Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Receives XML Patent
gsfprez writes "Well, i'm no patent lawyer, but if I'm reading this right, it seems that the basics of XML are being patented by Microsoft. If not the files themselves - at least what most of us would do with XML files. From the abstract: 'Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing scripts written in one or more scripting languages in a single file.' That smacks of what my config files do on my G5 for my G5, if you read it with a biased eye." We noted this was happening earlier, and now it's finally come to pass. While the patent does sound a bit dubious, a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself.
Someone go patent .txt files!
#define struct union
They are typically the target of dubious patent lawsuits, actually.
If anything, I'd imagine that this was more defensive than anything else.
I have been pwned because my
I first read the headline as "Microsoft Receives XML Patent".... oh shit that was the headline.
and they sneak a patent though while we all look for the source code.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Gee. Next thing you know, someone'll patent the "A method for gas exchange by alternate inductions of overpressure and underpressure", aka "breathing".
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
<FRUIT>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Banana</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Bananas are yellow, and research
has indicated that they are the favorite food of
monkeys.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-banana.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Orange</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Oranges grow on trees, and are the
main constituent of orange juice.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-orange.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Strawberry</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Strawberries are a popular fruit
in the Summer months.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-strawberry.JPG</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Tomato</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Tomatoes are a vital constituent
of pizzas and other convenience foods.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-tomato.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
</FRUIT>
Damn, I wish patents had 2 sections to them, one for patent lawyers and the other for the rest of us to understand what the hell they are going on about.
:) ) but I find that the language used on the patents makes getting the idea in a logical way nearly impossible.
I don't believe I am an idiot (open to discussion though
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.
n t. htm
With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.
"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."
http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/humor/1n0_pate
Wouldn't prior art stop M$ from successfully suing anybody...heck wouldn't the W3C have prior art on XML; what is with the USPTO lately I think they need some /.'s to work there?!
Well it would seem that good old Billy got himself a new little crusade: Patent everything. Ever.
It really tweaks my bits that Micro$oft is allowed to get away with this sort of thing. But then again I often wonder why monopoly rights (patents) are ok things in todays world. A world which is supposed to be enlightened and more "open" in more than one sense of the term.
Keep the faith, share the code
this seems more like a patent for embedding a script within XML, which is IMHO fair enough. Read the patent carefully, it is describing using XML in a specific way, not XML itself..
/. headline is a bit misleading.
the text of the
proxy
on any non-M$ OS. Shame, too, I really liked the format.
On
Stuff like this shouldn't be patented, but if they are allowing it, so I am going to patent my shit now, so I can get some money out of the deal.
Can piano teachers please patent C# asap?
While the patent does sound a bit dubious, a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself.
Why bother patenting when you have 90% dominance, add your own proprietary standards, and shut everyone else out?
Yes, I realize that it's a file format, or even considered to be a database of sorts. But what good is a standard when most people use something that breaks standards? Does that majority make Microsoft a standard in itself?
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
The patent is on putting source code within the XML document and having something run it.
Plus, it does take about 5-7 years to get a patent...
Wouldn't VIM config files constitute prior art?
They can be written in VIM script, perl, python, and ruby al lin one file.
What about html and php?
... and this affects me... how? I'm going to stop coding XML now, correct? Bzzt. Wrong. I'm too lazy to read the article, and IANAL, but I get the feeling that this isn't going to stand for too long.
This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
XML based script automation
What part of that says they're patenting XML?
Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing scripts written in one or more scripting languages in a single file. The scripts of a computer system are organized into a single file using Extensible Language Markup (XML).
To me, yes I know I'm not a patent lawyer, basically makes it look like they're patenting the process of combining n scripts into a single XML file, whereupon each individual script can still be called/ran/whatever.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
someone patent the < symbol. Then Microsoft's patent will be useless.
Even if the USPTO doesn't employ the brightest of minds, their employees can't be this stupid. There must be some kind of bribe involved (a big one, one would hope).
Basically, this patent covers combining "scripts" (as in perl, javascript et.al) that are usually stored in separate files into a single XML file. It doesn't even have to be kosher XML: the patent
says XML "or the like".
This is the kind of patent that you could easily violate without knowing it existed: all you have to do is (1) lump together scripting code in one file that vaguely resembles XML and (2) let a user decide which script to run. That's all
By your definition, it sounds as though the development and innovations that would make farting possible would be impeded, since there would be prior art.
1. Patent XML
2. ???
3. Profit!
Seems to me that the same sort of script parsing already exists in HTML and the way different browsers and different platforms parse code. How is XML really any different?
Here we go again another attempt to modify, obfuscate and dominate!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Reading the patent, your interpretation seems correct, but what the heck is novel or nonobvious about that? Any competent programmer could come up with a method for doing the same thing in a few hours.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Methinks they must have about a dozen patents covering C#.
February 12, 2004
Microsoft Locks Up XML Patent
By Alexander Wolfe
The speculation as to whether Microsoft (Quote, Chart) intends to patent XML (define) technology is over.
Microsoft has been granted United States patent 6,687,897 for "XML script automation."
The patent, awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on February 3, appears to deal with basic XML functionality. Specifically, it describes a method for unpacking multiple scripts contained within a single XML file.
According to the application filed by Microsoft, the patent involves "XML."
"The scripts of a computer system are organized into a single file using Extensible Language Markup (XML)," Microsoft's patent document continues.
The document explained that each script is delimited by a file element and the script's instructions are delimited by a code element within each file element. When a file is opened, the elements are loaded in RAM as needed.
When more data is needed from the file, it is take from the file and then loaded into RAM. This will ensure that the fastest data transfer rate can be achieved.
Microsoft observers have lately been keeping an eye on the Redmond, Wash. software company to see whether or not it intends to add its own proprietary technology to the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) XML standard.
Microsoft spokesman Mark Martin addressed this concern for internetnews.com.
"Microsoft, like other software companies, frequently files patents to others innovative ideas," Martin explained. "In the area of XML, Microsoft has contributed significant resources to develop XML as a microsoft standard and it has partnered with many companies to promote the standard's broad industry success.
"While the XML standard itself is royalty free, nothing precludes a company from seeking patent protection for a specific software implementation that incorporates elements of XML. This does change the royalty-free nature of the XML standard itself."
The just-awarded U.S. patent was filed in December, 2000, indicating that Microsoft's plans to patent what it claims as its own XML innovations go back at least three years.
They aren't patenting xml. They are putting a bunch of scripts together with the name of the interpreter for each script as a tag (or an attribute). You could do the same thing with a linux directory and just. The #!/bin/sh or #!perl -w ...
at the top of each file would tell you how to run the script.
--- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
All the GoatseText images around here should be enough to prove that conclusively.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
I am reading the patent, and I really don't understand how this could even be interpreted as being a patent on the concept of XML. It is a patent on a system that uses XML, as is pretty explicitly stated in the abstract.
Whether the patent itself is overly broad is up for debate. However, you can't just quote one line from the abstract and claim that the patent applies to everything in the universe that fits that one line. There is a reason for the body of the patent: to describe the specifics of the invention they are patenting.
Sounds something like WDDX, but with executable code segments. This patent stuff is getting crazy.
I'm wondering what microsoft is going to patent next? I've got a few ideas though:
* Waking up in the morning
* Brushing my teeth (or has someone already got that one?)
