Slashdot Mirror
MS Files for Broad XML/Word-processing Patent in NZ
Unloaded writes "In the New Zealand Herald, Adam Gifford has written an
article blasting Microsoft for burying the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office in paperwork. One example is Patent 525484, accepted by the office and now open for objections until the end of May, which says Microsoft invented and owns the process whereby a word-processing document stored in a single XML file may be manipulated by applications that understand XML."
Would this be the same Microsoft that is arguing for patent reform?
So basically, MIcrosoft is trying to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from being able to import and export Word XML files. Wonderful.
At least it's not patenting those apps from reading their own format, since they aren't single files (zips and bundles, respectively).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Patent Laywers at the patent office are getting snow-blizzard.
Does this means, the patent reviewers are added to the growing list of Microsoft-bashers?
Patent the idea of patenting other peoples ideas; that ought to stop most of Microsofts patents. =)
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
There is a really really good explanation on what XML is and why it works here.
The W3C states though that:
XML was developed by an XML Working Group (originally known as the SGML Editorial Review Board) formed under the auspices of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1996. It was chaired by Jon Bosak of Sun Microsystems with the active participation of an XML Special Interest Group (previously known as the SGML Working Group) also organized by the W3C. The membership of the XML Working Group is given in an appendix. Dan Connolly served as the Working Group's contact with the W3C.
I understand that microsoft aren't claiming to have invented the technology, but it really annoys me that they are trying to patent a use, and a small extract of a software they had only a small part in developing!
http://www.sandstorming.com
Great. With this, Microsoft is making XML is their own "proprietary" format. At least in that country.
Sadly, they *are* likely to have at least some of their patents accepted, even if the more absurd ones wind up on /.'s front page.
And eventually they'll find a way to sue some company or another over one or more of them. If that company settles, rather than attempts to challenge the patent (which can be considerably more expensive), voila! - a profit center.
It's absurd that the only 'ideas' we're allowed to use in programming are those that either haven't already been thought of (and then it would be wise to get your own patent, or at least document prior art) or those that existed before the birth of the hideous cancer known as software patents.
But hey -- I feel so much safer, I guess it's *worth* losing all my rights, eh?
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
If the patent is for processing word processing XML files, how do they define that? Is XHTML word processing document? What about Docbook?
And how is it that word processing XML in particular is innovative and worthy of a patent? Isn't it fundamentally the same as processing any other XML?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You cannot blame MS for playing according to the rules; nor can one blame the policticians for being accomodating and writing the rules to benefit such a generous contributor. Anyone here say vicious circle ?
This is not a signature.
Patent interoperability that uses a format that was specifically created to allow interoperability. (And wasn't even invented by MS on top of that)
Wow, it takes guts to file such a patent.
Congratulations.
This story.
Would be better.
If it didn't read like.
One of Shatner's.
Speaches.
The famous Microsoft interoperability initiative.
"We're using an open format! You just can't do anything with it unless we say so. And yeah, we're not going to say so unless you're using our product anyway, or paying us a hefty tax that our competitors, both free and otherwise, can't afford. But hey, we're interoperable!"
is this what you might call patent spam? file millions, some are bound to get through?
I think a lot of the problems with patents would go away if applying for a patent for something that the applicant knew had been done before, or should have known was obvious to someone in that field, was treated as fraud. That is a fine, or maybe even jail time for that applicant and senior management at that company.
I know, its not going to happen. Even if it did software patents would still be wrong.
"Patent the idea of patenting other peoples ideas"
That's a good idea, I'll file a patent application right away!.
How does one object??!? all these patents are going out of control. Any ideas? Chris
This "vicious circle" could be easily broken if there were politicians that actually cared about their constituents and the welfare of their city/state/country rather than caring for the almight dollar/yen/euro/etc.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
They're tricking the patent office into accepting their applications which are just outside the rules.* That patent isn't innovative, nor is it even new at all! What Microsoft is doing is like watching somebody create the automobile and then patenting sedans. It's just a subset and a particular use of an existing technology, not anything new at all!
*assuming NZ's patent rules are anything like the US's
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I find this interesting.
It would seem MS is getting patents like these in a delevoped country that has no strong competitors - nor a very strong head when it comes to things IT. This way, the patents will be in place before anything is noticed and the damage has been done.
Mind you, they are getting vague patents overseas (read America) such as this.
I'd be very interested in finding out who, if any, would object to patents such as these here in NZ.
Well where's the link to the patent? Otherwise I'm going to assume that the author of this /. story simply doesn't understand patents, rather than that the NZ patent office is suddenly accepting obvious patents.
Technology & Science
>> Home >> Technology & Science
Adam Gifford: Gates up to old tricks over intellectual property rights
untitled image
15.03.05
If you wondered how Bill Gates topped the Forbes rich list for the 11th year with a personal fortune of US$46.5 billion ($63 billion), look no further than the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office.
Patent 525484, accepted by the office and now open for objections until the end of May, says Microsoft invented and owns the process whereby a word-processing document stored in a single XML file may be manipulated by applications that understand XML.
