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."

Comments

salmacis

[salmacis2]

Would this be the same Microsoft that is arguing for patent reform?

Re:salmacis

[svanstrom]

No, it's the other one.

Re:salmacis

[johannesg]

Would this be the same Microsoft that is arguing for patent reform?

Patent reform in the US, after burying the rest of the world under software patents you mean?

Re:salmacis

[Anonymous Coward]

When the rules are there, you play by them. That's just what Microsoft is doing.

Microsoft has indicated that they want to see the rules changed, because they believe that the rules are broken. Again, as long as the rules remain unchanged, Microsoft has no choice but to play by them; it would be foolish not to.

There is nothing hyprocrital in what Microsoft is doing, so you need not use that tone.

For those of you that would like an analogy: Imagine saying "I believe that there should be no income tax." Now, while an income tax is still in place, would you spend money as if there were no income tax? Surely not. That doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Next, Image saying "I believe that the patent system is broken." Now, while the system is broken, are you going to file patents as if the rules were ideal? Surely not. That doesn't make you a hyprocite.

Re:salmacis

[miomao]

Luckily, seems that Microsoft marketing doesn't work with all brains...

Re:salmacis

[Zorilla]

You never know. He may be stuck in alternate history where anti-trust trials actually work.

Re:salmacis

[Loonacy]

This is actually more of a "I believe people should not take advantage of other people." and then taking advantage of them because that's the way the world runs.

Re:salmacis

[WoodieR]

All your base are REALLY belong to us

Re:salmacis

[Jaysyn]

If these morons wouldn't blindly accept patents, this shit wouldn't happen.

Re:salmacis

[fshalor]

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.

Re:salmacis

[DannyO152]

Well, Microsoft's Counsel Brad Smith's prescription for repair is summed up as follows:

• Less infringement suits [against Microsoft],
• Other countries should harmonize their laws with the US, and
• The US government should charge less to small companies and individuals for their patent filings while the patent office collects fewer fees for increased work.

And these fix the problems, how?

But, reasoning from your point of view that this is the game and taking into consideration those who say that Microsoft's patents are all defensive, does Microsoft really need the ISNOT patent and the NZ xml patent in order to protect the good works that they do? When criticizing the nuclear arms race, opponents broached the question of just how many times does one need to be able to destroy civilization before someone starts thinking twice about lobbing an ICBM your way? Was Microsoft really being pushed around because they didn't have enough patents, i.e., they had no effective deterrent? Another point: here in the US, success-leeching litigation is brought by people who don't have products and thus aren't vulnerable to patent counter claims; in light of that, how good a defense strategy is "patent anything", any way? Meanwhile, as I observe the widespread acceptance and worship of the great American philosopher (Vince Lombardi) who writes in the The Art of Football: the best defense is a good offense, someone like me is suspicious of someone else who stockpiles item after item after item, defensively.

Re:salmacis

[LifesABeach]

Its public record that the villagers at Redmond are a mean sprited pack of convicted liars, cheats, and thieves that run a world class monopoly. So why are these bad guys allowed to still do business?

Re:salmacis

[Kynde]

Microsoft has indicated that they want to see the rules changed, because they believe that the rules are broken. Again, as long as the rules remain unchanged, Microsoft has no choice but to play by them; it would be foolish not to.

Ethics?

Re:salmacis

[The Angry Mick]

There is nothing hyprocrital in what Microsoft is doing, so you need not use that tone

Mom?!?

Re:salmacis

[Elranzer]

Hey. Nintendo is in Redmond, too.

Re:salmacis

[springbox]

It seems irresponsible that if they are consciously aware of, and will attempt to propose changes to, the problems in the patent system to continue to abuse it until new laws are made.

Re:salmacis

[booch]

But the current rules say that the idea must be new, and not obvious to someone skilled in the art. This patent is clearly obvious, and has been done before (KWord at the least, perhaps even programs using DocBook). Anyone skilled enough to "invent" this would/should know that it is obvious, and that it had been done before.

So Microsoft is breaking the existing rules. Now can we be mad at them?

