.: sora
Global Moderator
(Also, he has 3 balls.)
Posts: 225 
|
Post by .: sora on Aug 17, 2009 18:51:43 GMT -5
ROFL... M$ just got effin' crushed.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrambles on Aug 17, 2009 19:40:12 GMT -5
Good! Open Office / Old Old word 2002 FTW FUCK .docx FUCK IT!
|
|
|
|
Post by brianblack on Aug 18, 2009 17:09:11 GMT -5
Ah, I heard about that. Nothing microsoft can't fix with their obscene amounts of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by pneuma08 on Aug 18, 2009 17:39:24 GMT -5
Who edits .xml in word anyway?
|
|
Whatsit
Global Moderator
Posts: 260
|
Post by Whatsit on Aug 18, 2009 17:44:36 GMT -5
Ahh this is the perfect opportunity for Microsoft B to step in a take over the word processing market.
You know, Microsoft B?
The company that was forced to split from Microsoft after losing that landmark court case from a few years ago?
Let's not be too naive here, people.
|
|
.: sora
Global Moderator
(Also, he has 3 balls.)
Posts: 225
|
Post by .: sora on Aug 20, 2009 10:13:52 GMT -5
Who edits .xml in word anyway? Everyone who uses that silly .docx format, since it's really just XML under the hood. Much as I would enjoy seeing that abomination of a format disappear, and as funny as I think the whole situation is, I find myself disagreeing with the underlying premise. As I recall, .docx is recognized as an open standard, and I know for a fact that XML is. IANAL, but after reading the injunction more closely, I'm pretty sure this sets a dangerous precedent of making the ability to read and manipulate open formats patentable (and will likely be overturned when MS appeals). Also, I find it funny that a company from Quebec can take a company from Washington to court in Texas over using technology that is free for anyone to use, and win. The system is in dire need of an overhaul. |
|
|
|
Post by pneuma08 on Aug 20, 2009 15:36:31 GMT -5
I've never worked with a .docx before. Is it really popular?
|
|
.: sora
Global Moderator
(Also, he has 3 balls.)
Posts: 225
|
Post by .: sora on Aug 20, 2009 15:52:05 GMT -5
The file format is supported by (and the default for) the "infringing" versions of Word described in the injunction - Word 2007 forward, I believe, but don't quote me on that as I haven't used Word in a long time.
I should also point out that it only prohibits the sale of future Word products that support the internal manipulation of .docx (and similar) files, rather than editing those files directly - in which case, you should be using an actual text editor anyway. If they strip that functionality, not only would MS be able to sell Word again, but the world will be better off for it.
Microsoft's major problem lies in the fact that the latest version of Word is so far along in its development cycle. If they had to scrap it, it would no doubt cost them millions in COGS that aren't actually going to generate revenue if this stands, to the point where it's easily more cost-efficient for them to appeal.
|
|
