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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
so that patent is putting something inside of xml and making use of it.
wow *puts hands on face in suprise)
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.
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?
HTML is a direct subset of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language). XML is derived from SGML.
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
<?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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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*
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
- 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!
There are other countries in the world.
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
No, no, no. You don't get it at all, do you?
This patent only covers putting both of your examples in the same document.
Totally different and nonobvious dude.
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
What does this mean for Openoffice.org?
Scott
(An ignorant clueless person when it comes to what the heck XML is.)
Here's one that runs in: ANSI COBOL, ISO Pascal, ANSI Fortran, ANSI C (lint free), Postscript, Shell script, 8086 machine language.
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.
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).
Last year the the Patent Office granted a patent for ecommerce over the Internet. The patent holder, an attorney, I believe, then proceeded with a systematic campaign to sue small businesses that hawk their wares over the Internet. He would "settle" with these businesses for a $5,000 licensing fee, which is substantially lower than the legal fees to chanllenge his patent. He didn't try to sue Amazon.com, who would surely have challenged and invalidated his patent claim. Pretty slimey business, but unfortunately, very legal. The problem is that the Patent Office is so clueless about the patent applications put before them and seems to put little thought about the implications of the patents.
..just what we all need.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
No, no, this is entirely different. Microsoft is using <code> tags.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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!"
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.
You're not alone.
Donate free food here
"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.
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.
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 =