It is one of a raft of patent applications Microsoft has dumped on the overworked staff of the office, and on patent offices worldwide.
Some of them might have more merit than this particular piece of junk, but they are part of a strategic effort by Microsoft to control another generation of technology, just when its grip on the personal computer is being undermined by the Open Source movement.
Gates' greatest achievement has never been the software he created - some is good, some is terrible, a lot is a knock-off of someone else's stuff - but the way he was able to get people to pay for it.
When the precocious teenager was writing his first bits of code, computers were rare and expensive and owned by organisations that would pay people to write programs for them.
That changed in January 1975 when Scientific American 's cover featured the Altair 8800, a US$500 kitset computer developed by Albuquerque research engineer Ed Robert.
Altair users had to solder the kit together and toggle switches to program the machine.
Gates and his friend, Paul Allen, offered to develop a version of the BASIC operating system for the Altair. Roberts bought it, and allowed Gates and Allen to sell copies separately.
When Gates discovered copies of the program were circulating among hobby computer clubs, he wrote "An open letter to hobbyists", published in a New Mexico club newsletter.
"Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work only took two months, the three of us have spent most of the past year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC.
"The value of the computer time we have used exceeds US$40,000," the outraged Gates told the hobbyists.
He said most Altair owners didn't pay for the BASIC they were using, and the royalties the trio received amounted to less than US$2 an hour.
"Most of you steal your software," he scolded. That practice would prevent good software being written.
Gates' manifesto set the stage for a software licensing revolution running alongside the personal computer revolution.
Although many of the hobbyists disagreed with the principle and baulked at the US$500 price tag Gates and Allen had on their product, enough paid up to give a useful boost to their fledgling business.
What rankled with the hobbyists was the fact that the 4kB BASIC interpreter appeared to be cribbed from other BASIC implementations in the public domain.
The development work was done on a taxpayer-subsidised PDP-10 at Harvard University, where Gates was a student. Although they might have used US$40,000 of computer time, they didn't pay for it.
Now the old-time hackers and hobbyists are back. The amount of good software they have created through the Open Source process, and the economic value that has had, showed up the flaws in the Microsoft taxation model.
There are three viable models for software creation: firms, markets, and community-based peer-production, as Open Source is sometimes described.
Patents allow firms to create artificial legal barriers that can hinder or prevent community-based peer-production, as those communities may lack the resources to apply for patents, object to patent applications, pay patent licensing f
Explain to me in what way the xhtml documents I find all over the web are not word processing documents stored in xml?
It would be nice to have some non-monetary penalties apply for frivilous patents. Like, for instance, if a patent gets rejected for being obvious then the firm doing the patenting must wait six months before filing another patent. It would do two things:
1. Teach the business that they should be more careful when it comes to patents, and
2. Frees up the patent office to do better research.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I liked the article's obligatory closing anti-globalisation rant - 'Politicians still talk of a free trade agreement as benefiting this country. The reality is intellectual property rights will be high on the US agenda and it won't be to this country's benefit.'
Perhaps someone can explain to me how New Zealand's patent office approving dubious patent applications equals the US using globalisation to push their IP agenda?
Anyway, nice of this Microsoft basher to show all his stripes. I agree of course that what is happening with such patents around the world is nuts, but Microsoft is just one of many companies playing this game, and its current stream of patent applications has little to nothing to do with Gates' early days writing BASIC for the Altair 8800 if you ask me.
Patent 525484
A computer-readable medium having computer-executable components comprises
a first component for reading a word-processor document stored as a single XML file;
a second component that utilizes an XSD (XML Schema Definition) for interpreting the word-processor document, and
a third component for performing an action on the word-processor document.
The computer readable medium can further comprise a validating component configured to validate the word-processor document or a fourth component for displaying the word-processor document.
The XSD represents a word-processor's rich formatting and the XSD is published and is available to applications other than the word-processor. The word-processor document can include hints to applications that understand XML.
The action may be selected from parsing, modifying, reading, and creating the word-processor document and may be fully recreating the word-processor document according to a word processor's set of features.
Well they did invent XML so I dont see what the problem is?
In a cute sort of twist, they 'invented' xml so that they could produce documents in excel, word etc... that were compatible with other platforms yet did not open their own file format. I guess they thought that being giving was fine when they didn't believe anyone could receive.
In case anyone is interested and wants to be fully informed what the patent actually says (so rare a quality in a slashdot reader I find these days), then here is the abstract:
Patent 525484
A computer-readable medium having computer-executable components comprises a first component for reading a word-processor document stored as a single XML file; a second component that utilizes an XSD (XML Schema Definition) for interpreting the word-processor document, and
a third component for performing an action on the word-processor document.
The computer readable medium can further comprise a validating component configured to validate the word-processor document or a fourth component for displaying the word-processor document. The XSD represents a word-processor's rich formatting and the XSD is published and is available to applications other than the word-processor. The word-processor document can include hints to applications that understand XML.
