=?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFt4bWwtZGV2XSBZYWhvbyEgVGVjaCBhcnRpY2xlIG9uIGluanVuY3Rpb2

["CHET ENSIGN, BLOOMBERG/ B-LAW" <censign@bloomberg.net>]

Actually, the i4i patent wasn't laughed out of court. Here is the wording from the final entry on the docket sheet: 

"FINAL JUDGMENT. Deft Microsoft Corp is found to have unlawfully infringed US Patent 5,787,449, and to have infringed the '449 patent willfully. The '449 patent is valid and enforceable, and Michel Vulpe is found not to have engaged in inequitable conduct with respect to the '449 patent. i4i's damage award is found not barred by laches. The Court awards damages to i4i for Microsoft's infringement of the '449 patent in the amount of $200,000,000. i4i is further awarded enhanced damages of $40,000,000 for Microsoft's willful infringement. i4i is further awarded post-verdict damages of $144,060 per day from 5-21-2009 until the date of this Final Judgment. i4i is further awarded pre-judgment interest of $37,097,032 up to 5-20-2009 and $21,102 per day thereafter until the date of this Final Judgment. i4i is entitled to post-judgment interest for any time period between the entry of this Final Judgment and the date upon which i4i receives payment from Microsoft as ordered herein. Microsoft is enjoined from infringing the '449 Patent. The terms of that injunction are contained in the separate Order of this Court."

I set a track on the docket so that I can see how quickly MS files their notice to appeal. But for at least the opening round, the court has ruled unambiguously. I have a copy of the injunction but I haven't read it yet...

---

From:	Kurt Cagle<kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
To:	<amyzing@talsever.com>
Cc:	<cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Cc:	<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject:	Re: [xml-dev] Yahoo! Tech article on injunction against MS Word
Date:	08/13/2009 2:53:4

---

I think it serves as an interesting counterpoint to the Microsoft XML Word Processing Document patent that the Redmond company received earlier this week. The IADS patent is clearly silly, and there is, even at that point, enough information that an Amica Curiae could be filed by anyone in the XML community, if they were so willing to get involved in this. On the other hand, it also serves to point out the Microsoft patent isn't all that much less silly, and more significantly does not represent an innovative new technology but clearly an obvious use of an existing technology. Of course, it being Microsoft, that one will probably stand, while the other, equally spurious patent gets laughed out of court.


Kurt Cagle
Managing Editor
http://xmlToday.org

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:41:13 -0500, Len Bullard wrote:
> We really need to find a copy of the SGML systems still extant.  One gets
> tired of the patent disputes.  We depend too much on the web for resources
> and forget the design history of our technology predates the web.

Uh.  Probably something that needs to be done; possibly true that folks
forget.

Relevant to the current case?  Doubtful.  It's the eastern district of
Texas.  You could patent ice cream there.  Or bread.  When judges in
appeals circuits start making jokes from the bench (they have),
credibility of such cases, regardless of merits, drops to nil.

Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
Money can't buy happiness, but poverty can't buy *anything*.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php