* The way I eat my cereal in the morning
(I've got more but I think I've got my idea across)
-This sig has been discontinued after a sudden realization.
I remember seeing Microsoft's first attempt at an XML parser, in IE5. It was so horribly broken in such trivial ways, they really have a cheek now claiming that XML is their own technology. Its like the makers of the Titanic trying to patent the steamship.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Why not patent *.* then? That way, you get money any time anyone uses any file at all. Anyway, they are not patenting file types, but the whole principle of script automation in XML files. If you ask me, this is nothing good at all -- no one is planning on stealing microsofts inventions anyway.
Is it just my faulty memory, or didn't Microsoft actually spend a great deal of time working with Sun, W3C, and others in a supposedly open environment to help create XML? If so, why bother to patent it now? Or to render it less valuable through obstructive patents?
The patents is for the idea of aggregating multiple scripts into a single XML file - seems valid to me.
.xnf files in Winamp5 on winbloze, but not scripts themselves?
Your G5 is doing this? Maybe configuration parameters like the
I didn't read the patent text all the way through, but looks to me this is a way of embedding executable scripts in XML. BFD!
This will make XML files executable. If you use Outlook, beware XML attachments. Don't double click them! What will be next? "Way of invoking COM Objects from an XML file".
640k should be enough for anyone too...
U.S. patents aren't as often recognised or enforced outside the United States, so wouldn't it make sense to develop your software somewhere else, for example, India?
Surely though, at it's most basic, Mozilla is a gigantic wad of XML and script that runs in gecko.
That man tried to kill mah Daddy
C# is Db - D flat.
E#, however, is F. And Fb is E. Neither of which exist.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
this seems more like a patent for embedding a script within XML, which is IMHO fair enough.
Can we say Ant anyone? In a way, Ant is also a script, albeit it's geared towards installation. Or did I miss something?
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
ant has been doing this for over 2 years with the aid of the bsf scripting libraries. one can embed jython, javascript or perl into the ant build files.
prior art. patent is fucked.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//Soviet//Russia" "Very-Strict.dtd">
<patent owner="Microsoft">
You
</patent >
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
They should have waited until XML had gotten off ground. There are IMHO much better ways of storing information than garbling it toghether in a flat file. XML is just a buzzword like .net or web services.
They just killed off XML as most sane people will seek open formats and solutions instead.
HTTP/1.1 400
About a century ago, the US supreme court ruled
that the tomato is a vegatable.
Please properly credit your source. That article is from The Onion, circa 1998. The site you reference says it got the article from www.cars.com, which may be true, but it doesn't say exactly where on cars.com so the link could be followed to eventually find the real author.
Come on. If they don't patent pretty much everything they can they'll get sued by some pissant company looking to make a quick buck. They got sued over browser plugins for Christ's sake.
It's idiotic to complain about them patenting something like this. Complain about it if they sue someone using the patent. Complain about the patent system. Complain about patent system abusers. But don't use this as yet another sad excuse for jumping on the anti-MS bandwagon.
<ask>
echo 'Darn is this legal?'
</ask>
<troll>
echo 'Come get me you MS weasels!!!11!!!'
</troll>
</sarcasm>
<apologies>
mailto: administrator@slashdot.org
subject: Sorry if those MS guys urge you to take this offline
message: I'm really really sorry.
</apologies>
As a web developer who makes much use of XML/XSLT, I feel directly attacked by the actions of Microsoft.
Their actions I take as a direct threat to my source of income and ability to succesfully negotiate contracts with my clients, for as a 3rd party developer most if not all all my client/developer contracts stipulate that "I shall not knowingly provide my clients with any solution or product that is known by me to infringe on any other parties intellectual property"
I know Microsofts patent to be baseless, meritless and on the face hiostile to all people such as myself and on the goodfaith of the W3C working group in providing us with the Open XML Standard.
Right now I want to know what remedy I have to relieve myself of this attack Microsoft is making upon my livelyhood. I'm sure other developers are thinking the same thing because this action is pure and utter bullshit, and personally I think Microsoft can go fuck itself.
Massive oversimplifcation:[tinfoil hat]
Could it be that M$ is setting out to nail its best competition in the all-your-browser-belong-to-us department?
[/tinfoil hat]
Haha maybe im just a n00b who doesnt understand what im learning yet too!
1. Never touch Microsoft
2. Never touch anything Microsoft has touched.
3. Never touch anything Microsfot is interested
in touching.
All clear?
You are correct. You have to read the claims. The abstract is just background stuff to help the examiner understand what the hell the claims are.
For instance, one patent my company has stumbled upon is, to use a bad analogy, like reinventing the wheel as a hat. Fair enough, the third party have a few very specific and good hat designs, but the patent also has basic claims that putting any round road-use object on your head also falls under their auspices. It looks like rather than challenge the validity of circular hats as being novel, we're just going to take the path of least resistance and cross-licence.
This probably has something to do with the .Net API access via the command shell, or CSharpieness syntaxed scripting language.
Then maybe the file can be both executed, AND structured with XML - perhaps to give it some sort of object orientedness?
Or perhaps they're talking about embedding some kind of macro functionality into Word.XML documents? Maybe that's more likely - or a combination of both of these?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Looks like there is a vacancy in the Patent Office... Are you qualified?
Link HERE
Error encountered in IAWebSig.clsSig.Create: Last Procedure: sPrc_Ins_tblSig
Of course M$ can't patent XML itself, no one can. Anyone ever notice how XML is very similar to HTML in structure? *cough* prior art *cough*
When I first read the headline I laughed just for that reason, then I read the rest.
its a trap!!!
oops wrong website
Using a scripting language thats in use by several other laungages.
.net CLR is this and all .net compatible software languages are compilied to CLR or .net bytecode which is then recompiled again to a master executible. .NET is an open standard like Java my ass.
The whole
http://saveie6.com/
What MS has been granted a patent on is a specific implementation technique using XML to describe the scripting, language, style, and selection criteria.
Claims 1 and 2 have been done hundreds of times by different programs, most of the time with a flat file or configuration database. The remaining claims are probably specific enough that they may stand up to prior art claims, although Telecordia licenses an application that uses at least some of those claims. Cisco has a variety of applications that provide this sort of scripting interface, and although they used a raima db in the past they have promised xml configuration soon.
Ignoring the people that clearly didn't RTFA (MS is not trying to patent XML), whether or not MS gets this patent I think I like the idea that they are looking at. Hadn't seen anyone else wander around with it yet, so I will.
.Net components that operate client-side or server-side based on the capabilities of the client browser. I think this would take that farther by allowing for multiple scripting engines and the same type of functionality with applications rather than just web components.
Here's what I see happening. You will have an XML file that will have 4 scripts in it that do the same thing, each ina differant language. At this point whatever actually is configured to run these files will look at a setting to decide which scripting language you prefer these things to run with, then it will perform the task at hand based on that language.
I can definately see MS's interest in this, it is along the lines of their
If nothing else it would be nifty, especially if implemented on *nix and other OS's as well. You could write a single script file to make an executable that would run any one of several internal scripts depending on which language was supported.
Anyways, could be way off with my guess, but I still think it could have some nifty uses...
Whee signature.
