Okay, I've redone this post.
This lawsuit is over custom XML - I never saw it in our use, because we never used custom XML.
Basically, MS and i4i did custom XML is a similar, but fundamentally different way. i4i claims MS's method infinges on i4i's patent.
My legal department (aka, my manager, who spends *WAY* too much time on the net looking this shit up) sent me these links:
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/08/mi ... -pate.html
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/08/mi ... l-pat.html
Reading those, I have to agree with Jeliffe - something's odd about all this - there doesn't seem to be infringement, and it's all so damn
confusing I strongly suspect that the Texas courts (which are *known* for being a soft touch on these issues if you're the plaintiff) were trigger happy.
This lawsuit is over custom XML - I never saw it in our use, because we never used custom XML.
Basically, MS and i4i did custom XML is a similar, but fundamentally different way. i4i claims MS's method infinges on i4i's patent.
My legal department (aka, my manager, who spends *WAY* too much time on the net looking this shit up) sent me these links:
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/08/mi ... -pate.html
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/08/mi ... l-pat.html
Reading those, I have to agree with Jeliffe - something's odd about all this - there doesn't seem to be infringement, and it's all so damn
confusing I strongly suspect that the Texas courts (which are *known* for being a soft touch on these issues if you're the plaintiff) were trigger happy.