Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patenting Office XML Formats
mmurphy000 writes "News(.com)+ reports that Microsoft has filed for patents in multiple jurisdictions to control the way other applications use Office's new XML-based file formats. Musings from pundits suggest that OpenOffice.org and other applications might be blocked from interoperating with Office. This, of course on the heels of today's article on Bruce Perens' concerns over patents."
How to make a non-proprietary format (XML) proprietary. Gee, wouldn't it just be simpler to cut XML out of Office entirely than to throw legions of lawyers and patents at it?
I can see the headlines now - "RIAA and Microsoft make double bust - RIAA found illegal MP3s and Microsoft found someone using XML output from Office".
Microsoft - "How far do you want your head up your backside today?"
I knew this was coming. Microsoft sympathizers are always so quick to point out "but look, MS is using XML now so why are you complaining about closed file formats". Now this. Why are we not surprised.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
MS Take a Open Source Standard like XML and Wrap it in Legal BS, Cliam it as their own and make money off it
It also destroys what was the entire rationale for XML, doesn't it? What's the point of a convenient medium through which information may be exchanged if everybody starts patenting their DTD's?
Brace yourself for the next version of DOM/SAX/XPath that not only checks to see if the document is well-formed and/or valid, but that also constrains your access to that document based on some new kind of hybrid between DRM and XML Schema.
It's shit like this that makes me want to get out of computers and get into chemistry.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
they make it xml so its open and easy to work with for developers... now they want to try and make it only the developers that pay them $$ ?
Didn't we have this article before ?
ok, so it was last week, but still, jeez.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Trade you my b-tree for your linked-list...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
This is exactly the kind of thing the EU Parliament wants the prohibit, via it's amendments to the doming patent EU unification law. The Parliament has clearly excluded the use of patents that hinder software interoperability. Those of you that want to help us in the battle to sustain those amendments (there is a _lot_ of resistance from the big guys) please join at swpat.ffii.org or softwarepatenten.be in Belgium. Patents are indeed more dangerous than SCO.
Which assumes that OOorg is a marginal product. This may be true in some places, for some time, but after a while the failure to interoperate will become a strong argument to switch away from MSOffice.
Typical scene that is not unheard of today:
"I've sent you a Word document"
"Why not install OOorg and use that instead?"
"What's that?"
"It's like Office but free and doesn't crash."
1 hour later...
"Hey, here's your document, and thanks for the tip!"
Point is that it's much easier to switch someone from paying to free software, and almost impossible to do the reverse. I (as a long-time OOorg user) will spend considerably more effort convincing someone to use the application than any MSOffice user will spend to get me to change back.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I don't think this is as disasterous as is feared (yet). So MS wants to patent their way of saving information to an open standard? Fine by me if they want to set a legal basis for their formatting.
But should they start some shit over other office document compatibility with that standard - THAT my friends will be a war.
Let's not forget that MS currently has a Wordperfect filter built-in to Office - it's certainly no stranger to support of alien formats. Given the tightrope they constantly walk with the DOJ, I can't see this as interfering with something like OOo's ability to open/save to it.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This wouldn't bother me so much if they hadn't made a big point of pointing out how XML lets you interoperate. Well, I guess that's still true, but they forgot to see "for a fee."
Ok, we all already know that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. Will somebody please explain how the "courts" of the USA can allow this sort of action?
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
... and we still will, regardless of these patents (which I haven't even bothered to read about). It's my fucking data, and I'll do what the fuck I like with it thank you very much.
At the moment Microsoft you a proprietry format, which is a pain in the arse with regards file exchange between Word users and the computer literate population :-)
Even if their new format is patented, the fact that it is XML based will surely help in the production of open source decoder/encoder. Better interoperability between Open Office and M$ Office will help whilst the user base adjusts to using well written and properly tested software.
"Microsoft has always played an interesting game when it comes to standards," he said. "They're going to support them as necessary to get technology broadly adopted. But at the same time, they're an (intellectual property) company. That's the case with any big business."
I would have agreed, if after broadly adopted he would have said "they stop playing according to the standard and thereby break compatibility with other software". If you're an analyst on Microsoft, you should know what embrace and extend is, and I think he should have mentioned it here. That is, unless he's partial to Microsoft, which the company claims it isn't.
is for SCO to claim they own all of the code to the unix interoperability services/functions/whatever for Windows. Then Microsoft goes after SCO for using XML somewhere else. Then they can go after each other in court. Let them destroy each other! Yay! Off-topic or is it? It's 5:20am and I'm still awake, ignore this post, I'm an idiot.
Based on this article even the latest M$Office on the Mac can't read all files from its WinDOS sibling.
Bottom line is, if you want to avoid a lock-in a.k.a. pay to view your own documents if you decide to stop using M$ Software, don't start using the 'new' M$Office in the first place.
my 2 cents
WinFS is the long-promised "replace the user-data parts of the filesystem with an RDBMS" feature, and a key part of Longhorn. It basically lets you register an XML schema for describing your data, and the data is then stored not as XML but broken down into a relational database (see also GnomeFS).
The PDC bloggers and MS internal staff are writing extensively about WinFS - especially Mike Deem.
One of the concerns people have with WinFS is "but then any other program could fiddle around with the individual records of what I store, how do I hide stuff or stop them making my 'files' inconsistent by screwing up or deleting individual records" - and if MS want to patent some aspect of their getting Office ready for this, does it mean we're all supposed to patent our XML before we stick into WinFS ??
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
This is the type of mentality that I truly fear. The type where we are too shielded, much like Japan before and after WWII. If we become too guarded and too introverted nothing will be shared and it will again be a space race situation (I'm making alot of fuzzy historical refrences - I apologise). I have a feeling that over time Microsoft is going to go down the tubes. While at first they simply wanted to guard what was theirs (a reasonable thing to do - even if it was something not worth guarding) they then wanted total control and they don't know where to draw the line (think Mike Rowe). I would personally like to see Microsoft analysed by some independent (and if this were to succeed, much like communism, there would have to be no greed in his heart) ethics consellor. Sure everyone in the US has the right to capitalism and its benefits/pitfalls but no company should be able to *legally* disable every other company through such a simple means as this. Of course if we could implicate Microsoft in some sex scandal or corruption case... In other news, Micrsoft has been implicated in the largest corruption case known to the United States and likely the world - the complete corruption of every file on a Windows machine! In other news several major Linux distributors and Apple computers saw a 600% increase in their stock value
The article wasn't too detailed on what the patent covered but if they do patent it doesn't that mean that they have to release the full spec for their format? And if that happens then other Word alternatives could be created giving people more alternatives.
Also would it be possible for me to "make" a file reader/convert for my own private use?
Hmm. I can think of lots
wait, scratch that.
-pyrrho
not that anyone for a moment should have suspected these douchebags would.
they're just speeding up the inevitable, making even more clear why software patents suck ass, and why it's urgent for everyone to reject proprietary technologies NOW. RIGHT NOW. the sooner you do it, the sooner the pain will be over, and the sooner you can start reaping the rewards.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I think that Microsoft is now in the early stages of SCOitis. Our products suck but we have some questionable IP and we're going to make that our major source of revenue.
Arf!
The bottom line is MS technology should not be used in any way, and we should not belive a bought department of justice will do something about it.