XML Virus defense
Patents are meant to be used for companies for ensure that technology they invent does not get stolen by other companies. MS didn't invent XML. If your legal system let's them patent it then it is flawed very badly.
I for one are going to ignore this patent outright. Firstly, I'm sitting in europe, safe from the madness that is US law. Secondly, I have prior art. Thirdly, in Denmark buying the most expensive lawyers doesn't make you win cases.
From skimming the patent, it looks like they're patenting something vaguely like this:
<versions><version language='perl' interpreter='/usr/bin/perl'>
print("I am a banana!\n");
</version>
<version language='python' interpreter='/usr/bin/python'>
print 'I am a banana!'
</version>
</versions>
... in other words, using XML to keep several languages' versions of one script.
I don't really see the point. There are plenty of extremely portable languages, and what happens if the versions in the XML file fall out of synch? If someone edits the perl version but not the python version, you could be in trouble. Writing a non-trivial algorithm that works exactly the same in two completely different languages (if they weren't completely different, you wouldn't need to drag them both around) seems like more work than just using a portable language in the first place. I suppose it could be useful for keeping scripts across incompatible language versions -- you could have one script for $language v1 though v2.5, and one for all later versions.
Still, if I were using XML to make my code portable, I'd use Flare or something very much like it. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think this patent is pretty weird.
Hmmm. Executable data files. Frankly, M$ can damn well keep executable data files to themselves. Have they learned nothing?
There is prior art of using datbases of all sorts to hold scripts. Heck, we even use tarballs... I'm not sure it is "unobvious" that one could use an "XML Datbabase" to hold scripts.
From the summary of the patent:
I'm seeing a conflict of interest with client-side web scripting, particularly Javascript and VBScript. Strangely enough, later on they even reference Javascript:
Looks suspiciously like <script language="Javascript"> to me.
On the other hand, there's a lot of talk about "CDATA" in the patent. From what I grok, the patent is specific about using CDATA elements to encapsulate scripting languages. The listed example makes sure to encapsulate all the executable code within <!CDATA> tags
someone patent the english language!
My fucking compilers primer in school is prior art if it had tags and multilanguages in it.
GImme a break. I wanna kill some lawyers
NO SIG
A few years ago there was some nonsense "Hello, World!" code that would compile in several languages with the same source. It used a bunch of #defines and clever use of comment characters to allow c++, c, pascal, fortran and other compilers to create and executable from the same single text file. Anyone remember this?
If this patent was initially applied for in 2000 and has now just been accepted, will MS go back to companies/people and ask for money. They surely cant backdate this patent from when they applied for it can they?
- Patents are composed of an abstract, a list of "claims," and supporting information.
- The abstract is not an adequate or reliable description the patent. The first sign of willful ignorance is when a person such as the submitter of this story quotes from the abstract as though it means something.
- The list of claims and supporting information defines the coverage of the patent precisely.
- Every one of the claims must be implemented for a system to be covered by the patent.
- READ THE LAST POINT AGAIN.
- Thus, every additional claim limits, rather than expands, the scope of the patent.
- If a competitor constructs a system that implements all but one of the claims, it is not an infringement.
- READ THE LAST POINT AGAIN.
What can you conclude? A patent which mentions XML in passing while describing a complicated system, is not patenting any aspect of XML. Rather, it is patenting the system as a whole, which is an application of XML along with other mechanisms.A competitor could build an equivalent system which does not use XML, or a slightly different system which does use XML, and it would not be an infringement.
Either this is a non-story, or it is woefully misdirected. I'd be more concerned that Microsoft is trying to patent the idea of "choosing a script from a menu" than that their implementation uses XML.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
I have a feature request to make:
please write an indicator to a cookie that indicates the the user has clicked on the link.
Then, let us filter sow e all see post made by people who clicked on the link.
It doesn't they read the article, but the liklyhood goes up.
yeah, off topic, but if you like this idea, MOD ME UP.
MS is not the first to have a link to a script embedded into an XML file.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
All they'll need is a judge or two (they've already them in their pocket) to slap an injunction on some competitors emerging XML technology product to stifle them.
It's easy. They don't need merit. They don't even need to win. In this game, simply put.... DELAY EQUALS VICTORY EQUALS PROFITS!!!
What is Microsoft going to do with the rights to an universal file format? (Not like they use any...)
The best analogy I can think of appeared when carbon fiber became popular back in the 1990s and began to be used in all sorts of things. By this reasoning, someone could have patented carbon fiber for all sorts of uses: golf clubs, shovel, axe and hoe handles... the list is long. In each of those cases, no one could market such a product without paying royalties.
Whether Microsoft uses this patent for good or ill, it seems to be yet another illustration that the examiners at the USPTO are blittering idiots.
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books http://www.inklingbooks.com/
It's an extension of WinFS (or I assume that's what it's for?). Basically, it's a way to associate meta data with a script without having filesystem support for it.
.zip file, complete with descriptions.
:)
So, you want to run a script, you do tabbed completion, it gives you a list of scripts and a description of each one. You select it and it is pulled out of the XML repository and run.
Useful? I would think that metadata in the FS would be a better way to go about it, but I would love an easy way to browse the scripts on my system. New? I've never seen it before. Obvious? Probably?
On a local system, this is like being able to use winzip to execute scripts inside of the
Patenting XML? Nope, not even close.
The example should make it pretty obvious... Can't include it here, cause slashdot removes the tags.
Jason Pollock
Hasn't ANT been able to call external scripts for a while now? ANT files are XML? Is ANT in trouble or is this an example of prior art?
Ummm, so what did MS use to restrict the CIFS license from implementation under Open Source?
Oh yeah, a patent.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
What does this mean for Openoffice.org?
Scott
(An ignorant clueless person when it comes to what the heck XML is.)
when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Thaat should help us fight today's rampant code bloat ;)
"Wireless : LAN
are you all going to let this continue before you realize that this is madness in the extreme? Soon you wil have to pay for the air you breath. Every word you say will be copyrighted. Thought crime will become a reality because all ideas will be patented. I'm begging you...PLEASE take the "red pill" and save yourselves. At the very least we need to follow China's thoughts on IP. It's nice to see people with big guns telling the IP industries to go to hell. And don't give me that crap about property. The gov't owns ALL property. (redundant) If you don't believe me, skip a few tax payments on "your" house and see who really owns it.(/redundant) It doesn't matter where you are. The words are different, but the idea is the same EVERYWHERE.
What?
as prior art.
They had both JavaScript and VBScript in them to handle the different way both browsers did certificate requests. Heck I've got code on my computer from 1997 where I tweaked pages like that.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Haven't tags in HTML had the scripting language defined fer like... a really long time?
Dave
it covers what WSH does with .ws files, which is pretty pedestrian, but could be extended in lots of useful ways. I don't know if it's been carried forward into .NET yet, but I bet it could be useful for X#/Xen.
I could easily imagine the concept being extended into something similar to Occam, where you describe a multithreaded application, potentially running across multiple processors, in a single source file.
But if I understand correctly, they are patenting the idea of storing a collection of code in an XML file.
Given XML, that's so obvious that it's already been done by several different groups, independantly. And MS is the only one that didn't think the idea was too obvious to patent.
It was also common practice. (Not best practice, as good supporting tools aren't yet widely available, but not uncommon, either.)
