MS Files For NZ Patent On XML Word Processor Files

heretic108 writes "A patent application is currently being examined in New Zealand, which if granted, would bar anyone except Microsoft from using an XML file format for storing Word Processing documents. In contrast to copyrights, patents allow even the most elementary concepts to be patented. Apparently, nobody here is diligently watching out for such ridiculous patents, so the official deadline for submitting objections has passed. This suggests a likelihood that the patent may well be granted. I am not endeared to the thought that I might be breaking the law when I use OpenOffice.org to write documents, especially since the concept of storing docs in an XML format was certainly not thought of by Microsoft, so have written a formal complaint to my Member of Parliament. Hopefully there'll be a public outcry within New Zealand."

Comments

Prior art, film at eleven

[dacarr]

Other word processors do XML, and have been doing it. It can probably be overturned.

Re:Prior art, film at eleven

[mcdrewski42]

Interesting that patent application 20030237048 in the USA Patent Office lodged on Christmas Day 2003 is for a Word processor for freestyle editing of well-formed XML documents

Abstract
A word-processor that provides a freestyle-editing environment for editing an XML document while monitoring the XML document for well-formedness. The word processor monitors the XML document to determine if the XML document is well-formed and to automatically correct the XML document to maintain well-formedness.

Asignee Name: Microsoft Corporation.

I wonder if they are related at all?

prior

[TheSHAD0W]

Web pages are, in essence, word-processed, and they were one of the first demonstrated uses of the XML format. They include all the features word-processed documents would require, including formatting and font information. I can't see how any judge could overlook this as prior art.

Would you like prior art with that?

[Anaxagor]

Apparently, nobody here is diligently watching out for such ridiculous patents.

When challenged by reporters over the volume of prior art which negates this patent, a Microsoft spokesperson replied "Apparently, everybody here is too patently ridiculous to be diligently watching out."

Without the details, this story is pointless

[Smack]

The title of a patent is worthless. Patents are all about the implementation, and we know nothing about what Microsoft is claiming here.

Honestly, the story rebuts itself:

"Without knowing what is in the patent in detail means it is somewhat difficult to provide a meaningfull objection. "

How can you patent this?

[a.koepke]

Quote from the Wikipedia on XML: "Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of structured text".

It was designed for the storage of structured text. A word processor creates structured text. It is sort of logical to use the technology that was designed to store what you are creating. How is that being innovative or original? If they were using some other technology for this and it was not designed for this usage then maybe they would have a case.

This is like someone creating and image format and Adobe taking out the patent to save documents in that format. It is dumb.

Why a deadline?

[Nucleon500]

The public missed the deadline for doing the patent examiners' job, so another stupid patent will probably be granted. But why is there a deadline in the first place?

Complaints ought to be listened to both before and after the patent is granted. If obvious (OO.org) examples (*.sx?) of prior art are found, the patent office ought to revoke the patent, even if it's already been granted. If the company (patent owners are always companies, hmm...) doesn't like it, they should have to sue.

Bit more

[Tabercil]

Here's the webpage of the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office listing the patent application. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have online the most crucial thing we're all looking for - nitty-gritty details of the patent.

Text of Claim1 of EU version

[JPMH]

It looks as though a very similar patent application has been filed in Europe, EP 1376387. Clicking on the 'Claims' button in the top line of the page reveals:

EP1376387.
Word-processing document stored in a single XML file
Applicant(s): MICROSOFT CORP (US)

Claims:

1. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable components, comprising:

a first component for reading a word-processor document stored as a single XML file;
a second component that utilizes an XSD for interpreting the word-processor document, and
a third component for performing an action on the word-processor document.

... and so on down to claim 31.

This is only a patent application, not (yet) a granted patent (in fact in the EU the patent application has only just been published, on 2 Jan this year).

From the 'priority number' (US20020187060 20020628) it looks as though the original application was for a US patent, filed some time in 2002. So that is the cut-off date for prior art.

The full paperwork file for the EPO patent application can also be viewed, at EPOline.

Is this even possible?

[polyp2000]

I am assuming that someone somewhere already holds a patent for the XML markup language.

The whole point of XML as i see it is to enable information interchange easily on a wide range of software platforms, packages and over the internet. Correctly formed XML not only contains data but it should also contain markup that describes how the data is stored, allowing anyone to read/write to the XML document.

Im guessing that the person who filed the original patent for XML would have made statements towards this effect. Would this not create a conflict between the two patents?

In any case the audacity of Microsoft never ceases to amaze me and this outrageous current application shows that we really need more techies in the right places. They cannot be allowed to continue to abuse the system in this way, taking advantage of people who know no better.