Microsoft Word to Stay On Shelves For Now
Microsoft has won its appeal to impose a stay upon an injunction against the sale of Microsoft Word in the United States.
Microsoft last week appealed for a stay against an injuntion that would prevent the company from selling or importing Microsoft Word to customers in the United States. The injunction was the result of a lawsuit from Toronto-based i4i, a company that won a patent infringement suit against Microsoft at the beginning of August. Along with the injunction, Microsoft was ordered to pay damages amounting to $290 million to i4i.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday granted Microsoft the temporary reprieve yesterday, ruling that the company had done enough to deserve the stay. "We are happy with the result and look forward to presenting our arguments on the main issues on September 23," Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz said in a statement.
A spokesperson for i4i told CNet News that the Microsoft's "scare tactics" cannot shield it from the Federal Circuit Court's upcoming review. "Microsoft's scare tactics about the consequences of the injunction cannot shield it from the imminent review of the case by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal on the September 23 appeal," i4i Chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement. "i4i is confident that the final judgment in favor of i4i, which included a finding of willful patent infringement by Microsoft and an injunction against Microsoft Word, was the correct decision and that i4i will prevail on the appeal.
Read more here.

...
*dancing people all around the world, hand to hand*
brrrrr
...
*dancing people all around the world, hand to hand*
brrrrr
i4i was using the patented technology. Microsoft willfully infringed on the patent and intended to make i4i's technology obsolete.
They defintely were not sitting on the patent.
Im not doubting you, but i wish you informed us how they are using the patent or a link or something to back your statement up.
I agree with the keep up part, but not the look stupid part. this one was very unnessary...
More on this here
Man it better be Ohio.
No. I feel that the ability of software companies to use the same file types creates competition towards the advancement of better product. While at the same time making it possible for those softwares to be compatible with each other and if a customer decides that the competition has better software they can upgrade or change to it comfortably.
That's precisely the point.
Well said!
No, prior to this story, no one had ever heard of i4i and I challenge a single person on this forum to say they have without being called a big fat liar.
What, you mean like when Apple does it with the company logo from the Beatles, the iPhone name from Cisco, the iPod menu system from Creative, etc etc etc etc onto infinity?
Get over it, even if i4i did own the patent, where are the millions of successful copies of their software being sold. Oh, hang on, isn't it something that is used for Open Source (ie FREE) software?
i4i had a product (targeted at a limited market) that uses it's patented technology, so all the complaints/arguments about them just patenting an idea, not using it, not producing a product, etc are all simply from people who haven't looked into this, many of the articles on this injunction mention that i4i does actually have a product that uses this technology and has since the late 1990's.
I've read the patent application and I'm not convinced the patent should have been issued, I'm pretty certain there is prior art that should invalidate it, but that remains to be demonstrated.
The big problem for MS is that they have internal email showing they knew of the i4i patent and chose to violate it for commercial gain anyway. Had they challenged the patents validity, I might have some sympathy for MS, but they didn't. Instead, they willfully violated the patent and now want to be excused from the consequences of that choice. You knowingly break the law....
Well, I guess since it isn't Microsoft, they don't get bashed. Besides, they'd probably just use the "Well, they did it first!" argument anyways