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
You don't trust Microsoft do you? :)
I think you are being a little too hasty in your outlook for the future. The W3C set the standard of XML, Microsoft cannot patent XML itself, it may patent some specific uses for it but there should be enough prior art to stop them from going too far.
Alternately you could get Bill G, George W and a mad Palestinian in a room to have some fun.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
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
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.)
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?