This may sound paranoid but is unfortunatly true. Once you are stuck with MS products they may change the license for new versions as they see fit. If it were not for Linux, Windows would be really expensive today.
Anyone else remember back in the day when all hardware was proprietary? (I don't, it was before I was born, but yeah, I've studied the history books). Think we're headed there with software?? Think the big geeks will ever learn from their mistakes? Open source rocks.
---
Luke
Luke Wertz Website
I finally get it!
1. Base your new Office suite on an established format.
2. Modify the standard.
3. ???
4. Profit.
MS have finally filled in the ???
"The proposed patents apparently seek to protect methods other applications could use to interpret the XML dialect, or schema, Office uses to describe and organize information in documents. Microsoft recently agreed to publish those schemas and is looking at opening other chunks of Office code.
Despite those moves toward openness, the patents could create a barrier to competing software, said Rob Helm, an analyst for research firm Directions on Microsoft.
"This is a direct challenge to software vendors who want to interoperate with Word through XML," he said. "For example, if Corel wanted to improve WordPerfect's support of Word by adopting its XML format...for import/export, they'd probably have to license this patent.""
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS. THE REAL MOTIVATION FOR THE PATENTS = ATTEMPT AT CREATING A ROYALTY INCOME STREAM. YOU WILL SEE MORE OF THIS AS MICROSOFT TRYS TO PROP UP ITS FAILING PROFIT MARGINS.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Ages ago (back when this was a Windows box) I downloaded a little thing for GIMP that let me make GIFs. This was legal because I live in Europe with no software patents as of yet (fingers crossed/touch wood). .doc is: 'you may only use this module if software patents do not apply in your country.' Of course there'd be no way to stop Americans downloading it, which would be just terrible!
OOo could offer something similar if the patented XML format became as popular as the
WTF are they doing patenting this shit in NZ? NZCS, where are you guys on this? And anyway, didn't OpenOffice.org use an XML fileformat before the MicroSoft clown did?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I just saw this on the Slashdot front page and I was thinking, "Microsoft really does want to own everything. Good thing there's always Open Source..."
Then I looked over to the right... and I saw...
An ad for Microsoft's Visual Studio. On an Open Source web site.
What is the world coming to?
September 1, 2003 Eweek 'Longhorn' Rollout Slips
I need to talk to my local Microsoft rep and get their words on tape - it's getting like you need a Law degree to do IT these days
This file format will only become widespread (and hence a threat to open software adoption) if Office 2003 adoption becomes widespread - which I don't see happening right now.
Companies and individuals are starting to take free software seriously. It doesn't have to be Linux - why not give someone a Windows PC (no licensing apart from what it sold with) and OO.o? If OO.o can gain serious market share before Office 2003 does, the whole thing becomes a non-issue.
Use proper W3C XML or OOo filetypes...
Didn't OOo do this kind of thing first with their XML filetypes? MS filed this in June 2002 in NZ, so surely OpenOffice.org has precent for a "Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML" maybe sans the "single file" part, which would have to be an obvious follow on?
BTW, more info is on the NZ Open Source Software portal.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Win2K will interoperate will any K5 client as server and any K5 server as a client. Those who claim otherwise are spreading anti-Microsoft FUD.
Have you tried to make Win2K work as your KDC in a K5 environment? Admit it, you haven't. Well, I have, and it works just fine.
Hate Microsoft if you want, but damn them for things they've actually done.
I guess it's flattering to be greeted by your own words when you click on a story, but it doesn't change the fact that this person, devnullish, completely plagiarized what I wrote a few months back on another MS XML story. He did go through the effort of changing my "socialism" to his "communism", but I'm not sure why he bothered ...
...
I wish I could prove this, but I can't list any comments beyond my last 24. Honestly, why would I accuse someone I don't know of plagiarism if it weren't true?
Shame on you, Mr. DevNullIsh
Move development overseas where software patents do not apply (if it's not developed overseas already). Microsoft come calling, and they get given the middle finger.
Microsoft may stop it being exported to the US, but the backlash against that could possibly get some of your insane congressmen to do something about the situation.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
The pentavarit:
Microsoft is a convicted monopolistic corporation who still retain a 90%+ share of the desktop OS market and yet still continues to directly use and indirectly fund anti-competitive business practices.
Does this mean I can take an open standard for creating documents and then patent the fact I used this open standard to do it?
...that haven't been done before?
My brain is having a tough time with this one. Is it like I create a web page with html and then patent the "method" I used to create it? But, wasn't the "method" I used html?
I suppose I could create my own parser and say if in the schema you see "wxyz" then do "1234" with the document. Is that an "Invention", a patentable method?
What could they possibly be doing with a word document that isn't prior art? Just how many ways are there to manipulate text?
I guess we'll have to wait for them to publish what they "invented" so we can find out...
There must be more legal action occurring now then ever in history, and most must be revolving around the software industry. Very sad. Is the US the only place this is happening?
If they patent the method of storing wordprocessing documents in XML, then it really does not matter?
They might as well go back to store it in a old completely close standard.
They always claim that what they do, are in the users best interest but instead of helping their users and doing the computing world some good, by using some open standard, they not only make sure that it might as well have been a completly obscure format and cripple the usage of a open standard as well. If anyone had any doubt, then that should be a proof that their interest is only to make money, and Bill's words about all the research and development they do, to evolve computers is not to help the people, only to make money.
It's not that I think there's is anything wrong with making money, but a company with a monopoly have a obligation not to create barriers that not denies others to create products.
However, I'm a New Zealander, and I'd love to actually try and shoot down this at the NZ patent office based on the wonderful prior art that is OpenOffice.org. However, I saw these two "claims" in the patent:
The rest of the patented method applies to OOo, as OOo provides schemas and writes out a well-formed XML document etc. etc. etc. However, I'm not sure if OOo provides "hints" in the files (anyone care to comment what MS is on about there?).
The kicker is claim [0009]. If you save a
IANAL, but this appears to mean that this patent is "sufficiently original" (haha) that it can probably slip past the rubber-stamp-brigade at the patent office as OOo won't be citeable as prior art. Apparently the NZ patent office is sufficiently stupid that they recognise the "one-click" patent, so I don't hold high hopes for this one.
So, has anyone heard of a word processor that has an XML file format that contains all its binary data? If so, post links under this thread
P.S. And NewtonsLaw, if you're reading this, I hope to see a plan of action on Aardvark tomorrow
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
Some may recall, for example, this past article on this topic here, or the specific license terms offered here, the key points of which are specifically GPL incompatible.
When national governments choose to build and distribute information, such as the Danish national government has, on patent license encumbered document formats, whether or not royalty bearing, possessing field of use scope, disclaiming of certain legal rights such as to bring suit, or other specific restrictions, or even composed of terms permitting unlimited modifications to the license by the license holder, as this one also does, such governments are creating restricted markets in the public's own goods. This is of course fundimentally improper and certainly is also illegal restraint of trade in the European Union.
There are many implications in having patent encumbered XML schemas, all of them negative for the schema so encumbered. I had long ago considered this specific possibility and considered what actions I would find nessisary to take when that day arrived. One option I think might be useful is for those in Europe to file a brief with Mario's office (European Competition Minister), and note how this issue relates to their current anti-trust case.
Microsoft are probably trying to do it to prevent another SCO fiasco, where some company patents it and later they find that they need to completely change the office format, or discover that apperently that company now owns the office format. They dont stand a chance of getting the patent, and even if they did, they would lose it, but they are probably just paying it safe..
