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>
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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
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.
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).
..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.
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
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'???
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
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.