoft has already stated they plan on appealing the ruling which will of course give Redmond plenty of time to keep selling what they have been for years. Now the really interesting part will be if the appeals judge upholds the previous court’s ruling. If you want to get all legal on the issue, the actual injunction from the judge is as follows:
Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
Slightly comical?
Source: Mashable
While the legallity of Miss. Thomas’s actions were always in doubt, the real focus of the cases, (at least in my point of view), was how many songs would she be fined for and how much? Sadly, the judge and jury apparently don’t know the meaning of the word “reasonable” as the fine per song for Jamie climbed from the already proposterous $9,250 to a plain money grabbing $80,000 per song bringing the grand total to $1.92 million (24 songs x $80,000). From the reactions by Jamie and her lawyer, it appears that their will be an appeal as well as a seperate trial as to the legallity of such over-inflated fines. There is not a single piece of music anywhere that is worth more than $10 for a single song. $80,000, your simply ridiculous and out of touch with reality. While it is pretty obvious the Jamie download some songs, I hope she can at least get the fine down. As she stated:
Good luck trying to get it from me… it’s like squeezing blood from a turnip
After lengthy trials and appeals with more on the horizon, I don’t think the labels are going to be able to get anywhere near the awarded amount anytime soon. You?
Source: Ars Technica
Remember that small trial that was hardly talked about? The one that had a few pirates that were accused of swapping a few files online? Ya, that case. You no doubt remember the judge, Tomas Norstrom, was accused of bias and conflict of interest as he was a member of a couple pro-copyright groups – more specifically the Swedish Copyright Association and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property. Apparently in Sweden, such affiliations with the prosecution do not justify a bias. Anyone with any amount of common sense and intelligence can clearly see the conflict of interests and problems that this case had from the start. It is sadly a rigged and fixed case all around. Besides the blatant bias and conflict of interests, the defendants are also going out on a slightly smaller limb and claiming that the Stockholm trial court intentionally yet covertly guided the case to Horstrom to carry out their best interests. Obviously, the courts deny this. Oh well..*Scratches head*….the easily discernible bias continues to grow. Thankfully the appeals court hasn’t reached a decision yet. There’s still hope…
Source: Wired, Image Source
