This is how the Calif State Attorney General's office pursued SUN Healthcare Group Inc's permanent injunction violations we reported of deaths in a Newport Beach facility -they didn't they instead picked on the hispanic employees in Encinitas!
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/California%20abuse%20case:%20employees%20targeted%20rather%20than%20facility-a0136070745

And when the giant nursing home chain Sun Healthcare Group Inc. violated their California permanent injunction in 2003 in a Sunbridge facility by killing five patients I personally witnessed by understaffing and with broken equipment, the Dept of Justice instead pursued the employees of an Encinitas facility.
In 2008 Claude Vanderwold, the deputy attorney general advised my attorney Eugen Andres and I that the $2.5 Million fine levied against SUN in Sept 2005 did not includes these deaths. Why?
C O R R U P T I O N
Why didn't the Dept of Health issue even one $100,000 fine for a death?
C O R R U P T I O N
Why didn't SUN Healthcare Group Inc. pay for wrongful death for Evelyn Calvert, Richard Laga, Betty Harness or the man in Room 2-B?
C O R R U P T I O N
The board of directors of SUNH have been provided evidence in the past few weeks through their attorney Fonda & Fraser LLP Anaheim, California. It will be interesting to see if they share it with shareholders as required by law. It reveals a HUGE liability they have because I'm a witness and they did not get a confidentiality agreement signed by me in mediation. I refused to sign after my attorney threatened me for SUN's CEO, saying he'd harm me if I pursued my case to trial, because I have the evidence of two board members' willful misconduct -which should have paid us treble damages worth $3-$4 Million.
Why again?
C O R R U P T I O N

Deborah S. Calvert
Newport Beach, California
I can't wait to testify!

The injunction was lifted because Microsoft is taking the case seriously and is readying itself for the case, rather than just ignoring the case for as long as possible. Nothing like hitting someone where it hurts to get their attention.

As for i4i's case, I hope their patent is *not* upheld, not because I'm a fan of Office, but because the patent is so general that it could be applied to virtually any software that uses platform agnostic data formats like XML. It could even be used against HTML webpage rendering, as the architecture metadata (the HTML) and the content (images, etc.) can be manipulated separatedly.

Then again, i4i's primary beef is that Microsoft is imposing itself on i4i's traditional market--pharmaceudical companies. Perhaps there should be limits to market that a patent can be applied, such as trademarks have?

Home of the most money wins, regardless of the merits of the case.

Now we can look forward to i4i being so screwed financially by this law suit that they go tits up, although I guess there's hope that the judgment is upheld and Microsoft gets to pay more.

Nah, I think I'd rather expect to be summoned to be the next Doctor Who than that would ever happen.

While I'm no fan of MS, I'm even less a fan of someone holding a patent on custom XML.

That's not a surprise.

How would we be supposed to write our documents in a world without Word?

M$ Office will be mandatory until developers of Office-wannabe products stop making Office-wannabe products and them think about an actual alternative.

I love how when ever Nick writes about Apple it is all flames and BS but when it is about MS he actually reports, like this article.