Overall, blame the intoduction of software patents, then we wouldn't be in this mess. I do hate that MS are patenting an important ability of a standard, but lets face it, blame software patents because without them, not only would microsoft not be able to patent it, but also, either would anyone else, which would eliminate the requirement for them doing so.
#! /usr/bin/python :e ()
import sys
finput = open(sys.argv[1], "r")
foutput = open("/dev/null", "w")
for line in finput
foutput.write(line)
finput.close()
foutput.clos
print "%s parsed. Thank you!" % sys.argv[1]
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Patents do nothing but slow down an industry and promote laziness....
1) Ford, which is considered the model on how to build cars and do processes HAD to get around patents so that he could build a car that EVERYONE can afford.
2) Windsurfer which invented the windsurfing board had a patent, which they only enforced two years before the end of the patent. Until five years before the end of the patent there was no Wind surfing industry. Windsurfer then cashed in and forced bankruptcy of major windsurfers. Where is Windsurfer today? Sitting on money doing nothing.
3) Laser had a patent which caused nobody to do anything with lasers. Once the patent expired we ended up with laser pointers, last light shows, etc, etc..
4) Patents CANNOT be bought and defended by "small" people. Patents cost about 40,000 EUROS a pop and this is not money for the "small" company. This is money for the large company.
Now about your reference to MS and Internet Explorer. Say what you will, but Netscape was no better than Microsoft. I was around in the Netscape days and they were bastards. Once I represented a company who wanted to purchase five thousand licenses to Netscape. Netscape ignored the company because it was too small and companies like Deutsche Telekom were more important.
Microsoft might clone ideas, just like all of the other companies do as well in the industry. The software industry is like writing, we all clone!
The problem in software are the contracts. For example why do I have to buy Windows 5 times for a single computer?
Sir, I would have wished that you would have used your lawyer abilities to reign in the contracts instead of going for the easy cash in Patents. Remember you are going to be responsible for a mess that *I* have to live in.
It's the first post, the editors have a script to mod the first post down automatically.
I'm sure the OOo people could say that their file formats use XML and therefore count as prior art, making this patent invalid whatever microsoft say. The patent office couldn't really ignore thousands of geeks emailing and phoning them up about it, could they?
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
Yup! I agree 100% with every syllable and sentiment in the parent message. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
happened because it plugged BSD onto it's system and made extensive use of quality FOSS software on it's client/server OS X. With Safari it even gave back to the community earning a huge karma bonus. Before the osx days I wouldn't touch an Apple with a 10 metre pole but now I own one and I root for it (with the effect of two private iBooks an XServe and other eMacs office stations bought). This Microsoft shit makes me even more anxious and determined to spread the apple word, liberate the clients from M$dom and Applify what can't be Linuxified. So many times has Microsoft crossed the threshold of decency, it has to be stopped. I want to live my IT life freely; Microsoft's attitude perpetually challenges this freedom; Microsoft has to be reduced to compliancy. This 'patent scandal' is just another good argument for us to talk people out.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Because it is threatening its biggest cash cow. The Windows cash cow has already been slaughtered by Wine and Crossover office since people no longer need windows to run windows programs. Plus, the growing number of Native linux programs are also reducing this need for Windows. You can right now run Office under linux and other applications so there is no need for Windows.
Now Office is threatened by OpenOffice.org. A fully functional Office suite that is compatible with Microsoft files, and for free! OpenOffice 1.1 came out recently, and it is becoming insanley popular. It dosent have the speed problems that 1.0 had, so if you hated OpenOffice because it was slow, try it again and see that 30 second start up times are no more. Id be surpised if anyones machine takes more than 10 seconds to load on this version. Also the latest snapshot builds are even faster, so grab a copy and live fast.
The file format inport and export is very excellent, and of production quality. I have worked on documents that are 100s of pages long and they are PERFECTLY exported into doc foramt. I really applaud the OpenOffice team for reverse engineering all these file formats.
So yes, this quality Office Suite is Scaring microsoft. They know they cant use their usual tricks, so they need to use other methods, such as FUD and patents.
So, if you havent tried the latest OpenOffice.org yet, try it today, and see why Microsoft is trying to patent it away. Plus it has two killer features, PDF creation for Documents and FLASH (SWF) creation for Presentations.
Download
Version 1.1
Development Version 680_m20
Yes, boycott, that's all
After a bit of searching, i've found activity at IP Australia. The application titled "System and method for supporting non-native XML in native XML of a word-processor document" sounds scary!
IANAL, but what there is to patent? XML? Use XML to make a document? And StarOffice/OpenOffice?
Ricardo da Silva Lima
I find many lines in your script pretty redundant, and it wouldn't even run. The proper implementation should be:
#!/usr/bin/python
import sys
finput = open(sys.argv[1], "w")
finput.close()
print "Thank you for using Microsoft products. Have a nice day with your new document."
It's only a big lie if W2K is used for the server. There's no way in hades that I'm using a Windows box for a DC on my networks.
Back to the original point: Kerberos is a protocol which Microsoft has extended, placing their extensions under trade secret status to prevent others from benefiting from the work. That's the thing that they've actually done to irritate me.
GPL: Free as in will
By saving documents as XML files, the new Office will allow back-end computing systems such as corporate databases to retrieve and reuse data from documents.
Anyone else see the patents as an excuse to charge companies that develop Office/XML solutions for corporates additional licensing fees with this patent?
Seems to me that patent law needs to be updated to reflect today's challenges and today's technology. Otherwise, there will be other obvious cracks where folks can patent a derivative or specific implementation of an open work. This is the work for Congress - who are the sympathetic ears in Congress?
I can imagine Microsoft being a victim of it's own success here.
.htz?) that would be great.
If by using DRM/Palladium etc. to prevent both:
- Using ripped off copies of Word
- Interoperability with Word
Suddenly a word document will be vastly less useful in the wild than it is now.
Right now I, my mother, her dog and it's accountant can all read Word docs one way or another but none of us have shelled out for Office, and we probably never will.
I actually love using basic HTML for docs, the only problem is that "a document" is actually a bunch of resources. If there was some encapsulated for (a simple zip even?
(This is where someone calls me a Bozo and tells me it already exists...)
just a thought
M$ will make you upgrade to the newest version or product XXX or your computer (supposedly running Windows) will not load it. Ahh, 1984ism in the government, 1984ism in the banks and now 1984ism in the world of Computers. I just hope it isn't 1984ism in the supermarket!
bahhh...
/usr/bin/python) .read ())
#!
import sys
open('/dev/null','w').write(open(sys.argv[1]
sys.stdout.write("%s parsed. Thank you!" % sys.argv[1])
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
yours doesn't deal well with huge files.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
I dont get this!
3 23 7&mode=thread&tid=155&tid=99
...
Isnt there already a patent on XML that says something along the lines of
"Open Standard To enable information interchange between different platforms"
or
"Method for describing the way data is stored and for containing data in such
a way as to allow information to be easily interpreted in a standards
compliant manner?
etc ?
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/232
I dont see how anything like this can get passed, and surely it would conflict
with any existing patents on the XML language itself?
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Since the 1st story was posted, did anyone try to contact the Kiwi Patent office about this issue? If so can you tell us what happened?