The action may be selected from parsing, modifying, reading, and creating the word-processor document and may be fully recreating the word-processor document according to a word processor's set of features.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Subsequently overheard at MS: "Damn! If only prior art actually MEANT something!! Wait... what am I saying?"
For something to be patentable (at least over here), there must be an inventive step. Using XML to store data is what XML is for, this is an obvious use of existing technlogy and therefore should not be patentable. There's no invention there.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
You notice that it has the full document. I'm not going to post the entire document you know! As the article says, Microsoft have the patent office swimming in documents.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The problem with this article is that it misses the point. Like any good troll, the author asserts facts and opinions that can't be denied, supporting what is unfortunately a skewed and unfair underpinning perspective.
Yes, the patent is a poor one - although MS did it first (I think), the idea isn't particularly great; it is an obvious idea from just reading the XML RFC.
However, a google search for "microsoft patent case" reveals page after page of results for microsoft being sued for patent infringement. None of the results, as far as I can see, pertain to Microsoft suing someone else.
A great deal of large companies have a strategy of defensive patenting: if you've got the patent, no one else can; plus, if you've got one they (an aggressor) infringe and they've got one you infringe, there's a chance that everyone will just forget all about it.
Microsoft's strategy is consistent with their talk about overhauling the patent system - the system is garbage, but they should hedge their bets and defensive patent in case it (the system) doesn't get changed.
No-one is getting screwed as much as Microsoft over patents. The author is simply picking on an easy target.
Sounds like Word all right.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You almost had me there, Bezos ...
:).
Well, that's a patent to patent patents, I think it's enough to prove prior art to your idea
In no way is this picking on an easy target. This is not a novel patent, clear and simple. There was no excuse to patent a means to increase interoperability.
What they are trying to do is to make it less easy for competing products to use their own product which has significant market share. If they could shut OpenOffice out of the market, then they have just effectively caused the gain in market share that product has to slow.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Coz I thought I was the stupidest, most boring dickhead imaginable, but thank holy mother of fuck you proved me wrong!
...you might want to see this:
http://mjr.iki.fi/texts/patentfund (Yes, a shameless not-self-plug)
OK, they might not have a chance to raise enough money to win EC over from microsoft, but at least it's a stylish way to comment on the way EU is steered nowadays. If enough people learn about this (and the list of people gets very long) it at least sends some message somewhere.
Sorry, I already patented the idea of patenting the idea of patenting other peoples ideas. Too late.
There is an unbelievable amount of prior art.
Tangentially relevent: one news story recently which seems to have slipped past /. was the decision that in the EU non-published but `everyone knows that' information can count as prior art to kill a patent. (it was a biotech patent, but clearly the argument has wider applications).
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
So is there any sense for MS to adopt an open standard such as XML for saving documents and then prevent others from reading and writing it?
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
Why isn't anybody on the offensive, anywhere, to rein in uncool corporate practices? It seems that people everywhere are on the defensive all the time from the influences of crappy corporations like this.
I think it's time to revise the playbook.
Too late, I've already patented patenting.
Sorry, I have found lots of prior art for that.
It's only an application. You can apply for anything you want. Absolutely anything. You can even apply for unpatentable rubbish if you really want.
What gets granted however is only a small subset of all the applications.
I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft but what everyone fails to acknowledge is one of the main reasons why Microsoft patents in the first place. This reason is that they want to protect themselves from getting charged huge liscensing fees for a product they've spent millions of dollars developing. They don't patent to make money. Microsoft isn't chasing everyone around with an iron fist looking for patent violations. They are actually very lenient unlike many other companies that look for profit from patent violations. In many cases it also beneficial to have Microsoft hold patents on ideas that would have probably simultaneously been developed by thousands of independent companies.
Perhaps patent offices should implement a sliding scale for filing fees?
Instead of offering volume discounts, make each tier of filing (10, 100, 1000 p.a.) progressively more expensive. Say $75 USD each for the first ten applications, $750 USD each for 11-100, $7500 each for 1000+.
This would prevent overburdening of patent offices (they would have greater resources to cope) without discouraging individuals or small organizations. Can't see who it would harm, and it would certainly prevent abuse except by those with infinite resources.
Microsoft did not invent the word processor, nor XML. XML is a revised SGML, and there have been several word processing / DTP programs that stored their documents in SGML.
US Patent Office
Provisional patent application: PPA1283405995
Applicant: Microsoft Corp., Redmond
Date: 12-Feb-2005
Synopsis:
A rotating, magnetically polarised (variable), spherical device occupying a non-fixed position in time and space, comprising a semi-liquid core encased by an unstable, multi-layered outer shell surrounded by a mixed-composition liquid/gaseous environment with a range of complex environmental variances, capable of hosting a variety of surface and sub-surface, organic-based life forms supporting social and other interactions at various levels of intelligence using a range of simple-to-complex sensory devices.
AT&ROFLMAO
If you look at what Microsoft does it's still very good in business and doesn't show age. It keeps on buying ideas and products cheap and sells them well, their programmers do a good job in integrating the bought applications into the microsoft "network".