Re:salmacis

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:salmacis

[d34thm0nk3y]

Since software patents are relatively new, and the only prior art search done is against the awarded patents database there can be no prior art on new(er) software ideas like XML. By getting this patent they can feel secure developing XML editors and whatnot.

Re:salmacis

[quarkscat]

This is the very same MSFT that has had a "divine"
inspiration that the software patent system is
broken? It would seem that MSFT PR needs to get
their act together (maybe take a lesson from the
Dubya regime regarding "speaking with one voice").

MSFT is still a member of the XML standards
committee, AFAIK. It would appear that MSFT's
"embrace & extend" has evolved into "ebrace &
extend & patent". I don't trust MSFT to "do
the right thing", ever. Their strategy seems
to change according to which day of the week it
is, and which hemisphere they're interested in.

Yes, I RTFA, and I have but one regret -- that
the DoJ didn't slice and dice MSFT up into little
"Baby Bell" pieces when they were convicted as
monopolists. If the DoJ were still actually
functioning as something other than cheerleaders
for corporate malfeasance (thanks, Dubya), they
would slap a C&D order on MSFT for this grab for
patents, and bring them back into court for a
review of their compliance with both the letter
and the spirit of the law.

There really ought to be a law (oh, wait -- there
is!) It just isn't being enforced (big surprise!)
I hope Eolas sucks the life-blood out of the
Beast -- the rest of the internet will just have
to make it's peace with Eolas, or else some other
work-around be adopted.

Re:salmacis

[paulymer5]

Nintendo of America is, yes. Nintendo Co, Ltd. hails from Kyoto, Japan.

Re:salmacis

[fade-in]

When the rules are there, you play by them. That's just what Microsoft is doing.

Blah, blah, blah. People only say stuff like this when the rules are in their favor.

Re:salmacis

[theLOUDroom]

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.

I think I have a better idea:
Take away the persumption of validity from a patent. Turn the patent office in a registry of "I invented this on this date."
The first time you want to enforce you patent, you are FORCED to go to court and prove its validity. There a judge can hear aguments from experts presented by both sides, including a side that actually has a financial interest in striking down that patent. (Unlike the USPTO, who refers to patent holders are their "customers".)

Forcing a "blind" peer review wouldn't be worth nearly as much in the fight against shitty patents, since nobody involved in the process has a real interest in NOT letting the patent through, AND you would be wasting scientists time the world over reviewing useless and pointless patents. In terms of their time vs. their money, it's better for these "reviewers" to just pocket and feet they get and rubber stamp anything you give them instantly.

Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

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).

Re:Oh, great.

[DrXym]

So what we need is some kind of generic tool which atomises the word document (or any XML file) up into constituent parts and then feeds it to the OpenOffice, Abiword etc.?

Re:Oh, great.

[daikokatana]

Call me ignorant, but why would any company NOT want to stop competition?

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.

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.

Re:Oh, great.

[eric76]

Some companies like the competition.

That's especially true when the competition is incompetent, and their very presence helps keep more competent companies from opening local operations.

Re:Oh, great.

[Illume]

XML file may be manipulated by applications that understand XML

Hmmm. All we need is a generic tool that manipulates XML files but doesn't understand XML.

Re:Oh, great.

[C10H14N2]

...it would appear that Microsoft is trying, deliberately or inadvertently, to completely dismantle the WTO. If this sort of crap actually succeeds, it might cause enough attrition in the ranks to effectively dump WIPO into the dustbin of history.

On the other hand, New Zealanders having a rather caustic sense of turnabout, I fear for the minions of the USPTO on the day they get the reciprocal volley and I'd kill to be in an Auckland rugby club the day it hits the news...

Re:Oh, great.

[DenDave]

Yah.. Prior Art.. Sun Microsystems..

Re:Oh, great.

[matria]

Microsoft is a monopoly. It is illegal for such entities to engage in anti-competative activities that would be legal for smaller, non-monopoly entities. Microsoft has been convicted of violation of these laws, but nothing has ever been done to actually make it stop.

Re:Oh, great.

[tibike77]

Assume sarcasm tags where needed, or where you start to feel offended personally...

First off... Maybe I'm getting something wrong here, but isn't the whole IDEEA behind getting a patent to both ensure the initial inventor (or better said, patent claimer) a fair share of income (out of the actual one) for a LIMITED period of time, so that later on that invention would be freely usable by pretty much anybody ?

