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.
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
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?
If you read the patent text, you will find it is not a patent on XML itself. It is a patent on the method of encompassing multiple scripts inside an XML file. The scripts can be all written in the same language or different languages.
I think this may be used to change the way ASP works. It will allow you to use C# and javascript in one file and depending on the system configuration, it selects the correct script to run.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
HTML is a direct subset of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language). XML is derived from SGML.
Give credit where credit is due, coward!
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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
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.
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
You are incorrect. E# exists, as does B#, and any singer or violinist can produce them.
You are violating the intellectual property of J.S.Bach. His lawyers shall contact you anon.
How is your temper?
KFG
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
You have to admit that the idea to control lowercase and uppercase with a single bit has it's advantages. In one operation you can test both 'a' and 'A'. ASCII makes you use test on both and use addition and subtraction instead of the more computer friendly bit flips.
What makes you think that isn't true for ASCII? In ASCII a-z and A-Z are continuous and in-order with "A" starting at 65 and "a" at 97. That's a separation of 32, which makes them differ by a single bit.
Here's one that runs in: ANSI COBOL, ISO Pascal, ANSI Fortran, ANSI C (lint free), Postscript, Shell script, 8086 machine language.
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.
Actually, that's only partially true.
...
Usually, claims are made like so:
1) A device to clean shit.
2) A device of claim 1, which further Disinfects;
3) A device of claim 1, which further Deodorizes;
4) A device of claim 1, which both Disinfects and Deodorizes;
5) A device of claim 4, which further Polishes to a high gloss
6) A device to clean piss.
7) A device of claim 6, which further cleans vomit.
(usually limited to 20 or so claims)
So, if you make a shit cleaner, you infringe under claim 1.
If you make a disinfecting shit cleaner, you infringe under claim 2 - claim 1 wouldn't cover it alone, since it's an improvement to claim 1.
etc.
IANAL, but I have helped to write a patent application (which was accepted). I also have had the distinct displeasure of reading patents to try to find infringement.
- The Sigless Wonder
Every one of the claims must be implemented for a system to be covered by the patent.
Well, no. Claims may be independent, or they may be dependent. Implementation of a single independent claim is enough. Dependent claims include other claims by reference, and are more narrow in scope. The purpose of dependent claims is to give (more narrow) coverage in the broader independent claim is found to be unsustainable by the examiner or in court.
If a competitor constructs a system that implements all but one of the claims, it is not an infringement.
In this patent implementation of any of 1, 9, 19 OR 22 would be enough to trigger infringement.
Additonal claims do NOT narrow a patent's coverage. What does narrow coverage is the inclusion of various requirements in the claims themselves.
The list of claims and supporting information defines the coverage of the patent precisely.
Ever hear of the 'doctrine of equivalents'???
XML, which is a subset of SGML, was conceived about 1996 and became a W3C standard on Feb. 10, 1998. No one owns the exclusive rights to XML. It is licence-free and platform independant (doesn't sound like M$, does it?) For reasons too off-topic to get into here, suffice to say, there are different schema dialects of XML. The W3C XML Schema Working Group received a dialect submission from M$ in January, 1998, even before XML 1.0 was complete: XML-Data schema language and XDR (the XML Data-Reduced Schema), a subset of the W3C's final recommendation. Needless to say, M$ (and some others) products offer full support for XDR. There are other dialects and schemas of XML as well, such as the well known DTD, XSD, XPath, XLink, XPointer, XSL, SAX, XSLT, etc. and surely others I will offend someone by failing to mention. So to answer your question, M$ cannot patent XML - no way - but they certainly do have prior art to XML-data and XDR. This isn't a big deal because there is no neccessity in using these schema; XML is a great, open-ended language with lots of alternatives - heck, invent your own! Some references: http://www.w3.org/XML/ http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/
Using XML to delimit script fragments in a variety of languages may or may not be particularly original; it seems to me that this is what the patent's about, rather than (shock, horror, page impressions, revenue) the whole of XML per se.
"OpenOffice would then presumeably be unable (from the legal perspective) to read and write "Microsoft" XML files."
I think the reverse engineering clause in the DMCA would protect this sort of behavior. Mind you, I'm not trying to portray the DMCA in anything resembling a rose-colored light, but I don't *think* the example you cited would be problematic.
I've actually had the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing (or something very similar) with an attorney who's a client of my company. Basically, his verdict on the matter was in concurrence with my interpretation of the law. This is (at best) third-hand legal advice however, and should probably be taken with a larger amount of salt than even ordinary Slashdot posts ;).
Sig: Seeking partnerships with web design firms.
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.