Comments on: Patent Injunction: Microsoft Ordered to Stop Selling Word http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/ Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7972 Gene Quinn Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:03:11 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7972 No problem Katie. I won't be too harsh on IP Law360. Those types of mistakes happen from time to time. With Microsoft being involved I also wondered if there might be a procedural angle here, or if perhaps they were trying to provoke some kind of stall or delay by going to the 4th Circuit. You never know when Microsoft is involved, and frequently they are one step ahead so you never know what legal maneuvering they may be trying to accomplish. -Gene No problem Katie. I won’t be too harsh on IP Law360. Those types of mistakes happen from time to time. With Microsoft being involved I also wondered if there might be a procedural angle here, or if perhaps they were trying to provoke some kind of stall or delay by going to the 4th Circuit. You never know when Microsoft is involved, and frequently they are one step ahead so you never know what legal maneuvering they may be trying to accomplish.

-Gene

]]> By: Katie http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7971 Katie Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:02:27 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7971 Sorry Gene, IP Law360 was incorrect, you are right! Sorry Gene, IP Law360 was incorrect, you are right!

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7914 Gene Quinn Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:44:31 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7914 Why in the world would Microsoft file an appeal with the 4th Circuit in a matter that the 4th Circuit clearly does not have jurisdiction over? Any appeal would have to be filed with the Federal Circuit. -Gene Why in the world would Microsoft file an appeal with the 4th Circuit in a matter that the 4th Circuit clearly does not have jurisdiction over? Any appeal would have to be filed with the Federal Circuit.

-Gene

]]> By: Katie http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7912 Katie Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:30:48 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7912 Microsoft said they filed a motion August 18th with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit asking for an expedited appeal. Microsoft said they filed a motion August 18th with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit asking for an expedited appeal.

]]> By: Lucian http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7910 Lucian Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:31:57 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7910 I think that most of the 5,787,449 patent should be invalidated as is in public domain from the beginning of the 70's. I am talking about basic elements of the "multi value" database concept which are found in products such as IBM U2 databases, PICK, jBASE, Revelation, QM database etc. The concept in question is about having a separate data part and a separate dictionary part, or metacodes. as in the patent wording. Therefore in a multi value database to get a view of your data you have to apply the dictionary, which is there for the purpose of formatting, in the same way the patent prescribes. Also, exactly as described in the patent, one data file may have multiple dictionaries and each dictionary may have multiple definitions for the same data item therefore you may have multiple views of the same data. I think that most of the 5,787,449 patent should be invalidated as is in public domain from the beginning of the 70′s.
I am talking about basic elements of the “multi value” database concept which are found in products such as IBM U2 databases, PICK, jBASE, Revelation, QM database etc.
The concept in question is about having a separate data part and a separate dictionary part, or metacodes. as in the patent wording.
Therefore in a multi value database to get a view of your data you have to apply the dictionary, which is there for the purpose of formatting, in the same way the patent prescribes.
Also, exactly as described in the patent, one data file may have multiple dictionaries and each dictionary may have multiple definitions for the same data item therefore you may have multiple views of the same data.

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7865 Gene Quinn Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:41:28 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7865 Everyone- It seems that there are quite a few who think they have prior art that could invalidate or limit the claims of the '499 patent. If anyone wants to write something up in about 1000 words (+/-) I would be interested in publishing such an article. Thanks. -Gene Everyone-

It seems that there are quite a few who think they have prior art that could invalidate or limit the claims of the ’499 patent. If anyone wants to write something up in about 1000 words (+/-) I would be interested in publishing such an article.

Thanks.

-Gene

]]> By: Steve http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7864 Steve Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:38:54 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7864 Even a cursory reading of US Patent 5,557,722 (DeRose and Vogel, filed 1991) shows that it covers almost exactly the same things as the '499 patent. It's even in the same fairly narrow domain of processing arbitrary SGML documents, and it's very specific about separating out the content and structure (the implementation described literally stores them in separate persistent files). So IMHO, the '499 patent should not be upheld, or at the very least should be narrowed to a tiny sliver of what it now claims. Even a cursory reading of US Patent 5,557,722 (DeRose and Vogel, filed 1991) shows that it covers almost exactly the same things as the ’499 patent. It’s even in the same fairly narrow domain of processing arbitrary SGML documents, and it’s very specific about separating out the content and structure (the implementation described literally stores them in separate persistent files). So IMHO, the ’499 patent should not be upheld, or at the very least should be narrowed to a tiny sliver of what it now claims.

]]> By: breadcrumbs http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7826 breadcrumbs Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:25:32 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7826 For a quite refreshing view from a non-legal and technical [erson (without the usual fervent anti-patent rhetoric), try this link: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/Patent-Ruling-Against-Microsoft-Hinges-on-Meaning-of-Custom-XML-594907/ For a quite refreshing view from a non-legal and technical [erson (without the usual fervent anti-patent rhetoric), try this link:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/Patent-Ruling-Against-Microsoft-Hinges-on-Meaning-of-Custom-XML-594907/

]]> By: Jeff McNeill http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7816 Jeff McNeill Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:35:48 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7816 This is simply poetic justice. Live by the patent, die by the patent. This is simply poetic justice. Live by the patent, die by the patent.

]]> By: Tom Dickey http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/12/patent-injunction-microsoft-ordered-to-stop-selling-word/id=4849/#comment-7811 Tom Dickey Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:56:47 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4849#comment-7811 What steps must be performed to open an .XML file that contains custom XML that are not necessarily also performed when opening an XML file that does not contain custom XML? This is not a rhetorical question, I really want someone to explain this, please. Is the injunction language "capability of opening a .XML, .DOCX, or .DOCM file (”an XML file”) containing custom XML" just a long-winded way of saying "capability of opening a .XML file", or is there more to this technology than meets the eye? What steps must be performed to open an .XML file that contains custom XML that are not necessarily also performed when opening an XML file that does not contain custom XML?
This is not a rhetorical question, I really want someone to explain this, please.
Is the injunction language “capability of opening a .XML, .DOCX, or .DOCM file (”an XML file”) containing custom XML” just a long-winded way of saying “capability of opening a .XML file”, or is there more to this technology than meets the eye?

]]>