Quoting some encyclopedia, "In the U.S.A any process or device may be patented if it is NOVEL and USEFUL and if plans and a working model are supplied, and patents are valid for a limited term (17 years in the U.S.A.)
This limit ordinarily secures a profit to the inventor for a reasonable period yet will not permanently deprive the public of the free use of the invention."

So, the first and foremost problem of SOFTWARE PATENTS is not the patenting itself, it's that years-long "active" status of a patent.

A close second on the "problematic" scale would be butchering the meaning of "novel and useful" and "providing plans and a working model" when it comes to software patents. I mean, ok, it could be useful (to some) to have pretty much anything in the software bussiness, yet the "novelty" is a bit arguable.

The last (and final) MAJOR problem lies within the limits of what SHOULD be patentable.
I mean, for god's sake, I hope nobody patented the "OK/Cancel" buttons yet... or did Microsoft to that already ?
Now, what about bubble sort ? Did anybody patent bubble sort yet ?
Heck, let's patent binary code representation !

Heck, you have to draw the line somewhere.
My personal oppinion is this: we need to heavily accelerate and cheapen all "software patenting" processes.
Streamline it !
Heck, create a new INTERNATIONAL body that would ONLY handle software patents, "put on hold" all current software patents and allow "prioritary" re-filing of all current ones by their previous owners for, let's say, one year.
Then (after that transition year), put this whole thing online (read-only) and allow submissions of patents via e-mail only (human sent read receipt). Sure, it's a whole new can of worms with security issues, but, let's dream for a while it's not.

For each and every possible application field of your "patent", you have to file a separate patent claim (or, well, specify all fields you wish it filed under, with clear explanations for each and every field).
New "fields" are introduced as soon as there's either sufficient (e.g. 10 or more, arguable number) patent claimers with claims in said (not yet existant) field.

NOW comes the tricky part. Depending on the field, novelty and usability of the application, a TERM OF VALIDITY for your patent gets established - term that could range from just a couple of months (for obvious and straightforward patent claims we would all laugh about) up to maybe 5 to 7 years tops. I mean, heck, there's no point in waiting 17 years for something to be considered "trivial" in the software world - you would try to get as MANY users of your patented technology as soon as possible so you can claim royalties... as opposed to the current practice of "patent everything, think about it later".

What do you think ?

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

They're not evil for wanting to stop competition; they're evil because of the grossly unethical -- and sometimes genuinely illegal -- tactics they use to do it.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

I think that the computer science field is advancing so rapidly that everything is "trivial" (including compression and media codecs), and that even a 1 year patent would hinder the software industry more than it would help it.

Re:Oh, great.

[ecotax]

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.

Re:Oh, great.

[golgotha007]

Richard Stallman really says it best:

When CNET News.com asked Bill Gates about software patents, he shifted the subject to "intellectual property," blurring the issue with various other laws.

Then he said anyone who won't give blanket support to all these laws is a communist. Since I'm not a communist but I have criticized software patents, I got to thinking this might be aimed at me.

When someone uses the term "intellectual property," typically he's either confused himself, or trying to confuse you. The term is used to lump together copyright law, patent law and various other laws, whose requirements and effects are entirely different. Why is Mr. Gates lumping these issues together? Let's study the differences he has chosen to obscure.

Software developers are not up in arms against copyright law, because the developer of a program holds the copyright on the program; as long as the programmers wrote the code themselves, no one else has a copyright on their code. There is no danger that strangers could have a valid case of copyright infringement against them.

Patents are a different story. Software patents don't cover programs or code; they cover ideas (methods, techniques, features, algorithms, etc.). Developing a large program entails combining thousands of ideas, and even if a few of them are new, the rest needs must have come from other software the developer has seen. If each of these ideas could be patented by someone, every large program would likely infringe hundreds of patents. Developing a large program means laying oneself open to hundreds of potential lawsuits. Software patents are menaces to software developers, and to the users, who can also be sued.