Let's see, using a tag format like XML for word processing documents. Has anyone looked at, oh, SGML recently? (Interestingly, I note that Microsoft has removed from TechNet the old articles on SGML and Word -- and i can't find them on archive.net -- anybody seen them? (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/desk/office/word /sgmltool/sgml_fct.htm)).
Microsoft will claim what they can, and get what they can get. They won't get what they seek, certainly not in the US, and the EU is tougher on software arts patents than the US.
The claims are ludicrous:
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.
struktur AG in Germany presented in March 2002 at CeBIT 2002 fair its XML plugin for Microsoft Word which enables Word 98/2000/XP to edit and save any Word document in a XML format called WordML and in one single XML file. What a surprise, isn't it!
2 695_xm l_dokumente_in_microsoft_word_mit_neuem.html8 95&tem plate=bc_0_aktuelle_meldung_detail
r dxml/
icoya WordXML is a extension for Microsoft Word in order to convert Word content easily into the open, format-neutral and manufacturer-independent XML format. Content can, without any special technical knowledge, be structured and saved as XML using a common Word template.
Several press releases heave been published in June 2002 on other sites. For example here
http://www.contentmanager.de/magazin/news_h
and here
http://www.bwcon.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=20
The development of WordXML goes back to June 2001. The first public announce of the software was in January 2002.
A descripton and the software is available here: http://www.icoya.com/produkt/wordxml/
The source is on sourceforge project wordxml
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/wo
Cheers,
Poolness
XML-based capabilities have been one of the main selling points for Office 2003, the new version of the market-leading software package. By saving documents as XML files, the new Office will allow back-end computing systems such as corporate databases to retrieve and reuse data from documents. XML support also allows Office to become a client for viewing and manipulating data from Web services and complex enterprise applications, such as customer relationship management software.
So now they are going to patent something to stop this major selling point? Either they have decided they actually dont want people to be able to use corporate databases to retrieve and reuse data from documents, or they have just decided they want everyone to pay them more money first. Either way they think they are the inventors, owners and sole developers of XML and they're using stupid loop-holes and copyright laws to get whatever they want.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Like nobody saw that one coming.
Basically, if MS gets patents on this, we're talking about the end of XML as a non-proprietary standard. It would be bad on many levels, but it's not like the world wouldn't be able to recover.
XML is just a standard way of specifying languages that can be parsed. The main advantage I can see of XML is that it allows the parsing components to be reusable, and those parsing components can handle things like different character sets.
It wouldn't be that hard to come up with a competing isomorphic standard that could be shimmed into existing XML applications with a few adapter classes. Let's call it YML Simple tools could transform languages into this format into the equivalent XML and back.
Maybe it would be a form of SGML; maybe it would be something which addresses known shortcomings of XML like its lexical bloat. Personally, I'd like to see the schemas represented in BNF. Might as well use a notation designed for specifying languages; this idea of the schema being in the same format as the language is really just a parlor trick; it's more important that the schema be convenient for people to work with; machines can translate into YML if necessary.
Next, you would protect it with every form of IP known to man, and assign the rights to a non-profit foundation chartered to keep the use of the format free to all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think as part of the settlement, - for any compay that has ben found to hold an illigal monopoly - that patents should not be granted during the period of recovery (the period when the market ss being restored back to a competitive nature)
Doesn't anyone else see this move as anti-competitive? It is not for the purpose of the advancement of arts and sciences, as XML schemas are so cheap to design and implement. This move is squarely to maintain lock-in in the 21st century. No company with an illegal monopoly should be able to do that.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I can't believe I see more than a hundred comments here but no one who realizes what's happening here.
"Government seeks discount deal with Microsoft". Headline sound familiar?
No, not the American government, the New Zealand government, where the patent was filed. New Zealand government and business have already started moving to OpenOffice. Just ask google. For Microsoft, this is a crapshoot, but if they can stall OpenOffice adoption, then they get to keep large government contracts. Besides, nothing stops them from adding an OOo file reader if it becomes an issue in the future.
Angry russian hackers broke into the siberian missle control centre and issued five launche permits to nuke redmond out of existence. As is appears from the air, no stone has been left standing of the redmond Microsoft campus and of Late Mr Gates' mansion.
It is believed that 30.000 people may have died in the carnage, but is considered to be much less severe than the 9/11 attacks since: "these guys all knew they were working for the devil. They should not have been suprised when the devel came to collect their souls", as some friendly geeks stated.
The rest of the public is more concerned about the scandal with GW Bush: how much did he really pay to rig the elections and is he allowed to deduct this figure from his income tax.
OK folks, here's the claims from the EU patent. Go ahead and see if you can find anything orginal or non-obvious in them:
Claims of EP1376387
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.
2. The computer-readable medium of Claim 1, further comprising a validating component configured to validate the word-processor document.
3. The computer-readable medium of Claim 1, further comprising a fourth component for displaying the word-processor document.
4. The computer-readable medium of Claim 2, wherein the XSD represents a word-processor's rich formatting.
5. The computer-readable medium of Claim 4, wherein the XSD is published and is available to applications other than the word-processor.
6. The computer-readable medium of Claim 4, wherein the word-processor document includes hints to applications that understand XML.
7. The computer-readable medium of Claim 5, wherein the action may be selected from parsing, modifying, reading, and creating the word-processor document.
8. The computer-readable medium of Claim 5, wherein the action may be fully recreating the word-processor document according to a word processor's set of features.
9. The computer-readable medium of Claim 8, wherein the action may be storing an image within the word-processor document as a binary encoding.
10. The computer-readable medium of Claim 9, wherein the action may be storing template information as a binary encoding within the word-processor document.
11. A method for handling a word-processing document, comprising:
parsing the document, wherein the document is contained within a single XML file and includes all of the instructions necessary to display the document according to how a word-processor would display the document; and
interpreting the document according to an XSD.
12. The method of Claim 11, further comprising displaying the document according to the instructions contained within the single XML file.
13. The method of Claim 12, futher comprising modifying the document so as to conform with an XSD file.
14. The method of Claim 13, wherein the XSD includes definitions for all of the features incorporated within the word-processor.
15. The method of Claim 12, wherein displaying the document further comprises formatting the text according to style and properties contained within the singe XML file.
16. The method of Claim 11, further comprising extracting text from the single XML file by searching for single tag indicating that the information following the tag is text.
17. A system for creating, interpreting, and modifying a word-processor document stored as as single WPML file, comprising:
a WPML file;
a validation engine configured to validate the WPML file; and
a word processor configured to read a WPML file created in accordance with a schema.
18. The system of Claim 17, wherein the word processor is further configured to modify the WPML file in accordance with the schema.
19. The system of Claim 17, wherein the word processor is further configured to output the document to a display.
20. The system of Claim 19, wherein the schema is published and is available to applications other than the word-processor.
21. The system of Claim 19, wherein the WPML file includes hints to applications that understand XML.
22. The system of Claim 19, wherein the word processor is further configured to create a document according to the schema.
23. A computer-readable medium having a schema encoded thereon, for a word-processor markup language, the schema comprising:
a properties element;
a styles element;
a body element, wher
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Hopefully, this will be considered a blatant anti-trust violation if they attempt to use this patent. A judge should bar them from preventing interoperability with products, and not suing for patent violation from such use.
...the really interesting aspect of the article: what MS is actually trying to patent.