This double-faced strategy is getting a little bit tired. Come on, Microsoft, you think world are gonna along with this? five more years? ten? That's a living in the monopolist wet dream's fantasy - when all this stuff will seriously halt any kind of development in IT, it will be changed, no matter what Microsoft would like to see that.
Ok, I admit, I'm little bit naive, but hey...
p.s. I know that they are already a legit industry, who earns in such predatoric way about 300-400 bilions a year. I know all that bullshit. And I wonder - how long it is before everyone will think - hey, let's not do a real job, let extract money from someone else - and no real job will be done.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The NZOSS is opposing this patent as pointed out here
Microsoft in no way invented XML. Dave Hollander invented XML.
http://www.mhxml.com/myinfo/MyBio.htm
Anybody feel that with its slowly diminishing market share that this is the start of its grab at a retirement fund because it can see the inevitable, i.e. for when its demand for products is so low it can't keep its behemoth self afloat and sues smaller companies to bring the money in?
Calling all bloggers!
Lets make Microsoft number 2 on Google.
That'll teach them!
Until that's done, a patent like this is 'intimidation' against those of us who just want to practise our trade as mathematicians and programmers. 'intimidation' gets you a bad name and gets resisted.
This is an important opportunity to explain to your PHBs how their business (and your livelihood) is going to be circumscribed by Microsoft-only technology unless they make a move to more interoperable and less encumbered software. Compliance is going to cost mega-dollars from lawyers fees to license renewal. It's just not worth it.
This kind of greed is going to kill XML innovation just by making the mechanisms legally doubtful unless you're a corporation who can afford to waste shareholder's investments.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Whilst I wholly disagree with patenting such an obvious idea, I can understand the mindset that is leading to these patents, and it's one that I can't see changing soon. As a developer it's too easy to simply copy someone's idea, just by looking at screenshots, demo applications and other freely available information about a program. Because you're not actually copying source code, no-one can accuse you of IP theft, although you are essentially doing the same thing. All developers are guilty of this, including Microsoft and a whole myriad of open-source software 'clones' of commercial products. The only protection one has is to patent every single obvious idea in the hope that it discourages others from cloning your software, and saving heaps of time and money by borrowing your screen-layouts, feature-set and functionality. The solution has to be an all-or-nothing approach. Either _everything_ needs to be patented, or nothing at all. I personally think it would be better to disallow all software patents, and simply rely on IP laws to protect source code. Microsoft obviously takes the other view. In my opinion, the life-cycle of software is just too short to allow these patents to stand for 3, 5 or 10 years. Perhaps a patent scheme where software ideas are protected for 3, 6 or 12 months would be more appropriate.
Well they did invent XML so I dont see what the problem is?
The problem is guys like you think this way and think they know and that they are right. Patent office clerks probably have about the same amount of information when accept patents like this as you do: a bit below nothing.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Landmark Victory in World's First Case Against Biopiracy!!
European Patent Office Upholds Decision to Revoke Neem Patent
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
It's called learning from experience. People don't "bash" Microsoft just for the hell of it. Microsoft has worked as hard to earn the reputation for destructive and illegal business methods as it has to earn its reputation for expensive, shoddy software.
It hasn't been a software company since the 80's. It's now about marketing and political influence. Get over it.
Perhaps you are thinking of "defensive publication"?
Patents are state licensed monopolies. A monopoly is offensive as it is used to attack others in the wallet if they try to exploit a technological innovation.
Defensive _publication_ is the firm establishment of prior art for a particular innovation to prevent another from getting a patent. Defensive publication leaves open the way for anyone to use the technology (with the proviso being that it can be established that no previous patent exists for that tech.).
The patent system can be used for defensive publication but this (usually, ie not in EU,US,UK, at least) doesn't require those presenting the matter for publication to get a patent. For example in the UK (GB patents) the submitted disclosure is made public long before a patent is granted and an applicant can just pull out at that stage if they only want a defensive publication.
There are also companies which specialise in defensive publication. Publication in journals is also used for this purpose.
FWIW.
Xforms now present in OpenOffice-2=Beta and in Firefox 1.01 as an extension does exactly that: allow the manipulation of an XML document using client side software.
It would be a shame to lose out on that.
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
Or he knows it's real, which implies he tried it.
Microsoft has plenty of prior art on this issue, and they have the funding for the patent lawyers to get such a patent revoked.
A better patent system would be to have an entire community moderate patent applications. Only +5 patents are granted. Think Slashdot. Only those interested in tech affairs read Slashdot. Now simply adapt the /. code to work for the patent system and - profit! Or non-profit really.
The same application has been filed at the USPTO as publication number 20040210818.
If I understand it correctly, then it is like patenting that only I can tell or write science-fiction stories in the Slovak language?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I'm not entirely convinced about the defensive patent argument. I'm sure it's true for many companies, but I'm not at all inclined to believe MS is one of them.