A few fortunate software developers avoid most of the danger. These are the megacorporations, which typically have thousands of patents each, and cross-license with each other. This gives them an advantage over smaller rivals not in a position to do likewise. That's why it is generally the megacorporations that lobby for software patents.

Today's Microsoft is a megacorporation with thousands of patents. Microsoft said in court that the main competition for MS Windows is "Linux," meaning the free software GNU/Linux operating system. Leaked internal documents say that Microsoft aims to use software patents to stop the development of GNU/Linux.

When Mr. Gates started hyping his solution to the problem of spam, I suspected this was a plan to use patents to grab control of the Net. Sure enough, in 2004 Microsoft asked the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) to approve a mail protocol that Microsoft was trying to patent. The license policy for the protocol was designed to forbid free software entirely. No program supporting this mail protocol could be released as free software--not under the GNU GPL (General Public License), or the MPL (Mozilla Public License), or the Apache license, or either of the BSD licenses, or any other.

The IETF rejected Microsoft's protocol, but Microsoft said it would try to convince major ISPs to use it anyway. Thanks to Mr. Gates, 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.

With Microsoft's market clout, it can impose its choice of programming system as a de-facto standard. Microsoft has already patented some .Net implementation methods, raising the concern that millions of users have been shifted to a government-issue Microsoft monopoly.

But capitalism means monopoly; at least, Gates-style capitalism does. People who think that everyone should be free to program, free to write complex software, they are communists, says Mr. Gates. But these communists have infiltrated even the Microsoft boardroom. Here's what Bill Gates told Microsoft employees in 1991:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a comple

Re:Oh, great.

[wild_berry]

I like the idea of an international body, but often these get sidelined into the domestic habits of whichever country has the most effective lobbiers at the organisation.

I think that software patents should have protection of at most three years and should only be enforcable if there is an actual product available for retail or download, featuring the patented method, within that period of time.

Re:Oh, great.

[Zemran]

[ o basically, MIcrosoft is trying to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from being able to import and export Word XML files. ]

But only in New Zealand... those poor Kiwis.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

What prior art do they have? OpenOffice stores documents in multiple files inside a zip file, not a "single XML file" like the patent specifies. Is there some old version of StarOffice that does that?

Re:Oh, great.

[Erik Piper]

In the name of poor souls like me who lack the time to read at lower than +3... mod parent up. Otherwise, the high-rated comment that's a sibling to this one makes *no* sense.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

Remember how the US pushed free-trade laws, forcing Australia to honor US patents? Well, those laws work in the opposite direction too, and I'm sure we're going after New Zealand next...

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

but XSLT isn't "word processing xml", now is it?

Re:Oh, great.

[Pofy]

On the other hand, in addition for no prior art, it can't be something that is trivial to someone in the field. I would cal it trivial for someone in the field come up with the idea "lets put it all in a single file".

Re:Oh, great.

[Anonymous Coward]

The term you're looking for is "free market economy". Capitalism is something else, which, in contrast to free markets, doesn't exclude monopolies.

Re:Oh, great.

[Pofy]

From the looks of it, in many cases you can take whatever trivial or simple process and just add "with a computer" and get your patent, which to me seems completely rediculous. Try going through most of those patents and simply remove the computer part and it often gets laughable.

Re:Oh, great.

[mpe]

Call me ignorant, but why would any company NOT want to stop competition?

The alternative is to compete.

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.

It may not even matter if it was legal or not. Often the penalties for corporate criminals are so weak that the potential profits from breaking the law excede the potential fines.
There's also the situation of corporate crooks "buying off" legislators and what (inadequate) law enforcement deals with this large area of crime.

Re:Oh, great.

[KiloByte]

Communist? The last time I checked, capitalism was all about free market, and monopolies are the very opposite of the free market concept. In fact, they are a lot closer to communism itself.

In Marx' and Lenin's works, communism is called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship is pretty much equal to monopoly, except it's applied to government as opposed to economy. The thing is, the line between politics and business is often blurred, especially for companies with capitalisation as big as that of Microsoft...

So, who is the communist here?

Re:Oh, great.