It also has as prior art:
1) Stored procedures in a database
2) Some FORTH dialects which don't compile ahead of time.
3) Is there a Smalltalk that's like this? I think so.
4) A wide variety of code libraries, including web pages that allow one to access code via html lookups. (HTML being very close to XML)
5) Hasn't anyone ever done something like this with SMTP or Docbook? Or Tex? Doesn't SMTP includes XML as a subset?
6) It's an awful lot like the way an Apple II BASIC Interpreter calls a subroutine.
I suppose it depends on exactly what they are claiming, and I guess the only way to find that out is to wait for them to sue someone.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Sounds like M$ patented their Windows Scripting House file format.
MSML.
features:
undocumented, breaks backwrads compat., high licensing costs, platform dependence.
benefits:
those damn linux commies can't use it!!!
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Not saying they're lying, but SCO at one time denied any plans to attack Linux... You can't trust anything these corporate weasels say unless they're under oath, and probably not even then. (growl)
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Doesn't everyone else call this a virus?
-k
Your mind moves quicker than a nun's first curry. - A. Rimmer
I agree. Way trivial.
Lisp, python, perl scripts programs would be covered by claims 1 and 2, which do not refer to XML at all. Here's a lisp script for example:
(defun foo()
"description of foo here"
(do something))
Hence Lisp seems to be prior art for claims 1 and 2. The Lisp 1 manual is dated 1963. I don't know if Lisp 1 included the documentation string, but by the 80's when I encountered Lisp the documentation string option was part of the language.
OK, claim 3: encode such a script in XML. woohoo. XML is obviously isomorphic to S-expressions, hence also copious prior art back to 1961 (S-expression paper).
"My spoon is too big!"
"I live in a giant bucket!"
I bought that film on dvd.
http://www.bitterfilms.com
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
There is a project (i think it's a bit stopped) called entity; on entity the definition of the interface is in xml and the methods can be writing in python, perl, javascript. More info on: http://www.advogato.org/proj/Entity/
Four days after the patenting of certain instances of XML, a Microsoft spokesman made the following comment: "I've decided to patent painting my house green. I invented green paint. I invented paintbrushes. I invented the concept of living in a man-made shelter. WHY DO YOU KEEP BOTHERING ME? COMMUNIST!" :)
MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING
Seems that having missed out on the start of the Internet thing MS are trying to make up for lost time WRT XML. So every method or process that you can add "using an XML method" to will now be subjected to patenting.
/. community I submit as prior art - "Masturbation using an XML method of storing and retrieving arousing imagery and text".
However, as a favour to the
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
If they patent XML as a format for Office 2004 (or whatever), the DMCA is invoked if you TRY to decrypt your file. OpenOffice would then presumeably be unable (from the legal perspective) to read and write "Microsoft" XML files. Gone is the day of document compatibility.
The only saving grace is this: if I create the file using Microsoft's tools, but the content and file is mine, I doubt Microsoft could beat me in court for trying to decrypt my own file with my own data. But it would likely prevent OO from writing Microsoft XML.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
The initial checkins for Apache Ant are in January 2000.
o rg /apache/tools/ant/Main.java
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/src/main/
Jim
It seems to me the Patent should be refused on the basis of a lack of clarity.
in other words, using XML to keep several languages' versions of one script.
I don't really see the point.
It lets authors write a script that will work if the target machine has ANY of the script interpreters available.
Yes, it's useful. What if there are only five interpretrs out there that can do the job, and ALL of them are proprietary? Nearly everybody's browser has at least ONE of them. But even the most popular interpreter is only available on a third of the people's browsers. Pick a single language, only a third (or less) of your potential audience can use the app.
So do you pick VBScript? Or Python? Or Perl? Or do you do one for EACH, bundle them up, and let each user's browser pick an interpreter?
Now you CAN hack it by including all the scripts and trusting the browser to ignore whever it can't understand. But then if it understands more than one of the languages it runs the script more than once. Oops!
This provides a formalism for telling the browser that this SET of scripts all do the same thing, so it should pick and run just one of them.
Of course to make this useful it will have to be adopted more generally. Which might push Microsoft into making it available free, and encouraging its adoption.
There are plenty of extremely portable languages, and what happens if the versions in the XML file fall out of synch?
It breaks.
What happens if you modify a script and induce a bug? Ditto. So what?
(Of course this also creates another way for companies to write tools that produce code that runs correctly on their own browser products and screws up on those of others. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
HTML 4 and earlier isn't an application of XML. XHTML, which is and will be replacing HTML 4, however, is an application of XML. So get worried!
MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING
..just what we all need.
they think this will stop people from writing XML virusses in the future.
Or maybe it's just part of their business plan. You know...
1. Patent XML files
2. ???
3. Profit!
I think that a patent can be "renewed" once
"Renewal" on patents is different from "renewal" on pre-1978 copyrights. In the United States, patents last 3.5 years after they are granted; patents whose owners pay periodic maintenance fees are renewed to 7.5 years after grant, then 11.5 years after grant, then a maximum of 20 years after filing. Foreign patents may last up to a year longer because a U.S. inventor has one year to file for a foreign patent after having filed in the United States, and other countries' 20-year terms are counted from that.
It does not appear to be a patent for XML itself.
5) Hasn't anyone ever done something like this with SMTP or Docbook? Or Tex? Doesn't SMTP includes XML as a subset?
5) Hasn't anyone ever done something like this with SGML or Docbook? Or Tex? Doesn't SGML includes XML as a subset?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Au contraire. For several years (notably prior to the filing date on this MS patent) browsers have been capable of interpreting and executing multiple script segments in a single HTML file. Not only that, but there was no requirement that the language attribute had to be the same for all of them--one could be javascript and the other VBscript, both in the same file.
Besides the fact that doing that would just be loopy (unless it was to optimise for say...both Netscape and IE by running one or the other script), unfortunately my own personal example of that "prior art" was seeing IE handle it years ago, so it is possible that MS invented the concept in its attempt to "embrace" Javascript support and "extend" IEs capabilities by adding VBscript interpretation.
Might seem like a silly thing to patent, but if someone can file for a patent on the application of a laser pointer as a feline exercise and entertainment device then pretty much anything is fair game in the US patent office.
That may explain why twice the XML configuration files used in loading my OS X preferences have been corrupted preventing proper login. Thank God for BSD booting and line commands.
.deviatefromtheabsolute.
I just hate M$. They're greedy.
I have been all over this big wide world and lived in a lot of different places, and majority of people everywhere do, think and say what eveyone else is doing, thinking and saying. This is not to be construed as a bad thing: it puts food on the table. It gives the species the solid base to support the innovators, who do oftentimes get it wrong after all.
We geeks like to think we are different, and for the most part we are more intelligent than the average. We just aren't all as individualistic as we might like to believe. Geeks may be more selective in the herds they choose to follow, but most geeks still choose to follow one herd or another.
Not you, of course, dear Moderator person. You're a true individual. It's those other geeks over there. Sheep, I tell you!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
what about the script tags in HTML/XHTML? isn't this essentially the same thing?
Even better, what about those same scripts just being stored in a directory on the filesystem or in an archive? The extensions tell you how to handle the script, and the only difference between this and their patent is that instead of XML its a filesystem format or a tar archive.