- They've tried to actively enforce some patents - admittedly rather old and crappy patents (FAT32 anybody?), but that's still hardly a defensive move.
- It appears - I have no firsthand knowledge - that they want at least some degree of software patentability in the EU. This doesn't really fit with the purported view that the patent system is broken and they're just playing by the rules until it can be fixed.
- If they wish to focus on defense with patents, why would they not even reveal details about their patent claims on the now-defunct Sender-ID, let alone license them?
Now, they're a big company and they do a lot of things - but some of this appears comes from a very high level, the EU patent push in particular. I don't think that's consistent with someone who's just playing along until things can be fixed.
Hang on, we have software patents here? I thought our refusal to allow nuclear ships here had caused enough friction that the states had kinda stomped on any free trade agreements with us, so we were safe from any other shit being slipped in, as happened to Aus with their FTA and the DMCA style shite.
It seems the NZ patent office is taking the USPTO line of granting any patent going,
in spite of trivial factors like prior art, gross obviousness and indeed patentability itself.
May the Maths Be with you!
Microsoft has just filed for the patent for it's new concept of a "helpful thingy that runs on electricity".
In a press release on Tuesday describing the company's new innovation, company representative Michael Wells said "well, like, you know...it just does stuff...and it runs off this thing called electricity...so yeah, you know, we figured, we came up with it first...so yeah, it's like, totally ours...we're gonna make billions off stupid, I mean...errr...trend-setting consumers"
*rolls eyes*
victor
No trick, it is called swamping. This is one of hundreds. Ones like this will get rejected but lots of ridiculous but not quite as ridiculous ones will get through. It is just like nuclear missiles now split into hundreds of smaller missiles en route so that the defence systems of the target country may stop lots but lots will still get through (only one needs to).
Patent Zerg.
I hate the fact that the inventor of XML can't even use it correctly. Look at that guy's code! Capital letter tags, non-terminated horizontal rule tags, etc. I mean, come on! YOU MADE IT!
At worst, they have to wait another 6 months before filing for their next patent. I can't imagine that would cause too much trouble for a modern Edison (correct me if I'm wrong) but it would put a severe damper on patent spamming.
My only worry is that it would be too easy to get around. Two possible examples (using MS as the generic company):
Solutions would be as follows:
Any thoughts?
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
There are also companies which specialise in defensive publication. Publication in journals is also used for this purpose.
Tell me these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts to ensure the patent is not monopolistically exploited...
Probably not, eh? So defensive patents are anti-innovation, they are a cost on the community.
Did he inhale?
Sorry I already hold the patent on the idea of patenting other peopls ideas and I am filing a patent on the idea of patenting ideas that realate to patenting ideas that were patented by someone else.
I think that just about covers all bases.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
If EITHER party (the company OR the PTO) are "honest", then stupid patents are killed. If the PTO is swamped, stamp "NOT APPROVED" and pass it back - if you don't have time to know that this patent is worthwhile, then (because the courts assume that this HAS been done, so the burden of proof is on the one violating or defending against the patent), then it SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
If the companies only applied for decent patents, then the PTO would not be swamped.
They are BOTH culpable, since either one could stop this.
..... but isn't a patent supposed to cover one specific means to an end rather than an end in itself? In which case this ought to be struck right down.
But if that's not enough, then there is plenty of evidence that this is not novel {KWord, anyone? OOWriter?}.
And if the prior art is not enough, this sort of thing should be obvious to an expert in the field. In fact, all of mathematics is obvious to a mathematician.
How obvious need obvious be? It's obvious that fire conducts electricity, even if you have never thought about it; because fire is a chemical reaction, a chemical reaction contains charged particles in motion, and charged particles in motion can carry an electrical current.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Is it just me, or should we have an international body that handles all patents? That way when a patent is submitted it applies to all the countries involved and we won't have people like M$ patenting things in other countries just because they know they can't get it passed here.
Evil? Nooooooo... just incredlibly stupit (sometimes). But hey, how can you have a company with 100% intelligent people? Imposible! It is sure to have some morons somewhere.
I HOPE THEY WILL BE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE THAT WILL ACTUALLY stop this request!
And please, post it on
Oups, sorry, getting tired of the whole Microsoft is good here.
No sig for now.
don't they already hold this patent, or bought it in one of their " acquisitions " ? hehehe, but seriously, if only such a patent could be granted, and turned over to FOSS ...
Question Authority before IT questions You
I can hear the references to a certain scene in The West Wing already... ;-)
Having been president of a more modest organisation (but still with a few thousand members) for some time, I am pretty strongly of the view that someone should be elected for their values and principles, not their specific policies. In the real world, circumstances will force policy to change from time to time. You can't ask everyone about all the details every time, and even if you did, you can't expect them to have the same amount of time to spend researching the issues and the same depth of understanding on which to base a decision. They elected their representative(s) to do that for them.