But I'm still confused by this part of the article. I've written many applications which use methods which interpret various XML dialects. There is nothing particularly different about Office schemas that would require any different methods. All of the apps I've written used Perl modules or Ruby classes published long before MS filed these patents. Understanding the XML data or even the schemas was never very hard. I never found myself wishing for some technique that would make it easier.
If MS has come up with something that I felt I had to have, it would have be cool enough that I'd be willing to pay for it. If it wasn't truly amazing, I probably wouldn't pay for it. I'd just keep using what I'm using now.
I have some difficulty imagining Microsoft coming after me some time in the future and saying, "That software you're using, which was written long before we filed our patent, violates our patent."
Sounds like grounds for a great countersuit to me.
Maybe if someone could explain what methods are being patented it would make more sense to me.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Here is teh small but crucial difference:
OOo puts all data in a few different XML files and teh zips them up. The W0rd XML stores everything in _one_ single XML file. There you go. I gues its called patenting an implementation process or something.
...the [0009] section reads suspiciously like a definition of XML. Or maybe a promise to use XML the way it was intended. While this may be novel in Redmond, it's hardly patentable.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
...like an explanation of why the "invention" is not patentable: It points out that, once you're using XML, somebody else doesn't need to know what (theoretically patentable) methods are being used by MS to be able to use the data in the XML file created by a Microsoft product.
Unless they're claiming to have patented the concept of encapsulation.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
I think there are several possibilities for software like OpenOffice.
First of all, I don't think (IANAL) that MS can prevent applications to read the XML files, only to generate them. This was also the case with the GIF file format. So in that case, one could write an import filter in OO to read the XML, and export in Office97 format. Surely MS will not drop the ability to read their legacy file formats.
In case reading is not allowed, one could write an import/export filter for MS Office products to read the OO formats, and distribute that freely.
Ghandi fought illegitemate law, by not cooperating with it.
Doing the right thing, and suffering the consequences.
It could be interesting if the entire world violated software patents just like its violating copyrights - but also willingly suffer the consequences/punishment. According to Ghandi this is the most effective way to fight the illegitmacy. By willing to suffer the consequences, you are effectively making your opponent's sword worthless.
So now you know... the rest of the story. Good day.
"We dont trust Brazilians"
"Fuck Brazilians for not trusting us"
This patent seems chanceless in EU anyway. Pure software patents are not allowed, and even patents that involve software, but not just software have exceptions for "compatibility" sake.
At least, thats how I, nonlawyer, interpret it so far.
"/Dread"
I'm filing some patents myself, but they are new algorithms + implementation. when I was looking at what to file, I could have done a MS move, but I chose not to. It would make me look stupid and retarded for trying to patent pure software that has absolutely no value other than being retarded. Patenting an algorithm that is new and makes significant advancement like encryption algorithms should be patented.
Once extracted, that information can be reused, repurposed, indexed or reassembled for any other medium that supports XML, regardless of the server, application, or platform.(Taken from here)
IANAL but I remember reading a post from a lawyer on the SCO case that any company that sells you a good or a certain purpose, then later on changes it's intended usage and as a result sues you can be in deep water. Any programs that I write to read/write Office 11 docs will now make me a criminal, even though I bought into the technology because Microsoft said I could do just this!
One thing I always wondered in these patent discussions on Slashdot is this: if we find a patent has been filed with the US Patent Office, and we get all uppity and upset and up in arms about it, is there a way to contact the Patent Office concerning prior art? There must be some way that the American public can help out the poor disgruntled workers there.
They only reason I can see this not being the case is if an evil competing business (or Slashdotter) decided to delay the patent indefinitely by doing some sort of the equivalent of a DoS attack on the patent office by sending so much material that it never all gets reviewed. Such an action of course would be made (or is) illegal.
Is there a system like this in place?
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Microsoft will get a major buzz word, XML, in its product advertisements without actually using an open format. As technical people we may understand that one of the biggest reasons for using XML is to communicate data in a way that is universally accessible, but our PHBs don't know or care. And they're the ones who are ordering the copies of MS Office...
Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
That's disgusting, we had a microsoft representive come to our university promoting it as an open company because it provided open standards, and saying that it was unfairly labeled a closed company. Open, yeah right. It appears microsoft has it's own definition of what open standards are.
Whats the matter can't think of something unique on your own? Waaaaaaaahhh big evil microsoft won't let us leech off of their ideas!
If you already have Office before the XML craze [holy shit, a text file with labels, shit this is like fucking new!!!! fuck text files!!!!] then use it.
Otherwise if you are new to the desktop scene just skip MS Office and use OO.
Fuck, OO is like 1/8th the size, free, portable, etc...
There really is no reason whatsoever to use Office. It's a bloat piece of shitty software.
Oh and babbabooey babbabooey howard stern rocks!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
As I underestand it, if MS patents their file formats, that will prevent anyone without a license from generating files in MS Office formats, but it will not prevent people from displaying them or converting the information into other formats. That's because such patents are for methods of "storing" information. I know this seems pedantic, but law is pedantic, and I'm thinking of the precedent of LZW compression. Without a license, you couldn't generate GIF images but you could display them and convert them. So, although I'm distrustful of Microsoft (and don't use their products), and opposed to software patents, perhaps these patents aren't as dangerous as they seem. Any lawyers know for sure?
Just hold the damned phone. As per the LICENSE on Microsoft's own site, does anything actually prohibit building an interoperability plug-in, or (as others have suggested) a simple OpenOffice.org <---> MS Office converter? Disregarding the GPL, for the moment?
Frankly, I don't give a flaming rat's patootie if the MSOffice plugin/converter thingie is GPLd, so long as it works. What on earth is to stop the OpenOffice.org folks from creating a separate project, call it say the "Wordverter", which reads and writes Word files, and which adheres strictly to the terms given by MS?
Who gives a damn if it's GPLd? It's just a plug-in. The rest of OOo won't be affected unless MS finally manages to get a patent on the concept of a word processor, or a trademark on the word "Office"... Which, even in this era of megacorpocracy, seems unlikely... (for now)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
There are a littany of posts decrying the patent system every time an issue like this comes up. There are invariably dozens of posts saying some idea or other was ripped off from OSS work. Here's the deal, if it's important to you, protect it. Patents can be taken out by anyone. You want an idea to remain free? Then get the rights to it and make it so. Start a movement, raise the cash, and make it happen. Whining after the fact is a sorry excuse for inaction. Hate the patent system? Get in gear and organize a formal complaint.
Corollary to all this: if no change is taking place then noone else cares or sees a problem.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Go ahead and see if you can find anything orginal or non-obvious in them
I never would have thought of filing such stupid claims (all of which boil down to "using XML for a word processor file", and nearly all of which have been implemented in OpenOffice for years); does that count as "non-obvious"?
Since when does a company not have the right to own its own software?
They are patenting this for several reasons:
1. So they have legal coverage.
2. So their customers have legal coverage.
3. Since it is in their product
4. Must there be a 4?
At some point dont be suprised if the government MANDATES the useage of 'approved' software, on 'approved' hardware if you intend on doing interstate business. And they CAN do this. They already mandate safety protocols and using 'approved' safety devices.
If they call it 'homeland safety', then nothing new has to be passed to enact this control.