[WoodieR]

it's XML, therefore it is an open standard is it not, and therefore can not controlled by M$ or any other entity except the standards setting body ? Or did I miss something here ? And therefore presumably NZ (or other) Patent Office can not in reality, or good conscience for that matter, grant any such patents, despite M$ efforts to create such FUD and misperception in the eyes of the public ? This is clearly their latest embrace and bastardise project ...

Re:Oh, great.

[JohnFluxx]

Gnumeric's .gnumeric file is a single xml file that also has 3rd party programs that can generate the xml file and manipulate it.

Re:Oh, great.

[Thing 1]

Under a communist system, you (and most other people) would try to get away with working as little as possible.

Yes, and I do the same under a capitalist system. Or any other system. Why would I want to expend more effort on a task once my goals have been achieved?

The less emotional way to state the above is: "People tend to be efficient."

Re:Oh, great.

[shreak]

While maybe not evil; certainly non-free market.

The US commerce laws (and a lot of the western world laws) define what a modern "free market" should look like. This creates both explicit and implicit activities that are non-free market.

Attempting to "Stop" a competitor is outside the ethical and practical bounds of the modern free market.

How do you "Stop" a competitor? Kill him? Burn his factory down? Collude with other competitors to squeeze him out? Arrange with legislators to be the only "allowed" vendor?

Stopping can't be done without violating an explicit or implicit boundary of the free market.

You can out-sell your competitor. You can grab a bigger market share than your competitor. You can even undermine your competitors credibility with FUD (although this is starting to be ethically questionable). Non of these things "stop" your competitor, they compete with your competitor.

=Shreak

Re:Oh, great.

[ecotax]

I would not expect people to behave differently.
What I was trying to point out is that communism, as a political system, is flawed because it is based on the unrealistic assumption that people won't behave as efficient/selfish as they appear to do in practice. Likewise, capitalism is flawed, because it is based on an equally unrealistic assumption about the behaviour of corporations. Unless forced to do so, Microsoft won't play fair. It's simply not realistic to expect them to do so voluntarily.

Re:Oh, great.

[Dolda2000]

So basically, MIcrosoft is trying to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from being able to import and export Word XML files. Wonderful.

If only it were that well. What Microsoft is trying to do is to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from being able to import and export any XML files. In other words, they are trying to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from existing at all, basically.

Re:Oh, great.

[CastrTroy]

Good thing OpenOffice doesn't use a single XML file, and instead, each OpenOffice file consists of multiple XML files zipped together.

Re:Oh, great.

[coldmist]

Let me give you a simple example of this difference:

Say you are in a college class with 50 other students. The teacher says it's not fair that some get 100% on the test and others get 50%, so in order to make everyone equal, everyone on the final exam will get the averaged score as their final exam score.

Now, those that work hard to get 100% will have no reason (other than the personal satisfaction of doing it), since they expect to lose at least ~15% right off the top.

Those that would have gotten 50% will now do no work at all, since they expect to be given ~80% on the final.

That's socialism in a nutshell. Sound like a great class to be in?

Now, in your view (based on your comments) if a person is a PhD grad in physics and is auditing Physics 101, then they can sit back and do no work and still expect 100% on the final exam. That's fine for them. Some people have natural talent, skills, or a better background for a topic than others. That is not the average in the class. (Otherwise, why are they in the class?) That doesn't mean other students still don't have to work. But, some people can do no work and still expect to reach their lofty goals.

Re:Oh, great.

[AaronGTurner]

That's a very warped idea of socialism. It might work for a Rush song, but not for much else.

Re:Oh, great.

[AaronGTurner]

A better analogy, based on the things that socialists were actually complaining about in the 19th century would be this: There are some members of the class that have some sort of power over the others. They make the weaker members of the class work on their behalf so that they get 100%. Other members of the class get 100% on their own merits. Socialism then seeks to redistribute the marks from those that got 100% (whether or not it was on their own merits or not) to those who got a low mark (whether or not it is because of their own deficiencies, or because they were having to work for some of those that got 100%). So in this sense socialism attempts to deal with an inequity based on power relationships, but does it in a way that doesn't reward effort correctly either. So a noble sentiment, badly applied.

Re:Oh, great.

[WaterBreath]

Well, my ultimate goal is to move on to the next class, not to get the highest grade possible.