As for your specific question, I don't think there can ever be a single right answer to it. For example, would the 75% of the population who disagree with their representative's actions agree with them if they knew and understood as much as their rep, and saw that in fact those actions were consistent with the platform on which they elected the rep in the first place? Clearly the rep has no mandate to say one thing to get elected and then do something completely different in both principle and practice, but beyond that there comes a point when you have to trust the person you elected to do the right thing for the population who elected them. It doesn't always work (and if they consistently fail to do it, you elect someone else next time) but it's about the best way to run a government we've come up with so far.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's technically a "deterrent patent" rather than a purely offensive one. But the idea behind many big companies' patenting strategy is to get enough that you can't win a "patent war" against them. They only assert them against people who start asserting other patents against them, at which point they cross-license.
I am trolling
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I already have a patent on "the use of earlier implementations of an idea in order to invalidate the legal ownership of aforementioned idea by a third party"
MS Files for Broad...Patent in NZ
Hey now, I wouldn't be surprised nowadays with how patents are going!
(P.S. They prefer to be called 'females')
There should be some community global effor/site to watch patent offices around the world. This was local FLOSS communities could at least put up a fight.
Better yet, a global fund.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
There is an unbelievable amount of prior art.
/. was the decision that in the EU non-published but `everyone knows that' information can count as prior art to kill a patent.
The amount of prior art is growing all the time.
Problem is that patent examiners often only look at a few sources. Which is especially a problem if a filer is enguaging in deliberate fraud. Since they are likely to know what sources are likely to be checked and kinds of jargon most likely to be used in those sources.
Tangentially relevent: one news story recently which seems to have slipped past
Information which is widely known is least likely to be documented since to do so would be redundant.
This especially applied to "obvious" in any field. Thus it's a requirement that a patent examiner be familiar with the relevent field. Otherwise they simply can't tell if something is or isn't obvious.
Of course, the problem is that if they know enough about the field to be able to make reasonable judgements, they can make more money doing real work than being a patent examiner.
IMO, patent application shsould be tested by giving the problem they claim to solve to 10 compitent workers in the field and if any of them come up with something close to the proposed patent's solution within an hour, the patent gets dropped as obvious. That would at least weed out the most extremely silly ones.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
It is inevitable that every nation on earth but the US will switch to open source, and fairly soon in the scheme of things.
And find the whole US patent process irrelevant and not worth dealing with while they're at it.
The US will hopefully follow suit with the Justice Department and switch to WordPerfect if not open source. I don't have much hope for the US though.
rd
The NZ Herald article points out:
Community-based peer-production was the topic of the essay "Coase's Penguin" by Yochai Benkler, Professor of Law at the NYU School of Law. Benkler's ultimate thesis is that some of the restrictions that copyright and patent law place on the free flow of information are preventing commons-based peer-production from reaching its full potential. Since peer-production is such an effective form of knowledge production, Benkler argues, it may well be worthwhile reconsidering whether these costs are really worth the benefits.
Instead, let's be reasonable: Let's discuss this with all the patent lawers that help file for new patents at software companies first -- and by 'discuss' I mean 'with blunt object(s) at high velocity' or 'projectile weapon(s) of your choice'.
That's reasonable, right?
RTFS
Prior art probably goes back into the 1960's, way before MS, if you also consider GML as well.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
to be working in IT - I feel so glad that my ideas can flow into my programs without feeling I am trouncing on any patents.
Thanks Bill for giving me that freedom and it makes me so glad I live in a country all about freedom.
I find it difficult to believe that those examining this patent failed to realize that XML is the child of SGML (ISO 8879), a data format whose purpose was structure documents for easy algorithmic manipulation, and whose development was funded largely by public funds. From the W3C:
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a simple, very flexible text format derived from SGML (ISO 8879). Originally designed to meet the challenges of large-scale electronic publishing, XML is also playing an increasingly important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Web.
http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity
The same Microsoft that destroys evidence relating to patent cases .
London's finest organic fairtrade coffee
This way, the patent office can continue to be a cash cow and have an incentive to protect our rights at the same time.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
The example I give when people have trouble understanding that software patents are bad is what would have happened if Agatha Christie had been able to patent the murder mystery novel.
People understand that this is ridiculous, and why only copyright is used for books.
Ditto for software
Defensive publication only works if the patent office is diligent about recognizing prior art. They issue patents despite prior art all the time. The bogus patent holder then sues and the victim frequently licenses the patent for less than it would cost to fight the patent in court to get it overturned. That's the ??? in the patent scam business plan.
The evil empire strikes again. The government and the media is spending millions worrying about Jose Conseco and Michael Jackson. Why does no one do a mainstream story about how currupt and money hungry Microsoft is.
Historically (including not so long ago) it has been legal to treat cheat certain classes of people (by breaking contracts), deprive them of their liberty, torture and kill them. Would you apply these measures to slow down your competition just a tad? Intellectual property laws are being used to steal said property, not just to defend it. In my view, using the laws in this way is unethical, and enforcing a patent on something you did not invent fits the description.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
So, would this fall under the 'least common denominator' concept of the WTO?
