• English
• German
• French
• Spanish
• Russian
• Romanian

English

Microsoft may have misled market defending Office 2003

While defending Office 2003 over the non-disclosure of potential end-user risks, Microsoft may have misled the market, says Eric Wilson, inventor of ‘Document Display System and Method’ technology. The claim centers upon a report published in two newspapers, in which Microsoft gives the impression using their new software is risk-free in relation to patents-pending.

Microsoft may have misled market defending Office 2003

(Video, pictures and additional resources available from http://invention.docblaster.com/)

(PRWEB) November 3, 2003 – While defending Office 2003 over the non-disclosure of potential end-user risks, Microsoft may have misled the market, says Eric Wilson, inventor of ‘Document Display System and Method’ technology. The claim centers upon a report published in both The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers, plus other international outlets, in which Microsoft gives the impression using their new software is risk-free in relation to patents-pending - questionably assuring the public:

“As a company that relies on intellectual property, we respect intellectual property rights . . . and if we thought there was going to be any liability to our customers we would do something about it. If this technology was available we would buy it.”

(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067213195363.html and http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067213195363.html. At least 11 other media outlets also took up the original story http://invention.docblaster.com/listofarticles.html)

In several similar statements, Microsoft reportedly denies any risk of future Office 2003 end-user liability, which Mr. Wilson says might still potentially arise from various patents-pending. The software giant was made aware of these way back in December 2001.

The newspapers quote Microsoft referring to Mr. Wilson as a ‘very respected developer’, and claims to have ‘taken what he has to say very seriously’. But in fact, the company decided not to consider one of the unpublished patent applications at all, until it ‘matures’ – possibly months or years off. And on several occasions, Microsoft refused to acknowledge further correspondence, which cited other potential end-user risks concerning additional patents-pending:

“After turning a blind eye, how can Microsoft honestly give such sweeping assurances to the market?” Mr. Wilson asks.” We believe proper due diligence has not been performed by Microsoft in time to ensure Office 2003 has no conflicts with patents-pending if they are granted. So surely they must fully disclose to customers any potential risk this might create, such as the licence being amended with extra obligations later, or the price on their box being appended with additional future royalties?”

The inventor says the onus is on all software vendors to openly disclose product development details, because remedies for end-user patent infringement can be retroactive - from the date a patent application is first published. For example, if and when 'Document Display System and Method' is granted, unlawful transactions could be rolled back to late June 2003. In this scenario, if Microsoft’s Office 2003 ‘beta 2’ trial version infringed, over 500,000 users might discover their use of the product was not free as Microsoft advertised, potentially attracting royalties to the inventor instead. Though not yet granted, the International Patent Examiner considers all 30 claims novel, inventive and industrially applicable, giving the pending application a 'clear report'. And so far, Microsoft has failed to substantiate claims to the contrary.

Mr. Wilson says when software makers don’t act appropriately, aggrieved inventors are being squeezed to go down the line for compensation, to the unauthorized end-user beneficiaries of their work. Patent law provides for this, where infringements can result in surprise court orders to decommission systems or pay additional royalties to an inventor. So where the potential risk of this is foreseeable, Mr. Wilson argues, software makers are obliged to properly disclose, allowing the public to make well-informed decisions.

“Some people have objected to our approach,” Mr. Wilson says. “But in the event of our patents-pending being granted and if end-users are found to infringe, they must not expect a free lunch on ill-gotten gains. That’s why we’re warning people now - to consider potential risks - before they buy.”

To his detractors, the inventor suggests in the general case, if end-users don’t trust their IT vendors enough to believe they will always get trustworthy code, they should use free software such as Linux instead. This is developed transparently in the public arena. Or they should insist on iron-clad indemnities from suppliers, covering both direct and consequential damages, which might arise from end-user infringement actions if patents-pending are granted. But to help alleviate the situation from his end, Mr. Wilson says he will publish a guide to help end-users evaluate some of the potential risks for themselves. This will be made available later in the month.

“Generally speaking, we believe Microsoft should always disclose at the point of sale, any potential risk they may have decided to take in product development on behalf of end-users,” Mr. Wilson says, “Customers must not be kept in the dark about any possible danger which can reasonably be foreseen before they buy; For I’m not the only inventor with a grievance...”

ENDS

EDITORS: It was previously reported by many outlets that Office 2003 might ‘infringe’ or ‘breach’ patents-pending, which is technically incorrect. The inventor has always referred to the potential risk of this happening, so as to inform the market, because patent law only allows actual infringement claims to be made after a pending patent is granted. See the previous press release at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/10/prweb85470.htm for more details.

About the inventor and the invention
Eric Wilson is a software inventor and newspaper columnist in the two mentioned publications. In 1999, he started research on ‘Document Display System and Method’. A provisional patent for this and an associated software invention, was obtained with the assistance of an Australian government grant. Document Display System and Method automatically reformats content to fit the end user’s screen and viewing distance, no matter how large or small these may be. The system not only allows for easier reading, but is especially useful when securely accessing document images remotely via the Internet.

To review this international patent application (PCT/AU02/01727) go to http://invention.docblaster/patentapp.html (The inventor’s newspaper columns can be found at http://theage.com.au/technology/opinion/intraining/index.html
or http://smh.com.au/technology/opinion/intraining/index.html.)