How will Microsoft get around the injunction on sales of MS Word?

This seems likely : http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136660/_Easy_work_around_could_solve_Microsoft_Word_s_legal_woes_says_expert

Lets Microsoft work around it, giving them time to fight or settle or simply never bother.

If they do this, and none of the others by the suspend date, I think that'd be "other"?

Microsoft Files 'Emergency Motion' to Ship Word
August 17, 2009 | PC Magazine | by Chloe Albanesius

Several days after a judge ordered Microsoft to halt sales of Word, the software giant has moved to stop the ban. Microsoft on Friday filed an emergency motion to request that the court waive the requirement for Microsoft to post a bond against the judgment while the case is appealed, a Microsoft spokeswoman said Monday. The actual document was filed under seal, so the full contents of the request have not yet been made public.

Last week, a federal court in Texas found Microsoft liable of infringing upon a patent held by a Canadian company, i4i, which dealt with the "manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations." Judge Leonard Davis handed down about $290 million in fines and blocked the sale of Word, Microsoft's popular word processing program. Microsoft was ordered to comply within 60 days, or mid-October. In a statement after the ruling was handed down, a Microsoft spokesman said he was disappointed with the decision. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid. We will appeal the verdict," he said. Michael Vulpe, founder of i4i, said last week that he felt "vindicated" by the ruling. He first sued Microsoft over the patent in March 2007.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351691,00.asp

Microsoft Wins Stay on Word Injunction in i4i Dispute

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1963198

This isn't a "Win on appeal", even though it *temporarily* lets MS get around the injunction if the appeal takes longer than the 60 days they were originally granted.

It looks like oral arguments for Microsoft's appeal are scheduled for September 23rd which could potentially resolve as winning on appeal. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. Thank you for the timely and relevant update Tomrcraver.

----

SEATTLE -- The U.S. Court of Appeals has granted Microsoft Corp's request to stay an injunction imposed by a federal court that would have halted sales of some versions of its popular Word application. In an order issued on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Microsoft had met requirements to merit a stay of the injunction. Microsoft asked for the stay two weeks ago, as it requested an expedited review of its appeal against a court ruling last month that found Microsoft was in breach of a patent held by a small Canadian software firm. The Court of Appeals granted the request for an expedited review and will hear arguments on the case on Sept. 23.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1963198

I'm finding it more and more probable that Microsoft will "win on appeal" in the sense that sales of Word will not be blocked - they may still end up owing i4i money for the patent and perhaps penalties for infringement, but I don't think that's what this question is about?

I guess "other" would include "Microsoft actually pulls Word from shelves (and in other news, pigs fly)"?

Not sure this goes either way for the question, but here's an update: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE58M5FW20090923

The judge seemed to not believe Microsoft's claim that they didn't read the patent. (I can believe that they didn't - major corporations tend to discourage employees from looking at patents, exactly because of cases like this. And unless Microsoft itself tried to patent something similar, no attorney would likely have known to look at the patent.)

But the judge did question the size and method of calculation of damage from the previous trial, which would tend to indicate he is leaning toward moderating the award - which in turn might signal that he would be more open to giving Microsoft more time to remove the feature, without suspending sales of WORD on schedule.

60 days have passed. Microsoft Word has not had to be pulled from the shelves, as the original injunction required. So Microsoft could be said to have minimally satisified the condition of "getting around the injunction on sales of Word". I say "minimally", because the injunction is only suspended pending review - but clearly the "60 days" part of the original injunction has been gotten around "on appeal". As usual with complex issues, it comes down to interpretation.

lola - is this question going to settle at suspension, or suspend and settle whenever some news comes out, or extend past the next 6 days?

From recent predictions, I get the feeling that people are assuming that there will eventually be some sort of settlement in the case, rather than any clear win in court. But that seems unlikely to happen by the suspend date, and I've kind of been assuming the question will either be extended or else take the best answer as of the settlement date.

It'd be good to have some clarity on your intentions... IMO - since virtually all civil cases eventually reach a settlement rather than having a clear court winner (because losers almost always appeal, or settle in order to avoid the bad publicity of losing publicly), it wouldn't be a very interesting question if you don't intend to cut it off at some point. Maybe give it another month to cover the up-coming hearings and give all positions a realistic chance, but have a settlement date of the end of November.

I've flagged this question and asked for an extension in the suspension date to allow for the courts to resolve this question in a decisive manner (without making Hubdub wagers sit in suspension until the case is resolved).

Microsoft has already - effectively - won on appeal. But it won't be obvious until the court rules on their appeal or reinstates the injunction.

The point of the injunction was to disrupt sales of Word, forcing Microsoft to negotiate with I4I. Microsoft has already gotten what they really wanted - time to minimize that disruption of Word/Office sales, without negotiating with I4I.

If the injunction should be reinstated now, Microsoft will simply recall all retail Word products, and announce that they're already shipping replacements to stores and other customers. At that point, it should be obvious that Microsoft got around the injunction by winning the right to have it suspended.

I4I probably realizes this, and probably plans to push for the court to replace the injunction with an assessement for all units sold since the first trial. Getting the injunction reinstated would actually cost them money, making it worse than useless, now that it gives them no leverage over Microsoft. So the injunction probably won't be restored at all - so again, Microsoft will have gotten around it when they won the suspension in the first place.