"see, we hold a patent over there, so you must honor it over here"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What better arguement than showing everybody exactly why the system doesnt work?
If companies (which want to make a profit) exist that help with defensive publication, then defensive patents are anti-innovation?
It doesn't matter that I agree with you; you need better arguments.
Defensive publication happens in biotech all the time - corps will publish a massive swath of molecules with cryptic notes about some of them, in order to kill an area where some other corp might patent something. It isn't really pro-free-use; it is more strategic corporate warfare, but it is one of the few patent-related areas that actually works for freedom. (It is more complex than a Gibsonian struggle, I know; I'm simplifying a little.)
I forget what 8 was for.
It is NOT the case that MS is playing both good guy and bad guy and that you need to apologise for them.
/. link to what MS wants to do with patents.
MS is trying to change the patent system to their advantage, not FIX the patent system. See a previous
They want the patent office to be better funded to handle the onslaught of trivial patent applications they keep shovelling out.
They also want to better defend themselves againt submarine patents that cost them a lot of money to defend against.
Their goals have nothing to do with fixing the patent system, e.g., by disallowing all software patents, or by tightening the rules so that only software as part of a true original invention that is part of a technical application is allowable.
The important story is that they had to fight the patent of these fuckers for ten years before their landmark victory.
Who else has that kind of time, money, or patience?
I believe you mispelled 'biotch'
with copyright issues.
The Patent Office is in the business of granting state sanctioned monopolies on the basis of an invention of some other real advancement.
Real being the operative word. NOTHING in the software world should be protected by patent.
Derivative works (and which one of Microsoft's isn't? Apart from Clippy of course,) are already protected under COPYRIGHT.
In fact the smarter move for Microsoft is to want to strike down any attempt at software patents since these __lapse__.
The drug companies can tell you how fast too. (How would Microsoft like to see Word or Excell or MS-SQL wrested from them? That's what they are risking playing at patents.)
With copyrights, they are benefiting from what Disney has done to extend copyrights to beyond their original intent and life-spans (Like, how long until Mickey finally fuckin' dies already? Can we move on from the rat wanna-be. Please?)
With patents, the realities are MUCH harsher. Competition that could have been stopped with copyrights is encouraged (encouraged) by the governments which will get its funding not from Microsoft but from its competition. (Bill Gate's pockets are deep, but they stay deep by not doing what a thousand other fools will do, like filling somebody's pockets, for the lifting of the monopoly.)
Software patents are a BAD idea for Microsoft. Huh, let me shut up. Patents are a bad idea for Microsoft.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Too much paperwork? Well, time to reject all incoming patents from that company as "obvious". Sure makes life easier!
Up to them to argue the case for each one - which you can then deny all over again!
Man I wish I worked at a patent office.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Anyone ever heard of Interleaf?
Oh, wait, that was SGML, so it doesn't apply, according to the twisted logic of software-patent defenders.
Fancy anyone would use a Markup Language for storing Marked Up documents. I mean, that's totally novel and non-obvious. And putting it in just ONE file? Pure genius. Patent approved.
we now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is communism; it was set up by that famous communist agent, the U.S. Department of Defense.
What a sharp, shiny pin for the scary Red balloon! Thanks for pointing this out.
What about IBM? Or are we just going to ignore the companies we like?
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
I'm not disputing your point about file formats and the like. I was challenging your claim that (as I read it) cloning was necessary to develop non-trivial softare.
With my devil's advocate hat on, I ask you to consider the following argument.
If we accept that providing very similar keyboard shortcuts, menu layout etc. to the established commercial product -- effectively cloning most of its UI -- is necessary for an OSS product to succeed, then this strongly suggests that the OSS product is in fact matching the overall design and feature set of the established player as well. Indeed, this is the rationale behind numerous requests that have gone into big names like OpenOffice.
Now, that combination of features and UI did not come into existence by magic. It was the result of many years of R&D investment by the makers of the established commercial product. That research cost them a lot of time and money. It was, effectively, an investment aimed at producing a better product that would ultimately gain them more income. Obviously this doesn't apply to the trivial, but much of what is trivial today was a new idea once: someone invented the idea of using wizards to step through common tasks, for example.
If you do allow clones to basically rip all this work and duplicate it, without any compensation to the commercial product maker, you are saying that their research has added no value and they deserve no return on their investment. This is clearly untrue: if their UIs and product designs weren't valuable, then everyone else wouldn't be copying them.
Given the pace of software development today, it would be unhelpful and unrealistic to secure monopoly rights on presentational aspects of a program for a long period. However, duplicating a UI is relatively easy; it's finding out what will work well for users in practice that takes the effort. Hence a short-term protection for genuinely original UI ideas, perhaps a couple of years, would seem a reasonable compensation for the research done by the commercial investors. After all, ultimately that research does benefit the industry as a whole, as we see in numerous common UI idioms and indeed entire copycat OSS products today, and clearly those copycat products do have the potential to reduce sales for the commercial products they emulate.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You need not use that tone. Well said, but the context where you are using it indicates maybe you are an astroturfer.
