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.
Isn't this what most all of html w/javascript is? I haven't read the patent, but this seems like script within XML (Almost).
What will they do with all of those patents years from now when they have lost, or are about to lose, their monopoly on the desktop after some powerful new competitor emerges? Introducing Microsoft's newest division, MSSource!
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.
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
you mean like alert('hello'); ?
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.
Agreed. The patent seems to be about embedding multiple scripts in a single XML file and ways for extracting and executing them appropriately. MS has done this for a while in WSH (Windows Script Host). This is a far cry from "patenting XML".
That being said, the patent is a bit over the line, as compared to say, the light bulb or the washing machine. I mean, come on... You're putting generic stuff (code of different types) into a generic file type (XML) and then executing it. This isn't especially novel or unique, and I'm sure plenty of people (myself included) have been doing this for quite some time.
Microsoft knows better than to try to patent XML itself. That would not stand up even with the U.S. patent office in its current state. Instead, they will patent many aspects and possible uses of XML so there will be no practical method to use XML in a meaningful way without infringing a Microsoft patent.
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.
Oh you mean ASP, JSP, Possibly PHP, CFM, Miva...
Interesting...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
But the claims are what matter. You have to read the claims to see what is being patented. The abstract is just there to give the claims some framework for understanding what new and novel things are being claimed.
Oh, what's this?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
There are other countries in the world.
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
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...
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).
Every one of the claims must be implemented for a system to be covered by the patent.
;-)
Are you certain about this? Are you a patent lawyer?
IANAPL, but I have worked on systems for them. You may be right about dependent claims, but it is my understanding that each independent claim is an individual attempt to gain protection for something.
During the patenting process claims are often changed, removed and added - based not on some single implementation of the invention but on how many things the patent can be claimed to cover. Thus claims can be broadened or narrowed to cover more or less, depending on how much is patentable and how much is already patented or in the public domain.
Is it different for software patents? Again, I am not a Patent Lawyer, but I think this is more complicated than you claim
because if you dont than no-name companies with no technololgy but super vague patents will sue you over totally obvious ideas with plenty of prior art.
And win, because our patent system and judges are both ridiculous.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
..just what we all need.
You are right to compare their XML claims to what we all do with HTML.
Let's pick their abstract apart:
"Systems, methods and data structures" - yadda yadda yadda
"for encompassing scripts" - a way of storing a script program
"written in one or more scripting languages" - let's say JavaScript and VBScript
"in a single file." - Such as within an html file
"The scripts of a computer system" - as we said, JavaScript and VBScript
"are organized into a single file " - as we said, an html file
"using Extensible Language Markup (XML)." - Ok, xml instead of html - but don't forget xml and html are both specific subsets of sml. We'll continue with the html analogy
"Each script is delimited by a file element" - Give each script a unique internal name
"and the script's instructions" - The JavaScript or VBScript code
"are delimited by a code element within each file element." - The code tag goes inside the script name tag. This is similar to a <param> tag inside an <object> in html. This is a case where xml is cleaner than html, and one of many reasons the world is moving to xml. But we'll continue with the html analogy for now anyway.
"Other information" - attributes
"such as a name of the script" - in html this might be implemented as <script type="text/javascript" name="somename">. In reality, each JavaScript function has its own name, and a programmer refers to the code by the functions.
"and a functional description of the script may also be included in the file" - same as the last snipit, where you might have script type="text/javascript" description="This is a description">. Typically html programmers just put this into comments and documentation.
"using other XML elements to delimit that information." - As stated above, xml is better because of its ability to create tags. But I'm going to continue dragging the html example along.
"The language in which a particular script is written is also included within the XML format." - Similar to the type attribute in <script type="text/javascript"> or the old language attribute in <script language="javascript">
"When a particular script is executed," - When a user browses to a page with JavaScript, or runs in some other shell
"the file is parsed" - yeah, I hope so
"to create a list of the script names" - similar to function names, albeit with some encapsulation
"or of the functional descriptions of the scripts." - Its always nice to have a more human-readable version, especially if users are going to see program names.
"One or more scripts are selected" - On an html page, some JavaScript scripts may run when the page is loaded, others when a form is validated
"and the code for those scripts is extracted from the file" - read the script into memory into some blob text object
"and executed" - interpreted and run the script
"by the appropriate scripting process." JavaScript is done by a JavaScript interpreter, VBScript by a VBScript interpreter, etc.
"The scripting process that executes a particular script" - The JavaScript or VBScript interpreter
"is identified from the scripting extension attribute" - Is identified by the "type" attribute as seen in <script type="text/javascript">"
"that is included in the XML format of the file." - Yeah, this analogy uses html, and we're all slowly moving to an xml world.
In summary: We're all moving to xml for many obvious reasons, and Microsoft has patented one of them. We've all been adding multiple scripts to our html files for years, and there have been pain points. One promise of xml is to have more easily parsed data and meta-data due to the ability to define tags and the use of hierarchical tags instead of a fixed list of attributes. Every html file I've ever written falls into this classification where xml is desired, and this includes my javascript code. We've all been doing this for years within html.
What Microsoft has patented is an obvious extension of current industry practices to anyone skilled in the art, and the patent should not have been granted.
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
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.
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.
Two things:
First, as long as MS has the patent on the Office 2004 format, they dont need the DMCA. The patent itself precludes others from making use ot the file format.
Second, and most important, MS has been deemed a monopoly. That means that certain actions that most companies can take, it cannot. So, basically if MS descides to sue an OO.o developer, or company selling the product, all that individual has to do is counter-sue for monopoly violations and say they were only providing compatibility as a way to conduct buisness and offer compitition to MS. MS probably sees that and most likely wont touch OO.o until Office's market share drops below 50%. This is when MS will be come dangerous because then it will not be a monopoly anymore and I garauntee MS will be looking for anyway to regain its market share.
"We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
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
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!"
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!
You have a good point. Microsoft is as a whole quite evil. Is everything they do, by default then evil? Do we just always automatically assume that and not look at the facts first? Sure, it can make us quite suspicious of their motives, but my point was more about the people who need to RTFA and the second they see the "Microsoft" in the title they immediately start slinging cliche after cliche and using Microsoft as a way to bolster their own ego.
Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that Microsoft IS the evil empire. However, that doesn't mean that every time they do something I automatically assume that it must be evil as well. Microsoft is made up of people, and I'm certain that the majority of them are not bad people. As such, it is entirely possible that some things the company does may actually be good.
Just something to consider.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
What this is really about is so that they can run a program from outside the browser, by using a configuration file.
Since they lost out on that other patent and are fighting it, by circumventing it.
This way they can store the data necessary to launch an application externally from the browser by having a xml file parsed and scripts run from it. This way the browser is not using a plugin.
think about it.
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads