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.
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
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.
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?!
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
XSL. It is pretty much a patent on XSL. I've begun working with it, and it pretty much is a script put into XML format. Quite a nice little technology 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?
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.
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.
Any competent programmer could come up with a method for doing the same thing in a few hours.
I already do it! HTML is XML compliant, no? Well, in my HTML documents, I have this tendency to put these little tags, like, <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT"> (some code in *gasp* the JavaScript scripting language...) </SCRIPT>
And though I don't personally use it, I have seen
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBSCRIPT"> (some code in *gasp* the VBScript scripting language...) </SCRIPT>
Isn't that what they just described in this patent? *scratches head*
For all I care, IBM can HAVE EBCDIC.
/me misses it not.
Other mainframes such as Unisys use EBCDIC too. I hate to say it, but a good portion of the world's data is still on Mainframes and still in EBCDIC.
When a-z are non contiguous... shudder.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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?
Really? What's this then?
01100001
01000001
What does this mean for Openoffice.org?
Scott
(An ignorant clueless person when it comes to what the heck XML is.)
C# is Db - D flat.
:)
Interesting - DrDobbs made a DOS based DFlat windows framework in the early 90's . IIRC he wanted to call it something else (may have even been C Sharp) but the owner of the then C sharp complained, so he changed it to DFlat.
Maybe they should take on Microsoft
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
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.
It's patentable in part because XML's not like HTML. HT means hypertext, and since HTML is allegedly object oriented, effectively, the claim is that the objects all have the properties of being parts of (hyper)text. X means Extensible. so if you accept that XML is object oriented, the objects can be almost anything you can shoehorn in there. (I know that OOP is mostly a buzzword when it comes to markup languages, but tell that to the Patent Office). The patent Office's view may well be: Since X can be a lot of things the originators never expected, Microsoft's method can make some of those possible objects in XML actual. That meets the tests for novelty and non-obviousness that are part of Patent claims. Since we don't know just what objects can now be better constructed in XML by using this Microsoft patented method, we can't argue that anyone would easily see the obviousness of an application. Trying to say the same about HTML would be (roughly) like claiming that someone had implemented capitalzation and bold face text, but italics or underlining were not obvious steps from there.
(With that said, I am not a Lawyer).
Who is John Cabal?
Can someone please post some prior art here (or mod this up?)?
Believe it or not, what you might think is a "trivial" example, could be a landmark issue in the coming years (considering the current state of affairs), so please post any info that you have...
Kudos to the author for making this subtle yet EXTREMELY valuable "talking point" public!
We need to stay on our toes, guys - even the smallest details are going to count significantly in the Intellectual Property realm that is the future (and the present).
Please note: I gave up the opportunity to use moderator points so I could post this. It's of paramount importance kids - NEVER give up your rights!!!
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
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
I don't think they are patenting XML, but they've patented every possibly way of combining multiple scripts into a single file and allowing one or more to be extracted and executed. One of the file formats specifically described is XML.
In other words they've patented using any form of electronic data storage and retrieval mechanism (file, database, etc) for storing scripts. This is complete bullshit. You would be violating this patent by using a loopback mount for /etc/rc.d .
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
tar cvf etc-rc-d.tar /etc/rc.d
I'm glad we have Microsoft to innovate such things for us. Nobody has ever thought of this type of thing before.
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
You need to understand how patents work. It's not the embodiment of the patent that's important; it's the claims. The claims are very specific that this patent covers scripts, marked with the CDATA keyword, within XML files. The XML in the case is merely a container. They're patenting the use of CDATA scripts within XML - not XML (or any other container) itself.
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?
You mean like:
// my javascript here
<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/vbscript">
' my vbscript here
</script>
</head>
</html>
This has been an HTML standard for how long? USPTO scares me.