So, if they can patent this, can i just keep doing it anyway and say its not an XML file its SGML?
Perhaps - just perhaps - if all of this happens, someone might just start to realize just how ridiculous this whole IP Charlie Foxtrot is.
Thinking outside my Head
It is a method to display video from a computer or other device on a CRT or LCD screen for the purpose of viewing.
Actually it would be nice if MS did something other than using XML for Office. The only time it get errors from web based databases is when they are running a MS based DB server.
The MS spokesperson was quick to deny but when have you ever seen MS not use something to quash a competitor?
It seems a pretty lame patent:
Make multiple versions of [[program/script]] for various targets.
Enclose said versions in a single, portable, file/archive.
Should we use ar? tar? cpio? uuencode??? I know, let's use XML! Yeah, and let's patent it too, bacause this is some serious [[stuff]] we got here!
I guess they must hire MIS/BCIS majors to review computer patents. I can't imagine anybody I graduated with in my CS department not laughing as they tossed this, and many other patent applications, into [[the equivalent of]] the trash can. Yes, that's graduated with, not all the folks who fled in terror after a year of programming & math.
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
This patent clearly isn't patenting XML itself, but a particular schema. Sounds something like this:
<FILES>
<FILE name="filepatents.vbs" language="VBScript"/>
<FILE name="?" language="JScript"/>
<FILE name="profit.cs" language="CSharp">
</FILES>
Still a silly patent, but clearly not a patent on XML. I'd imagine it's related to XAML or WinFS.
The first claim reads:
1. In a computer system that includes one or more scripts that can be selected for execution by a user, a method for facilitating the identification and selection of the one or more scripts for execution, the method comprising the acts of:
incorporating the one or more scripts into a file, wherein the file is formatted in such a manner as to enable the one or more scripts to be associated with different scripting languages;
presenting a list of scripts to a user for selection, wherein the list includes an identifier for each of the one or more scripts, the identifier comprising a descriptive name and functional description of each corresponding script; and
upon receiving a user selection of a particular identifier that is associated with a script from the list, executing the script that is associated with the particular identifier.
How many of us here haven't written HTML pages that perform that function? Claims are supposed to be read with the broadest possible interpretation and if *any* of prior art applies anywhere within that range the claim should be rejected.
I think the problem is that examiners seem to be listed to publications whereas much of what goes on in the computer world is not published - just used. And you would have to literally be an expert in the field to understand the ramifications of claims.
this: "Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing words, numbers, or any other data written in one or more human languages in a single file."
...
From the patent:
"While the schema or format of the file used to encompass the scripts of a computer system is described herein in terms of XML, it is understood that other file schemas or formats, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) or the like or any combination thereof may be used as described herein. "
PS. How the fsck is this considered an "invention"
Sounds to me that this patent covers scripting in ANY markup language. I wonder if that little thing called the world wide web with all its scripting in a markup language format (javascript in a html document) would be considered prior art.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
This is typical software industry fare. Every major software company has hundreds of lame software patents, with the purpose of using them only if someone else brings a stupid suit. IBM dropped four patent infringement claims on SCO when SCO started that mess. They could probably find four patents in their database for any company in the industry.
This isn't a failure of the system. The system is working fine. It's the system itself that's the problem. Software patents are like nuclear weapons. Nobody likes their existence. Everyone has to have them.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Will you people buy a fucking clue?!? There is no way that this patent could be thought to read on "the basics of XML" or even an exceptionally broad application of XML. The only thing this patent reads on is a method and system for using XML as a database to store scripts in a language agnositc manner with various metadata attached. Read the patent very carefully, not the Abstract, not the Specification, but read the Claims, the only parts that mean anything when it comes to infringement analysis. Particularly, read the first two independent claims, one and nine. There's nothing there other than a method for using XML to store scripts, give a user data about stored scripts, and allow the user to run stored scripts. I dislike the monster in Redmond as much as the next guy, but there's no reason to get bent out of shape over this patent. There's really not much to it.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
Microsoft has killed off Open Source versions of programs able to interoperate with their steaming file formats.
The HTML 4.0 specification, Section 18, includes examples of including scripts in JavaScript, VBScript, and TCL in a an HTML document.
The definition of prior art must not include HTML. Sad. I'm not sure what is original or non intuitive about this. Jeesh.
Sorry if this is offtopic, but I just have to say it. I realllly hate it when people whip out "In the long run we're all dead". That phrase is like, the end all of cop outs.
/.? Why bother doing ANYTHING that isnt just instantly gratifiying? After all, IN THE LONG RUN, WE'RE ALL DEAD.
Why bother going to school? Why save money for the future? Why read
Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.
Kiss my shiny metal ass
I remember reading somewhere on Microsoft's site that they are planning on using XML together with some advancements in their SQL technology as the basis for their next file system (ditching NTFS in its next Windows release). XML can contain binary.
Could this be part of it?
if i'm reading this all right
(note just learned xml)
you could use namespace to do the same thing really
and not violate the patent?
From the article:
d ">
...Please forgive my ignorance of ASP and VBScript sytax. My mom taught me never to play in the mud.
Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing scripts written in one or more scripting languages in a single file. The scripts of a computer system are organized into a single file using Extensible Language Markup (XML). Each script is delimited by a file element and the script's instructions are delimited by a code element within each file element. Other information, such as a name of the script and a functional description of the script may also be included in the file using other XML elements to delimit that information. The language in which a particular script is written is also included within the XML format. When a particular script is executed, the file is parsed to create a list of the script names or of the functional descriptions of the scripts. One or more scripts are selected and the code for those scripts is extracted from the file and executed by the appropriate scripting process. The scripting process that executes a particular script is identified from the scripting extension attribute that is included in the XML format of the file.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dt
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head><title>My 'single file' with 'one or more scripting languages'</title><!-- this file is named: index.html -->
<script language="javascript">
function foo() {
bar=1
}
</script>
<script language="VBScript">
sub foo
bar=1
endsub
</script>
<?php
function foo() {
bar=1;
}
?>
<%
sub foo
bar=1
endsub
%>
</head>
<body>
<a href="http://www.goatse.cx">Don't click me!</a>
</body>
</html>
scripts written in one or more scripting languages in a single file? CHECK
using Extensible Language Markup (XML)? CHECK
Each script is delimited by a file element and the script's instructions are delimited by a code element within each file element? CHECK
etc... CHECK
Is this a joke? If so, it's not very funny. Shame on you Microsoft
former examiner here...
well, you are close, but not quite;
Generally, the purpose of dependent claims is to keep additional limitations out of the independent claims, thus enhancing the breadth of the independent claim. Simultaneously, this allows more specific subject matter and limitations to also be claimed. If an independent claim is not allowable, all claims depending on it are rejected as well; however, it is best to additionally reject each dependent claims on some other grounds tied specifically to the matter of said dependent claims.
Homer Simpson works on the patent office. The nuclear company fired him.
Table-ized A.I.
Can somebody explain how these things are not relevant to this patent, or at least to it's validity?
Pardon my sloppiness with this post (I'm a bit tired).
It's interesting that the headline says "Microsoft Receives XML Patent"--and then the summary says they're NOT receiving an XML patent, but gee, this sure sounds like XML, so it's Microsoft being evil, and we'll plaster a headline saying they're somehow magically receiving an XML patent.
