Buzz Out Loud Lounge forum: Why you dissing on i4i???

I don't fully understand how custom XML differs from XML. XML is already very customisable. You can put whatever tags you want into it.

and decided not to license but to implement the technology themselves:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/canadian-firm-gets-patent-win-over-microsoft/article1249534/

For an attempt to define what custom XML is, see here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3712

and here:
http://blogs.code-counsel.net/Wouter/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=43

Open standard does not mean you can't patent unique implementations and extensions of the standard as intellectual property.

Don't get me wrong - I HATE frivolous or ambiguous patents that restrict innovation and prevent people from building cool products for fear of litigation, but patents exist for a reason and I think this is one example of where it works.

Sure, they could have sued Microsoft the instant they noticed the implementation in Word, whenever that was. But, they sued in 2007 and probably started investigating in 2006 (I'm guessing here) so maybe they did jump on it as soon as they could and lawyers took years to finally get to this decision with all of their lawyering...

.vt

Maybe this i4i issue is legit. But why now at this point in time do they bring a lawsuit? Why is it on the phone that the i4i guy sounded completely evasive everytime they asked a question? You could tell by listening to him talk that he is on shaky ground. i4i went to Texas to get that decision for the same reason that people file anything with a liberal social agenda to the 9th circuit court. This is not really a victory for i4i or the open source community, and in time it will go away. Plus, whoever has the most money wins in civil court proceedings...didn't say that was right, but that's the way it works.

Just seemed like an abrupt change in tone--was a bit jarring to hear how strong of (anti-) feelings and perceptions there were as soon as the guy got off the phone. It's got to be hard to walk the line of being polite and all while he's on the phone--even if you don't agree with what he's saying or suspect his motives you should give him a chance to preent himself freely--but was taken a bit aback after.

As for the rest of the discussion about XML--I don't have the expertise to argue the technical points, but I took it as they had done work which accomplished useful tasks--not necessarily that the work was stuff that no one else could do--but which any given company might choose to pay them for rather than re-invent the wheel (after finding sufficient talent in-house--not always a sure thing!).

When you come right down to it, isn't Quicken "just" a database? But does anyone take the position that Intuit shouldn't be paid for all the work they did to get it where it is today? Clearly there are others with enough expertise to do similar work--there AREother personal finance programs after all, some of them free--so should no one get paid since it is something that others can also do?

They made absolutely no sense on why they were suing Microsoft they never said what their Paten was. Right XML is open source and they sued them because they have the biggest checkbook. The bottom line was money.