If I'm smart enough to get 100% for myself, that doesn't mean I trust the other people in the class are smart enough to average out to a good grade on my behalf. So rather than slacking off, I might work hard to ensure that my 100% contributes to the grade I get, ensuring that I move on to the next level of classes. This would be the best way to use the system, if there were absolutely nothing you could do about it.

But there still exists a problem. Some people will work hard and bear the bulk of the labor (or "carry" the class to use a pro sports term). And some will not work very hard and get pulled along to rewards anyway. In short, the reward system is unfair.

The problem is that people do not like unfair rewards. And people in this system who work hard will see that they are being under-rewarded and others are being over-rewarded. They will then work to eliminate this unfairness. In an educational setting, this means transferring to a better professor (or school). In a business setting, it means finding another job. In a political setting, it usually means ousting the leaders and installing a meritocracy.

Of course this doesn't mean there shouldn't be a welfare system for the elderly or mentally disabled. It also doesn't mean there shouldn't be some sort of assistance program for the unfortunate, but able. In an educational setting, students having trouble should have tutoring services and probational enrollment available. This helps them to work through the tough spots and get their own rewards. In a business setting, this can equate to assigning mentors for new hires, to get them through the rough waters of entering a new job. In a political setting, this might mean providing no-condition government employment for people down on their luck, but still able to do some sort of work (not necessarily manual labor). Come in and do some work, and we'll pay you for it. Don't come in, or don't fulfill the requirements, you don't get paid. Disabled, but still mentally able, or partially physically able? Maybe we can send you some paperwork to do from home. The pay may not be great, and the work might not be "stimulating", but at least they would be earning their own money.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

Gnumeric is a word processor? News to me!

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, that's what I said -- it won't hamper OO.o's ability to read/write its own format, but if it's not compatible with Word no one will be able to use it.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

Your interpretation is different from mine, then. As I understand the patent, it's for "word processing XML documents comprised of a single file" Both the OASIS and Pages format keep things like images in separate files, and stick the whole thing into a container format (zip for OASIS, a folder (bundle) for Pages). That doesn't sound like a "single file" to me.

Not that it isn't bad enough to begin with...

Re:Oh, great.

[miyako]

offtopic, but I have some karma to burn and feel like having a good rant...
The problem that I see, as a student attending a university today, is that what you describe isn't far from the truth. One situation that I often see is where two students are given an identical lab (say a programming lab) and one student does the lab easily, whereas the other student struggles with the lab. When it's due, the first student has a lab that adheres completely to the specifications, and works perfectly, while the other students lab compiles with numerous warnings, contains a number of logic errors, and may even randomly crash.
When the professor grades the students labs, the first student gets 70%, all of the points which are deducted are for trivial things like not having enough comments (I actually had a Java class where the professor required that we comment every single line of code, so that we were required to have code like: System.out.println("Welcome to the Program");//displays "Welcome to the Program" on the screen.). The other student would also receive 70%, or perhaps an even higher grade, because they "tried harder".
...And this is why I don't even bother with trying to get good marks in my classes, I see what kind of people get A's and realize that they are completely meaningless.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

Yep, except that the single most important feature of OO.o is its ability to read and write Word documents...

Re:Oh, great.

[mfburgo]

Our gvmt tried this back during the depression. I remember being told about the wpa program and it gave people the ability to work for the gvmt assistance that they needed. Someone got the bright idea that they should not be forced to work to get assistance and that is how the current welfare systems came to be. Lets be honest, most humans are LAZY and don't want to work. If all humans wanted to work then a lot of our problems would be gone. We then could get everyone together and solve the class issues. Then we could get everyone together and solve the health care issues, then and on and on. Life would be better if most humans just would get up and work and not expect a handout. From personal knowledge when I was laid off I liked a few days of sitting around the house with the wife and kids, but then I wanted to be doing something and went a found something until I could get back to my field of work. A lot of others just went to the bar all day and expected those that worked to give them a free ride for six months. on topic: Microsoft just wants to take over the entire computing market and the lazy people in the world are going to sit by and let them.

Re:Oh, great.

[Nevenmrgan]

You might want to try one of those Chinese Rooms I've heard so much about...

Re:Oh, great.