Of course we all know what will be approved and what wont. ( one hint: the ones with the most money to lobby with )
Even if the government doesnt, it would be easy to 'back-door' this by getting insurance companies to raise rates out of sight for companies that dont use 'safe' software.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
At the time of the European Software Patent legislation coming in, it basically IIRC excluded patents on obvious inventions that weren't to do with extending computer science.
Furthermore, it's an obvious patent. Take structured data and convert it into XML. That's no grounds for a fucking patent.
If they grant this patent I'm standardizing on OpenOffice that day.
Taken by itself, this would indeed be scary. *However*, Microsoft has published the license for the XML schemas to Office and it allows software developers to create software that reads and writes the schemas without royalty. Only thing is that the terms of the license prohibit the software from being licensed in a way that would conflict with the terms of Microsoft's license (GPL is likely one such case).
Is Microsoft paying Adobe?
Because an XML-markup structured document looks and feels an awful lot like a PostScript-markup structured document.
What we really need to do is re-interpret the language of the Patent offices' mandate. 'Obvious', when used to describe if something should be patentable, needs to be interpreted such that, if the thing can be built by someone "knowledgeable in the field" just by looking at it, then it (the design) is obvious and cannot be patented.
This would effectively eliminate patents. Example: I look at a paper clip I can make one. I look at one-click shopping I can write it. I look at the Microsoft XML I can build a system that outputs the same thing.
The one exception that is usually brought up is drug development. And in aswer, the reason it is so expensive (the reason drug companies claim to need a patent) is actually a requirement imposed by the government (the FDA). If the government imposes special financial barriers to entry it can also give special financial incentives, perhaps the average costs of bringing a drug successfully to market (include the failures) + 20% rather than a 19 year patent.
System, method and program product for software development which was awarded United States Patent #6,658,642 to Megiddo, et al.,December 2, 2003. The assignee is IBM.
Abstract
A system, method and program product for computer program development. A new computer program to be developed is outlined and the outline organized to identify required modules. Required modules are provided to the system, which categorizes them and posts a list of required modules with corresponding requirements on, for example, a dedicated web site. Module requirements may include module specifications, a corresponding price and a deadline. Software developers intending to participate may provide an intention to submit. If fewer than two developers intend to submit module candidates for one or more required modules, the computer program outline may be reorganized to encourage more participants. For each required module where at least two module candidates are received, the candidates are tested for compliance with corresponding module requirements. A module candidate is selected for each required module for inclusion as a module included in the software package and payment is transferred to developers of the selected module candidates. The selected module, candidates may be included in the computer program and the computer program may be tested.
I'm sure all of you can see where this patent is leading.
philtr
I often work for these contracting companies. They always want my resume in .doc format. I have tried to explain that rtf, html, or plain text, will work. Unfortunately, my attempt to explain, only seems to frighten, and confuse them.
.doc format. Unfortunately, I feel certain they will switch to the newest ms-office, and msft formats.
If not for these clowns, I would have no reason to ever save a document in the
The OpenOffice XML file formats are great (actually human-understandable XML, and uses gzip to keep file size down).
I have a strong interest in both data mining and the semantic web, and Microsoft file formats are more than a small nuisance to me.
-Mark
But can they? It's one thing to file a patent, and even get the courts to uphold it. But with technology as simple as this, there's always a way around it. That's what Thomas Edison discovered when he tried to use IP law to give himself a monopoly on motion picture film. He couldn't get a patent, but he did manage to get an enforceable copyright that prevented his competitors from making film with the right kind of sprocket holes. Solution: competitors designed cameras that punched the sprocket holes as the film was being shot.
The obvious workaround here is to write and distribute the necessary plugin in a country that doesn't recognize the patent. Or simply distribute it with the same kind of guerrilla tactics that work so well for DeCSS. Lawyers can shut down one big conspicuous server, they can even put individuals in jail, but you can't stomp out simple bits of technology with a C&D letter. There are just too many informal distribution channels.
Of course, many big companies will avoid this software for fear of DMCA prosecution. But they have an alternative -- one which I personally rather prefer to simple Microsoft format transparency. The problem with WordProcessMLis that it's fundamentally as unstructured as RTF and the .DOC formats. If I wanted my OpenOffice users to be able to interoperate with my Word users, I'd prefer a format that's a little better structured. So rather than a OO plugin for Microsoft's XML, I'd want a Word plugin for OO XML. Or better yet, a truely structed document type specially designed for whatever documents are being shared.
typo: "where they are references" should be "where they are referenced"
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Tell me, does the Patent and Trademark Office ever deny a patent application?
It really doesn't surprise me at all that Microsoft is pulling this kind of shit. It has shown itself repeatedly to be absolutely ruthless in pursuit of power and money.
The real problem, IMO, is the Patent and Trademark Office and its propensity to grant all manner of patent applications, from the blatantly obvious to the outstandingly stupid. I'm sure that part of the problem is a lack of funding and an insufficient number of patent officials.
I'd like to see our next president reform our patent policy. We need a much more strict standard for patent approval, and the PTO should be able to fine applicants who file applications for trivial or obvious "inventions," the size of the fine being linked to the applicant's market capitalization. Raising the bar for patent approval and discouraging trivial applications should reduce the number of applications that the PTO has to process, thus making it possible for patent officials to take a serious and critical look at each application.
Reducing the number of patents granted would surely offend businesses, but in the long run I think it would work to their benefit as they would spend a lot less money on patent-related litigation. The only businesses that would truly suffer are the ones that make patent litigation their main business model, such as SCO.
Microsoft was just pissing off the OSS community at LinuxWorld in NYC this week, spouting lies and nonsense about how Windows is based on "open standards", is a POSIX operating system, and is almost open source, so it's just like Linux. Now they patent the "public" DTDs of their private version of their Office "open standards". You can almost see their cheshire smile sparkling as they whisper "read my lips: no new patents".
--
make install -not war
After reading the patent, it sounds like MS is trying to patent using XML to store WORD PROCESSING documents in a single file with an accompanying schema. Not just documents from MS Word, but ANY application.
IANAL, but doesn't this look like this could effect other word processors from using a single XML file with XSD?
This seems a bit generalized. Saving data from applications into a single XML file isn't a new idea. And schema's were designed to validate XML documents, nothing new here. I don't see why using this concept with a Word Processing application is anything unique.
If this does get approved, what would be the ramification of creating a plug-in that transforms Word XML documents into other formats and vice versa using XSLT?
Is an XSLT template an application? Could the act of applying an XSL template to another word processor document and ending up with a XML MS Word document be a patient violation?
Interesting questions, indeed.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnkerb/htm l/msdn_pac.asp
I'm wondering if Microsoft keeps a secret list of sleazy tactics in reserve, and once one becomes widely know, like by Bruce Perens, MS figures there's no reason to keep it under wraps any more and unleashes it.
This is what they are going to do to MONO, too. Stay far away from their formats.
"After reading the patent, it sounds like MS is trying to patent using XML to store WORD PROCESSING documents in a single file with an accompanying schema. Not just documents from MS Word, but ANY application."
If that is the case, then the patent is bogus, and we can safely ignore it. StarOffice/OpenOffice have been storing word-processing documents as XML for at least 4 or 5 years.
0 1 - just my two bits
Here in South Korea (and I'm willing to bet a good chunk of SE Asia and China), software piracy is rampant. So much so that I've never seen anyone with a legal install of either Windows or MSOffice (I post this using a pirated copy of Win2K). How much will Palladium increase sales of Hangul (locally produced word-processing software)?