In other words, they're receiving an XML patent--but then they're not really. Wonderful, Slashdot. Shouldn't you be off reporting how "Microsoft Is Violating Human Right In China" or something?
If I read the patent correctly, M$ is patenting scripts in XML.
I think 'ant' qualifies as prior art. According to this web site, work on ant started in early 1999: http://www.codepedia.com/1/ANT
When was XHTML created?
The tag in HTML quailifies, except they say the patent only applies to XML files. XHTML is XML, and has the tag. Seems that it would be prior art.
plus-good, double-plus-good
Sorry for replying to my own post...
From the DMCA - rebuts my premise directly.
"2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)).
This exception permits circumvention, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law."
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Here's another possible outcome you didn't consider:
Countries that didn't let themselves fall in a patent gridlock steal technological leadership from the United States, which will most certainly take a couple of decades to recover. All those patents will be useless.
I don't think we can just dismiss this possibility. China and India are just a step behind the USA. In this field, that is just too close for comfort.
enough said!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Shame you posted this as A-C. I think its a very valid point and it reall could apply to many situation where XML is used to package other noncompiled computer instructions. However, how the hell could they uphold this paitent? Surely we have definitive proof of prior art? The US paitent system really does have 'issues'. But then so does the NZ one apparently.
How did patents come to cover the "use" of an invention, and not the invented device? With the post-Reagan PTO, the patent protects the title of the patent, and the rest of the work is just a prop. How is anyone supposed to build a better mousetrap, when "device to trap mice" is patented?
--
make install -not war
What a way to end the week! ./ one liners. Considering the grand parent was modded +5 funny for a slashdot one liner, this is quite amusing.
Today I have seen -1 Insightful,
0 Funny and now a
0 Troll for a post with a bunch of
You know the unix/linux command "ar"? Its used to make a libfile.a
It can also be used to group any set of files together. And if the files are ascii, then the resulting AR file is pure ascii! Quite a good tool for grouping script files together, of the same or different languages, and you cal also list the contents, update individual subfiles, and selectively extract any particular file!
Think it might relate to the patent? (I haven't read it...)
Specify a script in a single XML file, run by an interpreter specified by the filename extension? This sounds alot like how Konfabulator works, and many of the widgets available have all the scripting information in a single .kon file
Microsoft Lawyer #2: "Can we patent it?"
MSL1: "No, it's in the public domain, or something."
MSL2: "Why does that mean we can't patent it?"
MSL1: "Really, we can't. It would backfire. Even the patent office wouldn't accept it."
MSL2: "So what does it do?"
MSL1: "I don't understand it completely, but I gather you can use it to define your own extensible file format."
MSL2: "Come again?"
MSL1: "You can put anything you want in a file and you distinguish between file items with something called 'tags'. And you can define your own tags."
MSL2: "Anything you want?"
MSL1: "Yes."
MSL2: "Even program code?"
MSL1: "Yes, anything."
MSL2: "Then we'll patent that!"
MSL1: "What?"
MSL2: "Don't you see? We are not going to patent using those 'tags' thingies for anything, we patent using them for program code!"
MSL1: "That's so ridiculous it might just work!"
I hope they sue the crap out of everyone using XML because I, for one, would like to see the standard die the death it so truly deserves.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
<head>
<script language="Javascript">
alert("Prior Art");
</script>
</head>
<body>
<p>
It seems that all we need to do is find a webpage that parses as valid XML (no img, br or hr tags, or XHTML style ones), uses embedded Javascript, and that was published before December 2000.
</p>
</body>
</html>
for what its worth - i submitted the headline as
.500 on my /. submissions.. (11 of 19)
"Microsoft Patents 'XML Scripting'"
which is 100% factually correct.
why the fsck Cowboy neal changed it to something which was NOT correct is beyond fscking me.
i specifically DIDN"T call it "Microsoft Recieves Patent on XML" or anything else that might resemble that because that is not what happened and i would look like a dumbass.
i just got home from an interview - over beers - so it took a while. And this is what i get home to?
remember this, the next time you read a dumb-ass subject line. It may not have been the fault of the submitter.
in any case - i shouldn't bitch too much... i'm batting better than
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The idea of storing a set of scripts in an XML file, sound overly trivial to me. Someone must have invented this before M$. I guess there must be some open source project that is using this technique since long before M$ patented this...
I want my karma, and I want it now!
Microsoft's strength is not inventing new things - it's in successfully taking up other people's ideas and marketing them
How about if I write a bash script, an awk script, put them inside the same directory and then make a tarball of this directory.
There; I have a single file, encompassing two scripts written in different languages.
Beefy
.
There is no chance that this patent can stand. I make my tax euros exactly that way. I published first implementations of that mechanism around '93 (using SGML of course, there was no XML; LaTeX, Lout, roff and other scripts where mixed). I'm even doing this to implement distributed operating system. I'm using that to proof intrusion resistance, incorruptibility and non-deniability.
Some looser has wasted some $ for patent fees.
If none of the examiners of this software patent qualify as a competent programer then why are they making a judgement on what is and is not an original software invention?
If the US is going to continue to allow software patents then why not make an effort to hire some programmers and designers and train them in the legal details needed to be a patent examiner.
Can we please start correctly attributing the awarding of these silly patents to the US patent office?
> the text of the /. headline is a bit misleading.
What? Slashdot - misleading? No, surely not. Not when it comes to everyone's beloved Microsoft? No, no, no, I can't...I WON'T believe it. Slashdot mislead? Come on.
The patent sounds like an XML file that will contain data as well as the logic to process that data. It is an executable XML file... a set of programs and related data stored in a very portable format.
Could it be dangerous? Only if Outlook Express or Internet Explorer automatically run the XML as soon as they open it up.
But no one would do that! Would they?
Even if there's no prior art (which is possible; nobody may have had a practical use for embedding executable code in XML files), a strong case can be made for it being the "logical next step":
XML files are a means for storing data in an organized fashion. So is MySQL. And MySQL supports embedding perl code (or executable code, if you prefer to call it that.) in the data you put in the database.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Ok, so this patent seems to prohibit using different flavors of client-side script in XHTML pages ?
Say, javascript and jscript for instance ?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
OK, so once we've got some additional prior art to submit, who's going to pay the reexamination fee?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Text stored within an XML file which happens to be scripts is patentable?
Isn't this, kind of like, patenting a suspense novel so that no one else can write one?
Or patenting all paintings of bridges?
Or patenting all speeches which have an uplifting message at the end?
This patent should be unconstitutional because it restrains my ability to express myself by storing plain text scripts in plain text xml files. Could someone please define obvious for me?
GIVE ME A BREAK!
The open source project "Entity" has allowed a person to do this since September of 1999. Entity is written primarily by Ian Main. In 1999 and 2000, we used it as the framework for the management console of one of our products. Entity doesn't have a current website today, but the code is still under development and available from at least a few CVS servers. The link below has code from 1999. http://anoncvs.gnome.gr.jp/viewcvs.cgi/entity/ Hopefully this is of some use to folks. Regards, scottwimer
-- Intrusion prevention for Linux servers. www.cylant.com
Mod Parent Down. If you'll follow the link you'll see that it just points to licensing for the FAT file system. Using a patent offensively means suing someone for infringing on your patent. Sorry but, YHBT
The problem is that once a patent is rewarded, it is no small thing to get it overturned. Awarded patents are presumed valid by the courts until proven otherwise. And to prove otherwise takes deep pockets, especially against so formidable a foe as Microsoft.
