> it implies the relevant tool is the disk format for every Office file
Does it imply that?
Another commenter has already pointed out why it's likely not the case.
But also, I don't think the article is well written. Partly because it doesn't clearly explain what the infringing tool was, or did, or how it operated. Also I'm pretty sure there's a typo in "ex part" instead of "ex parte". But another major issue is the following:
> $40 million of that judgment [against Microsoft] was imposed by the court as punishment for continually arguing that i4i was a patent troll even though it had an operating business in a manner that was “persistent, legally improper, and in direct violation of the Court's instructions.”
What?
Why would i4i operating in a manner that was persistent, improper and in violation of the court's instructions preclude it from also being a patent troll? It could do both?
Or is the "persistent..." descriptor meant to apply to Microsoft? That might make more sense, but the "even though" seems to be a comparison between two types of activity by one entity - namely i4i.
But then again, I might be reading "it had an operating business in a manner" wrong, because it feels ungrammatical to me. I might not be putting the emphasis in the right place, and that's what's causing me to misread the sentence?
Thanks for reading. Sorry if this was confusing! Microsoft said that i4i was a patent troll despite the court repeatedly telling Microsoft to not do that. The judge referred to Microsoft's repeated ignoring of its instructions as "persistent" etc. i4i had an operating business; it wasn't a patent troll. That operating business is niche and small, but it is real. I have updated that sentence to make it clearer. Thanks for your feedback!
Depends on one's definition. I don't think "not having a real product/service" is the defining charateristic of "patent troll". Here's what Wikipedia says.
> attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art
> often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question
Looking back at it again now, I can see the intent of the original sentence where "it had an operating business" refers to i4i, but "in a manner that was..." refers to Microsoft. I didn't get the change of subject at that point.
Maybe an additional comma would have been all that I needed to figure it out: "even though it had an operating business, in a manner that was..."
Does it imply that?
Another commenter has already pointed out why it's likely not the case.
But also, I don't think the article is well written. Partly because it doesn't clearly explain what the infringing tool was, or did, or how it operated. Also I'm pretty sure there's a typo in "ex part" instead of "ex parte". But another major issue is the following:
> $40 million of that judgment [against Microsoft] was imposed by the court as punishment for continually arguing that i4i was a patent troll even though it had an operating business in a manner that was “persistent, legally improper, and in direct violation of the Court's instructions.”
What?
Why would i4i operating in a manner that was persistent, improper and in violation of the court's instructions preclude it from also being a patent troll? It could do both?
Or is the "persistent..." descriptor meant to apply to Microsoft? That might make more sense, but the "even though" seems to be a comparison between two types of activity by one entity - namely i4i.
But then again, I might be reading "it had an operating business in a manner" wrong, because it feels ungrammatical to me. I might not be putting the emphasis in the right place, and that's what's causing me to misread the sentence?
The whole thing just feels confusing.