If you're working with a document of any complexity and it's length is more than 50 or so pages, you really ought to be using LaTeX.
Microsoft is off their nut. So is the USPTO if they approve this.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
If this is ridiculous. Here's the scenario: 1) I create a weird format named "wedir" 2) I store all of my application info into this, which include binary and what not. 3) I then claim that there is no prior art, so this must be patentable. With the above case, it's obviously absurd. With M$ case, the format is xml, and happen to be known and used by many. Also, there are many prior art. My application that I created uses xml, and store binary and what not.
Maybe it's time to break from the lemming-like rush to format absolutely everything in XML.
If you want a concise, readily-parsed alternative, consider UBF - don't let the title of the paper throw you; it's really about a lean alternative to XML.
Or just enjoy some alternative viewpoints on the subject at the Portland Pattern Repository's XML Sucks page.
I'm a great fan of LaTeX. I used it throughout my academic career in maths and later CS, with great success. I've also helped friends in entirely non-scientific fields to use it when writing their theses. That include not only the useful tools for indexing, cross-references and such, but also the community and packages that come with it: I've created numerous diagrams using METAPOST, and a whole foreign language character set, even mapped onto the usual Roman transliterations of Hindi, using METAFONT.
However, LaTeX is not for everyone, and I think your statement about any complex document over 50 pages is a hugely inappropriate generalisation. I also do some minor publishing work to support other groups I work with, resulting in heavily formatted brochure-style documents. LaTeX wouldn't have a prayer at getting the kind of precise control we're looking for here, and doesn't come close to supporting some of the features we need in a useful way.
It's a great tool, but not a universal solution to long, complex documents. As you say, use the right tool -- but that may or may not be LaTeX.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I am reminded of what Microsoft said in the Halloween Document:
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
This new patent scheme also explains why, in any discussion of the use of Open Source by governments, some poster always pops up and says, "We don't need Open Source in government, we only need Open Standards."
I guess the idea is that Microsoft's Office XML would still qualify as an "open standard" even though only Microsoft could use it.
The sooner Microsoft is crushed, the better off we will all be.
...by none other than IBM.
United States Patent #6,658,642 was awarded to Megiddo, et al. on December 2, 2003. The Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation of (Armonk, NY).
System, method and program product for software development provides that "Software developers intending to participate may provide an intention to submit."
This patent goes a long way to explain IBM's, Novell's and Microsoft's interest in OSS. philtr
FWIW, at a previous job, I was helping to set up a long document, essentially a big directory for internal reference. The text wasn't heavily formatted, but had many numbered lists, and a few headings. The page count was around 300. At that stage, we found Word (an older version, this was late '90s) grinding to a halt, literally: pressing an arrow key to scroll resulted in a ten minute wait before the screen was redrawn. OK, the computers were not as powerful as today's and they've updated the software a few times since, but it seemed to be due to some daft internal limitation, their own version of "nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM".
The best part was that when we called, taking advantage of our expensive support contract, we were basically told in as many words, "That's too bad. Word's not really meant for long documents, and you should be using more appropriate software for a project like that." And that's from Microsoft themselves!
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
patent or no patent - one thing is for sure, Worm after Worm (WaW) will be the end of it. Formats and implementations of such, that are done right will emerge as winners. No need to fight the patent - rather refuse .docs and point people to openoffice.org. I believe that openoffice.org will bring windows down faster than linux will. Either way it's endspiel for the right-clickers.
Is there an accepted way for people to protest patent applications like this??? I mean the only defense one really has is to make sure the patent never gets approved. Once approved the thought of anybody successfully fighting MS on this issue is bound to be a nightmare.
So how about it guys how does one successfully keep this patent form bieng approved?
So Microsoft looked at Java, saw the benefits it had to offer, and decided to create a similar technology that included more advancements. Now Sun sees the enhancements that .NET has over Java, so they include it in their next version of Java (its happening, do some research). This is not a bad thing. The Java guys didn't invent programming languages, believe me. They're work is based on people that came before them.
Proclaiming that one technology is similar or based on another technology does not diminish its value.
What about a simple xslt stylesheet? Since OpenOffice (as well as most Linux alternatives) uses XML, you'd just write a stylesheet. Then you use xsltproc (from libxslt) to convert Word to OOo. This isn't too user friendly, so you write a file import plugin/extension for OOo (and AbiWord) which allows the user to add stylesheets and associate them with file types (using libxslt as a backend).
The reason for all of this is that we've essentially made a very user-friendly and yet sexy and modular way of importing and exporting any XML format that we have a stylesheet for. (Well, a pair, really -- you need one for the export.) So now if we really want to open a Word doc, we just go find a stylesheet. Being XML, it would probably be a tiny file, and easily available from filesharing networks (Kazaa and so on). Maybe some MIT people would break it down to six lines of (xml) code, like they did with DeCSS.
Either way, I think Microsoft would have a hard time suing over a stylesheet. And if they could sue anyway, a stylesheet is small, easy to distribute, and safe (If I download a stylesheet from an anonymous person, it's pretty impossible to put a virus in it.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Their overall revenues are at a record high, but their classic revenue streams from regular OS and Office sales are flat for the first time in their history. Their core profit areas are down, which is why they've been branching out for years in anticipation. But I believe if they lose their core markets their done for, not matter how well they do in other markets. They can not remain a major player in any market if their OS and basic apps don't remain monopolies.
Developers: We can use your help.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use xml as a document processors file format given that abiword already does this.
I believe that abiword could be used as a flat out 102 rejection saying that any xml file format would be obvious. Also given that fact that XHTML is the current HTML standing and waiting spec.
Does anyone know how to contact the patent examiner on this? I'm looking at uspto.gov, but not sure how to tell them how obvious this is.
When I was there I rejected a patent filed by Microsoft for their font data structure as I believe that it is just a data structure and there was nothing unobvious about how you lay out the font data. Especially given the fact that they gave me their old font data structure. In my opinion this is no different. Its just XML!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Here are a few thoughts about Microsoft's WPML.
- It's based on W3 standards
- It stores data in XML format
- It has a companion XML Schema Document
Now, if I understand WPML correctly, it could be possible to transform core WPML elements to OO [Open Office] or other formats using XSLT. Of course, OO uses multiple files and MS embeds them in a single document. But It's quite possible that you could use extensions to XSLT to aggregate multiple files for converting to WPML, output multiple files when converting to OO, xform encoded data to stand alone files, etc.
If this is the case, the ability to xform documents between OO and WPML could be completely embedded in one or more XSL style-sheets, which is completely standards based.
This means that applications that support exchange using standards like XSLT might be able to convert WPML documents on the fly if the user provided it the correct XSLT templates to go along with it. In other words, the program would have no application specific logic for converting Word XML documents. It's all generic.
The tricky part becomes making styles-sheets available to standards compliant applications, which goes back to my first post.
Are XSL style-sheets applications? Could a client that needs you to build an app which saves XML Word documents point your application to these style-sheets at run time? If they need to read Word docs, then it's quite likely they have licensed some MS technology when they purchased Office.
Hum.....
No, it's not fully human undestandable XML. OOo uses binary XML sometimes which ain't that clear for humans.
Marcin
Who's the marketing genius that decided the name of the *application* should be OpenOffice.org? I mean, why isn't it just "OpenOffice"? So that people could say "I use OpenOffice" instead of coming up with dead stupid appreviations like "OOorg"?