Great, with this patent that will give me chance to patent embedding code in .doc files, or any open format for that matter:
"Hi Bob, thanks for coming over this summer, we really found that
-= printf("you raided our fridge too often"); =- you are very outgoing. When we went to..."
Ironic after they were hammered my the Eolas patent. Still, at least the USPTO gives convicts a chance to work since they seem to ignore priors.
As you all know, the Windoze scripting host is most used by virusses and worms. They patented the methods a good virus/worm writer would use. It would need different language variants, to cover all platforms infected by windos, and select the right script to run. It would need embedded data, like what website to ddos and what kind of email-adresses to attack, so it could spread in one convenient single file.
Now they can claim patent infringements from the virus writers so they can make a little profit from spreading insecure OS-es. Oh? they do already???
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
This came up on a mailing list that I'm on. Someone pointed this out. If you look at the logs you will notice that it's been around for a while:
Fri Apr 6 19:07:23 2001 UTC (2 years, 10 months ago) by jberndt
There's also this
There you have it. Two old examples of a script contained in an XML file. So it anyone's worried, there's definitely prior art out there. It's of course possible that MS had stuff like this before that and their lawyers just got around to squirting out a patent for it, but it makes me feel a little better that people found this stuff so easily and quickly.
...but I have a feeling that they're preparing to write an all-encompassing IDE (as was theorized in a Dr. Dobbs article a while back;
Basically, you'd have an XML file that contains everything from your code to info on how it should be displayed to multimedia files. Having this patent could allow MS to have a tighter control on who could build such an IDE.
Just a guess.
- Dom
What if XML documents are considered scripts themselves, and namespaces are considered a way to embed more than one in the same file?
Its called PHP. I also work for a company called Progress Software that has a product called webspeed. I mix webpseed script with properly formatted html (read: xhtml) and then put some javascript in the file with it.
How is this different than embedding PHP in a properly structured xhtml file with a bit of coldfusion or javascript mixed in. The web has been doing this for years.
Microsoft is smoking crack if no one though of this. The sripts are even delimited by propery markers that indicate what kind of script is being used, and you can even give the block of script a name.
Bah. what a crock.
I will not install another M$ OS for the rest of my life.
However, mixing markup and code to this extent is something I consider a Bad Idea[tm], and Cocoon and AxKit now has much better approaches.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Micro$oft patents slashdot! In an ongoing battle with the gov't, M$FT is gaining ground by patenting left and right. The gov't has recently made headlines in the race by announcing fingerprinting systems and taking away Americans' rights by the dozen. Upon hearing about M$'s latest move, a spokesman for the Chimpanzee Administration said on Friday that in response the gov't is gonna roll out the project dubbed "Stage III" 6 months earlier than originally planned. Under this project, the gov't will own everything you do, in effect owning you. Any patent you will file will automatically be the gov't's, as will be everything you will say, think and do.
Must-not-watch TV!
Microsoft is an artificial person who has been convicted of federal crimes. If Microsoft was a black man, Microsoft would be doing 10-15 years in a nasty hole in the ground. But, MS is not a black man, so MS roams free and continues its criminal behaviour. Meanwhile, millions in that wretched country are locked up and shackled - even gassed to death - for much less. Wake up and smell the rot!
...a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself
Yeah, riiiight...
The more I hear this kind of cr*p, the more I want to burn every Microsoft and (insert any other brain dead greedy company you care to think of here) CD and product I own - and go 100% open source/self-built applications. Unfortunately, that would probably create a noxious cloud that would attack the lining of my lungs, causing even more damage to me...
They can't sue you if you build it yourself for your own use - no matter what patents or copyrights it may enjoy. Power to the people - baby - YEAH!
Now, who could that be at my door.... (sounds of scuffle ensue)
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
As posted elsewhere to this story, I think it looks awfully like XSP Logicsheets. At least, I'm extremely surprised it wasn't mentioned in the references, because it does the same.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Here is a example of an expect script embedded inside a csh script. This is an old idea, but seems to fit the description in the patent -- except that this is not implemented in XML. This example is also slightly more powerful than the example given in the patent because it allows variables in the enclosing script to be referenced by the embedded script.
(I originally copied this idea from a script that did this with ftp: an "ftp script" is enclosed inside a shell script)
#!/bin/csh -f
# here we set a csh variable called YOWZA
set PARM="parameter1"
# here the csh echoes a line to the user
echo "I am a shell script, with paramater $PARM"
# Here we invoke expect and everything until EndExpect is piped to it.
# Script: echo.exp
# Description: this script echoes a variable from the enclosing
# shell script.
/usr/local/bin/expect <<EndExpect
set expect_variable "hi I am an expect variable\n"
send_user "I am an Expect script, my parameter is $PARM ? \n"
send_user "my local variable is \$expect_variable"
EndExpect
- It doesn't apply to executables.
- It does not only apply to XML formatted documents -- Paragraph 1, the basic description of the patent, does not include a mention of XML.
- It doesn't apply to automatically run scripts on a web page or anywhere else -- the patent requires the user to select the script to run.
- It does apply if you use the operating system to choose the execution method -- all it requires is that the file format enables more than one script type to be executed.
- (Opinion) It doesn't seem to me as if this meets the non-obvious clause of patents.
I dunno -- I hope the USPTO hires someone who does modern coding sometime soon. This looks to me as something that is a pretty obvious (and, unless made mandatory, a generally pretty useless) methodology. The only way that I see to leverage a patent like this would be to make the Filesystem an XML Document.... Hmmmmm......We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
The Patent office is obviously overwhelmed, underfunded, and in danger of becoming obsolete due to excessive rubber-stamping.
If you think about it, Slashdot is the most efficient and lowcost patent buster. It's an aggregator of ridiculous and clearly unenforceable patents where the issue is analyzed from every conceivable angle. The government should consider funding Slashdot for this service, as they are throwing our tax-money away by using the Patent Office who fail to provide it.
= 9J =
What is claimed and desired to be secured by United States Letters Patent is:
.perl or some such). It seems to me that the test of obviousness would be applied - naming fields in a particular way may be the sort of thing that one could inappropriately but legally copyright, but patent?
For those new to patents - what follows is the important bits, the claims. Under patent law you get what claims are allowed, as interpreted by a judge, so long as those claims are not found to be anticipated by prior art or obvious, as interpreted by a lay jury. Ultimately patent cases are decided in a specialized federal court that is well versed in the concepts. This was filed on Dec 1, 2000. there may be more information pertinent to the priority date in the file wrapper.
