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."
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
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.
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.
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.
The NZOSS is opposing this patent as pointed out here
Call me ignorant, but why would any company NOT want to stop competition?
In an ideal capitalist world (how's that for a contradictio in terminis) companies would only compete 'fairly', that is, on the value of the goods they provide, thus creating the greatest customer value possible.
If my company saw a(n) (legal) opportunity to stop or hinder the competition, we'd grab it with both hands and do whatever we could to exploit that opportunity.
Which is a nice example on why there is no such thing as an ideal capitalist system. Under a communist system, you (and most other people) would try to get away with working as little as possible.
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I'm getting a bit tired of the whole "it's Microsoft so it must be evil" mindset.
It does indeed get tiring sometimes. But it can be frustrating to see Microsoft bullying around companies or organizations making products or technologies you'd like to see having a fairer chance on the market, instead of competing with them 'fairly' against them.
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
Pattents should go through some sort of peer review process. (I'm not going to argue the details, as IANAL.) But something like what publishing takes in the scientific journal world.
It can't be expected for the pattent jockies to be able to tell what's crap or now. Heck, we can't tell in a lot of markets since we may not know anything about them.
They either have to start a peer revierw, or pay for experts.
Peer review, blind, is a very elagant solution.
-=fshalor
When the rules are there, you play by them. That's just what Microsoft is doing.
In the US the rules state that you will not be granted a patent if there is prior art or if the invention is obvious. The USPTO is not properly enforcing the rules, but the law still stands. Microsoft is taking advantage of the fact that the rules aren't being enforced. Even though they would lose many court cases over these patents they apply for them anyway, knowing that they will almost never be overturned because smaller players can't afford the fight. That's not playing by the rules, that's circumventing them.
You can drive on the wrong side of the road when a cop's not around. That doesn't make it right.
Developers: We can use your help.