Sometimes the sheer obtuseness of open-source thinking confounds me.
The image is just a man's face.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Do you really believe that Microsoft would play unfair by hijacking XML. Use it's monopoly power in conjunction with a policy to embrace, extend and use patents to make it legally impossible for others to use their variation on an open standard that the entire world will be using due to Microsoft's HUGE market share?
I'm shocked that people might believe this! I know that Microsoft has in the past embraced and extended other people's works making it difficult to be inter operable due to the fact that they were not forthcoming in these extensions thus forcing others to reverse engineer their work. But that's in the past. Microsoft was found to be afoul of various laws and has an agreement to clean up their act.
And although XML's human readability would make patents one of the few viable options to prevent other's in the software community from having a level playing field I'm sure that Microsoft has learned from its past mistakes and is taking a higher road.
Excuse me. I have to go throw up now.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Where do they think they are going, if they want to prevent me from using My Own Work in any way I prefer to?
Once I save the document, it is mine. If I want to read or even change it, using my own software, I should be able to do just that.
So please architect, hand over the plans so someone else can fix the house I've built with it!!
--------
* Sigh *
When one of my colleagues, one of those "stinkin' Mac users" from the famous Dilbert cartoon, started sending me Word docs, I had to beg or borrow a copy of Word and get used to it fast. At the time Word Perfect was a lot better in many ways -- figure layout was much less brain dead.
What sealed the deal and sealed the fate of Word Perfect was that our U became part of a statewide Microsoft site license. Funny thing, the site license was only with MS, but all kinds of talk about going around "auditing" faculty computers kind of disappeared after that.
In 2003, the U and the State decided not to renew the deal because MS started getting greedy. I am trying to get used to Star Office -- heck if I used Word Perfect, switched to MS Office, what is the big deal running Star Office? But our lawyers tell us we can still run "legacy" versions of MS stuff at work -- just no upgrades without paying for individual licenses -- so it may be awhile before Star Office gets traction.
...of what any XML/XSD app should do?
Or am I missing something here?
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
There was some other OpenOffice. The .org was added to distinguish it from that and avoid any legal difficulties.
"Sometimes the sheer obtuseness of open-source thinking confounds me."
I suspect you find yourself confounded not infrequently.
Don't know if there was anyone like that in NASA. Max Faget has been called the American Korolev, but I don't think we was anything like a "Chief Designer" in terms of the scope and breadth of jobs he had to take on -- I always thought NASA had a layer of management and administration even on top of their most gifted technical people so those technical people wouldn't get bogged down.
Maybe the closest to an American Chief Designer would have been Clarence "Kelly" Johnsons of Skunk Works fame.
Very cool, thanks for the info... I was looking into this a while ago, but never found the info you describe... guess I should have searched the RFCs. :)
Now if only there was a bit more ubiquitous and complete support for inlining resources (transparent insertion, extraction, loading, saving, etc.), it would be much more useful... e.g. though I can view your Data url, I can't save pages in that format (or even properly view an mhtml formatted file, last I checked) in Opera.
You *do* know that you're a total dickhead, don't you?
Now shut up with your idiot conspiracy theories and go back to playing with your action figures.
When plain text isn't enough we need to use Microsoft formats because so many people can read them. We can't use other formats because only a few people can read them.
So, let's change that.
What an individual can do
Whenever you need to send a document, send it in OOo 's native format. You'll get a reply back saying 'I can't read this', to which you reply with something like one of:
Obviously you have to pick your moments. Not a good idea to do this to an important client, or with your cv when job hunting, but other than that just do it!
One thing an authority (business or academic) can do
Mandate that documents sent by applicants / suppliers are in OOo format. If questioned about this explain that you use OOo internally and can't risk any mistranslations
For hardware vendors
There's a local chain store that sells their own house brand of (sometimes rebadged) computer accessories.
In recent times I've noticed that they are filling the unused portion of the "driver" CDs with OOo. So far I've received copies of OOo with a TV tuner card & an ADSL modem.
No idea why they have chosen to do this, maybe they just see it as a low cost way of making it look like they can bundle software like the "big boys"
So, if you're sending out a CD and there's space on it, pop in a copy of OOo.
Summary
There's many ways to get people to adopt open software. Evangelism is one, giving it to people is another, even forcing it down people's throats.
Let's get out there and get the world on open software.
Just yesterday I read a story coming from Redmond that Microsoft would play nice with others. Oops, I guess that story lasted shorter than the article. It's not like Linux is trying to kill Microsoft or anything. If Microsoft were to die because of Linux, it would merely be an unintentional side effect. (oops)
If OpenOffice.org documents become OASIS certified we could have our governments to state that all Office software that want to make its way in government to be compilant with that standard.
So microsoft would have to way to lock countries and enterprises.
It's totally ridiculous that I need Microsoft Office and so, Microsoft Windows, in order to read my government papers!
Would it be possible to patent the process of creating win32 executables and DLLs? What if it was possible and the ownership was transfered to GCC och GPL. In my dreams, it would put any Win32 executable under GPL.
Not that I believe it could be done, but I guess there could be more patent targets than GIF and XML out there...
If each slashdot reader just more-or-less randomly selected some software patent and filed request to revoke it due to some prior art, the patent office could be effectively disabled due to amount of work related to fighting those requests. And then maybe they would do something with the problem?
I know this seems pedantic, but law is pedantic, and I'm thinking ...
Pedantic means showing off your knowledge to the point of being unnecessary. So the law is not pedantic. This response is pedantic. Perhaps you mean thorough or exhaustive.
How about we get M$ pay for license for using XML in the first place?
....or SXC for spreadsheets ;)
The OpenOffice.org file formats are close to being what you describe - they are XML with CSS and other properties defined, and then zipped into, SXW or SXC files. You can open an SX* file using any application that supports unzipping, and extract the individual components as you like.
Perhaps OpenOffice.org could challenge the validity of MS's patent on the basis of prior art using XML in THEIR document formats!
Visceral Psyche Films
I'm sick of a lot of things happening in the world right now, a well as in my own country (Australia). One issue is that of software patents and copyright. Another (far more important) is the American government's actions both domestic and foreign.
So instead of bitching about it, I decided to DO something about it. I have taken a political stand, by becoming political: www.neteffect.org.au
I'm currently seeking enough members to be officially recognised as an Australian political party (rules require 500) so if any Australians wish to help please visit the link.
Visceral Psyche Films
I love self-referential comments!
When I worked for Microsoft 15-13 years ago or so, I was taught that Microsoft Word for DOS had stored newer features in a format that could be stored/rendered by earlier versions (back to 1.0) but would render in newer versions as the actual feature.
Just to make this grok'able, say that 1.0 didn't support tables, 2.0 did at one level, and 3.0 supported nesting. Rather than (or perhaps in addition to) 2.0/3.0 using some feature-specific tokenizing, 2.0 would perhaps use line-drawing characters to represent a table in a way that hadn't been expressed before, and 3.0 could perhaps use a different set of line-drawing characters for the nesting.
Thus, files using newer features would be horribly bloated. And I think there was danger of tripping on documents that had coincidentally used ("collided with") what they planned to use before they actually implemented. They abandoned this when they went from WinWord 1.0 to WinWord 2.0, IIRC.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)