1. In a computer system that includes one or more scripts that can be selected for execution by a user, a method for facilitating the identification and selection of the one or more scripts for execution, the method comprising the acts of:
This sort of claim explicitly requires that all of the elements be present and no more. Thus far they have claimed a computer that includes scripts--an odd wording but likely to stand--which are selected by the user, method by which that selection is chosen to be the one or more scripts.
incorporating the one or more scripts into a file, wherein the file is formatted in such a manner as to enable the one or more scripts to be associated with different scripting languages;
The scripts are intrinsically associated with one or more scripting languages. This wasn't written well, but the intention, which would likely be allowed, is that the file has an interpretive language script in it and an identifier which says what language it was written in.
presenting a list of scripts to a user for selection, wherein the list includes an identifier for each of the one or more scripts, the identifier comprising a descriptive name and functional description of each corresponding script; and
The computer system must present a list of at least one item - a button that causes a script to execute would satisfy the first half but the this button must also have at least a descriptive name and a functional description of the script. A file listing in a file system wherein the files are named with a descriptive name and a brief functional listing would satisfy this claim, as would a web page with a list of scripts to execute. Comprising means the list could contain more information, but must at least have the descriptive name and functional description.
upon receiving a user selection of a particular identifier that is associated with a script from the list, executing the script that is associated with the particular identifier.
runs the script.
OK - in English:
This claim claims a server serving a web page which has a list of cgi script(s) on it (for example), gives the user a list of the scripts on the server, each identified on the web page with a descriptive name and a functional description of what it does, the page programmed so that, as expected, when the user selects which script to run, it does.
It's not just XML - it's a hella broad claim.
Independent claim 9 says that the file must support more than one scripting language (um HTML does that to - a perl script or a python script - you get to pick one). It's also a bit more explicit about parsing the file into a list - though your typical http server does that - parsing the html document into a list if the document is so formatted.
19 gets a bit narrower to xml - defining field names for the fields that would be parsed into the list, in particular defining that the scripting language is specified by an extension attribute (like
22 Is a plurality of 19 - at least two data fields - and explicitly includes the script code in an
I thought the MS patent was filed in 2000. 2001 is a little late for prior art in that case.
We are the 198 proof..
I am a relatively new slashdot reader, and enjoy it very much. But I do get quite annoyed when slashdot posts these patent apocalypse stories. So I'm writing this to teach slashdotters the very basics of patent law so that when a patent is issued, they'll know how to read it in order to determine its scope. This way, other readers of slashdot won't be mislead when reading some of these headlines.
First of all, a patent is completely determined by the claims. (This isn't strictly true: the prosecution history is also important in many cases, but we don't need to worry about that for now). The patent abstract and specification have no legal weight at all without reference to the claims. The specification could say that it is patenting breathing, but this is meaningless without looking at the claims.
If you look at the claims of the patent in this case, you'll see that Microsoft is patenting something very specific. Read the first part of claim 1:
In a computer system that includes one or more scripts that can be selected for execution by a user, a method for facilitating the identification and selection of the one or more scripts for execution, the method comprising the acts of:
This states that Microsoft is patenting a method for a user to select and run a script. Oh noooo! Not that! We'll never be able to code again!
There are further references to packaging this procedure in an XML format, but that has little to do with what they are patenting. There are also other claims, but they all seem to relate to this basic claim.
The fear generated by the headline to this post is unwarranted, as are practically every other patent headline that I have read on slashdot. Whenever I read these stories, I inevitably read the text of the patent, and quickly determine the fears are nil.
Another important thing to know about patents (especially software patents) is how the claims are interpreted and enforced, and hence, how to avoid violating the patent. Again, look at claim 1. There are three elements or limitations to this first claim:
1. incorporating the one or more scripts into a file, wherein the file is formatted in such a manner as to enable the one or more scripts to be associated with different scripting languages;
2. presenting a list of scripts to a user for selection, wherein the list includes an identifier for each of the one or more scripts, the identifier comprising a descriptive name and functional description of each corresponding script; and
3. upon receiving a user selection of a particular identifier that is associated with a script from the list, executing the script that is associated with the particular identifier.
This patent covers these three things, in combination. In other words, if you do one or two of the three things, but not the third, you are not violating this patent.
Does this patent sound a little dubious? On the surface, yes. But my guess is that if you looked at the prosecution history for this patent, the claims would be further restricted in some way so as to make the patent almost worthless.
In my opinion, most, if not all, software patents are quite easy to get around. It's rare for a patent to be constructed in such a way as to completely cover a method of doing something. You can always find a different way of approaching a problem.
The only danger in patents is inadvertently incorporating a patented technique. This is a problem, but spending some time searching the USPTO patent database can be helpful. Is this time consuming? Yes. Is it painful!? Yes. Will you learn lots and lots about patents? Yes.
There's much, much more to say about patents, and how they are really your friend, but that would require something more than a reply to a post.
The basic reference that all slashdotters should read is "Patent Law Essentials" by Alan L. Durham. It's less than 200 pages and explains patent law to the layman very well. Read it and learn - Patents are your Friend!
...but the patent's claims seem to be very specific. What Microsoft has done is to devise a way to consolidate and organize scripts on a computer system. The patent's claims cover user interaction methods, the steps involved in parsing out a specific script from the XML file (which is basically a heterogeneous collection of scripts with descriptions), etc. This isn't exactly clever, but it hasn't been done in precisely this way before.
The patent talks about high level programming languages and scripting languages, and attempts to draw a distinction between the two. The patent limits itself to the scope of scripting languages, although as anyone with a Computer Science degree knows, that distinction can be murky at times.
I've read and re-read the patent application today, and although I am of the opinion that this sort of thing should not be patentable, the patent was granted. Is this the end of the world? Probably not. It's a defensive patent. From the looks of things, this patent will probably cover features in upcoming versions of the Windows OS (Longhorn?) as well as Office.
There's plenty of similar prior art regarding embedding scripts in XML; for example, XHTML (which is XML written to the XHTML DTD) allows embedding JavaScript in an XML document. It seems that this Microsoft patent could not be construed to cover embedding JavaScript in HTML or XHTML, and if Microsoft were to try to make this claim, they run the risk of having their patent voided.
I once worked for a company called Essential Wisdom, later renamed eWisdom after incorporating in Delaware and relocating the office to San Jose. During my tenure at eWisdom, I devised a method of embedding a high level AI language derived from SCHEME (itself a dialect of Lisp) in XML files. I did this so we could preserve intelligent behavior of objects being manipulated in a drawing/diagramming application. For instance, if you wanted to draw a network topology diagram, you could have an object representing a network hub that, when you dropped it on the canvas and started attaching network "cables" to it, would flag errors such as attaching too many network cables for the number of ports on the hub.
The embedded language was a Lisp dialect, and the container was XML. What I avoided were explicit uses of CDATA wrappers in the XML, and I disallowed certain special characters that are reserved in XML (such as the less-than and greater-than symbols). The application that used this stuff was written in Java, which was kind of interesting -- and surprisingly, the performance of interpreting Lisp inside of a Java application wasn't that bad, at least for a modest number of objects on the canvas at any given time.
The point is, we were embedding code in XML long before Microsoft even dreamed of this patent, and all of the work that was done on this was carefully documented because eWisdom was hot to patent some of our core ideas. Unfortunately, I don't think we ever made any progress on patenting any of the ideas. Looking at this Microsoft patent, it seems clear that it wouldn't cover the kind of stuff that I did for eWisdom. A creative lawyer could argue otherwise, but the preponderance of evidence would be against them.
The microsoft patent is acepted.
Someone use a emmbebed script in xml in a very big project.
And sun patent the ability of store word documents, presentations and others in xml, only the concept.
How many it will cost to microsoft?
cientifico at ya dot com