On a slightly different facet:
Isn't a government office within their rights to gently put aside that pile of papers from a pushy foreign megacorp, and get around to working on it when the free time arises? If they take time to do their jobs right, it seems they might find quite a bit of prior art, and save the New Zealand economy quite a bit of self-destruction. Or is there some law that says they have to get everything done immediately?
Wouldn't want to be accused of having a bad attitude now would they.
I work in IT over here in NZ and also I am a soul developer writing computer graphics, animation, knowledge management and game development software for several years.
:-) Patent assistance
I use XML extensively.
I think this could potentially hinder some of the development I have done.
I belive that I may have prior art in this case that could be used to put the brakes on this.
If you can help me then please email be.
chaoslab@actrix.gen.nz with the subject of....
Thank you
(From http://www.lysator.liu.se/projects/about_psgml.htm l):
That doesn't make Microsoft trying to patent this any less slimey, though...
--Troy
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
"We will store this XML file using a set of tags so intermingled and cryptic that ONLY our proprietary XSD will make you understand them (expect one same tag to mean many different things), this is why you need our secret code er... XSD.
And the process of using our XSD will be patented. No, don't ask us to use USABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE XML with an actual semantic meaning. This is why we're filling the patent in the first place".
Interpretation of the interpretation: "Bill, save us! Star Office is about to deliver actually usable XML documents! You gotta patent something to make it pay us royalties!"
Not to say that the people at IPONZ are monkeys, but recently there were vacancies advertised for technical advisors to the patent office, and I was interested in applying (imagine! Slashgeeks in the patent office!). Then I looked at the pay... at NZ$35k - 40k, it's about half of what a decent techie should expect to get paid. Certainly it's not going to attract really good people to the position. Is the pay for patent office people that bad in other countries as well?
Deramweaver and Netscape Navigator are technically XML editing applications.
So it can be justified that Netscape and Macromedia did it first so there is prior art.
xml comes from the branch group dealing with sgml and whatever ml you can think of including html. HTML is an example of how you can manipulate a ml document. You can basically manipulate all ml documents. Wondering how Microsoft can patent what the web is basically made of is beyond me. I can understand word documents of xml within it. Maybe they should make a document without any ml in it then try to patent that is something totally uniquely MS and not something that a MS Word document just wraps around like meat on a string. :)
./ is of course violating the NZ Heralds Terms and conditions by linking to the article, as stated in this paragraph, with out their written consent.
you may not without prior written permission from NZ Herald: archive the Content or any part of it; form a database whether electronically or otherwise by systematically downloading or storing all or any of the Content; redistribute or republish the Content ; or link to the Site including (without limitation) linking in any way which frames the Site; replicates the Site or misleads any person regarding any association with the Site; or your association with NZ Herald or otherwise whether implicitly or expressly.
Can you simply put anything you like in these?
This caused me to wonder about some of the technologies that they have actually created all by themselves, and would therefore be OK by us /.ers to patent.
So far, my list of genuine Microsoft innovations includes:
1. The Blue Screen of Death
2. Talking Paper Clips
3. Those other two keys between Alt + Ctrl
4. That marquee screen saver that's been around since Windows 3.1
5. 640kb of conventional memory
6. the mouse wheel (that's a good one, I'll admit)
7. A 'Start' button that allows you to shut down your PC
8. right clicking (Well, at least I know for sure that MS didn't steal that one from Apple)
So instead of focusing on stealing up other people's innovations, we can see that there is still plenty for MS to legitimately patent.
Still, I'm sure that this time next year we'll see a patent pending approval for tabbed-browsing www.microsoft-watch.com
And I thought this was the same company that said that nobody wanted to use tabbed-browsing?
This sig is inappropriate in a post-9/11 world.
I wasn't aware that epilepsy was catching.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
i am he as you are he as you are me
and we are all together
see how they run like pigs from a gun
see how they fly. im crying
sitting on cornflake waiting for the van to come
corporation tee shirt, stupid bloody tuesday
man, youve been a naughty boy
you let your face grow long
i am the goatseman
they are the goatsemen
i am the anus--goo goo g'joob
mister city policeman sitting pretty little
policemen in a row
see how they fly like lucy in the sky
see how they run. im crying. im crying. i'm
crying...i'mcryyyy...
yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dogs eye
crab a locker fishwife
pornographic priestess
boy, youve been a naughty girl
you let your knickers down
i am the goatseman
they are the goatsemen
i am the anus--goo goo g'joob
sitting in an english garden waiting for the sun
if the sun dont come you get a tan
from standing in the english rain
i am the goatseman
they are the goatsemen
i am the anus--goo goo g'joob
expert experts choking smokers
dont you think the joker laughs at you?
see how they smile like pigs in a sty
see how they snide
im crying
semolina pilchard climbing up the eiffel tower
elementary penguin singinhare krishna
man, you should have seen them
kicking edgar allan poe
i am the goatseman
they are the goatsemen
i am the anus--goo goo g'joob