[decepty]

Disabled, but still mentally able, or partially physically able? Maybe we can send you some paperwork to do from home.

Partially mentally disabled? We'll give you a job at the USPTO.

Re:Oh, great.

[WNight]

What was XML invented for genius? Maybe I should patent using HTML as a text markup language for rendering by "client" machines.

Fuck you're an idiot. XML is a fucking data exchange format - patenting the intended use is never a novel use of a technology.

Re:Oh, great.

[rubypossum]

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.

Well, that's one way to put it. However, I have to make the point that the "ideal" nature of the system doesn't relate to producers creating the greatest value to the customer. The idea behind the system is that customers don't have a right to a company's products. You don't have a right to a word processor from anybody, you have the right to create your own word processor or choose someone else's. The system may or may not create the best products (because people may not choose the best products.) But can bloody well pick the best available or write your own.

This is where Microsoft's actions come in. Ordinarily monopolies can't exist in a capitalist system because there is choice. The only way you can be forced to do something is by physical force and in a non-anarchist government the government has a monopoly on physical force. By removing choice from the marketplace via government edict (patents) Microsoft is becoming a *true* monopoly (because they can put other people in jail if they violate their patent.) So Microsoft is no longer operating in a capitalist system at all. They have become a state mandated company. It's almost fascism except the government's only pay is the patent application fee.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

And you're an asshole! Get pissed off at Microsoft, not me, since they're the ones getting the damned obvious patent! I was just pointing out an argument they might use against that prior art.

Re:Oh, great.

[Thing 1]

[...] I see what kind of people get A's and realize that they are completely meaningless.

You had me up to here. I would have worded it: "I see the work produced by the students who get A's [...]". Or are you really upset at the types of people getting the grades, as opposed to the differential between their output and yours, and their grades and yours?

Re:Oh, great.

[Thing 1]

Now, in your view (based on your comments)

Wrong. In my view, a teacher that decided to reward students like that would be removed from academia.

You totally failed to understand my point. Good work!

I never said "lofty goals"; when I said "goals" I meant "the goals of that task", in other words:

"Why would I want to expend more effort on a task once the goals of that task have been achieved?"

Or, as a comedian back in the 80s put it, "Your keys are always in the last place you look. OF COURSE! Once you find them, YOU STOP LOOKING."

Re:Oh, great.

[miyako]

perhaps I should have clarified my statement a bit. It is in fact a certain "type" of people who, in my personal experience, this happens to. Mostly, people who don't specifically give a damn about technology, and apparently haven't heard that the bubble burst, and are in an IT program to make a buck.
In other words, by "type" I mean people who are poor at just about everything except using AOL and getting spyware.

Patent Overlords, oh my!

[Dark Coder]

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?

Re:Patent Overlords, oh my!

[sandstorming]

Does this means, the patent reviewers are added to the growing list of Microsoft-bashers? I'm positive they would have been on that list looong before now!

Re:Patent Overlords, oh my!

[WoodieR]

or Mikerowesoft employees ?

Patent the idea of patenting other peoples ideas.

[svanstrom]

Patent the idea of patenting other peoples ideas; that ought to stop most of Microsofts patents. =)

XML

[sandstorming]

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!

Re:XML

[symbolic]

What Microsoft is attempting to do is patent one of the uses intended for XML from the very start. One of the mandates put forth by the XML working group was that XML shall support a wide variety of applications,. Given this, I'm puzzled at how anyone at Microsoft could even consider such a move. Wait....no I'm not. Just the same, if this patent is approved, something is very, very wrong.

Re:XML

[mikkom]

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!

When you have software patent laws that allow this, this is going to happen. That's just how it is.

Re:XML

[skiman1979]

Maybe someone should patent the use of BZ2 files to store and alter spreadsheets. I mean really, instead of Microsoft patenting the use of other peoples' technologies, they should stick to coming up with their own ideas.

Re:XML

[ockegheim]

Maybe Microsoft are trying to patent the mountain of junk code that Word will add to the XML, thus making it less interoperable.

Re:XML

[BiggerIsBetter]

As a New Zealander, I'll tell you what's wrong. NZ is Microsoft's bitch.

The Govt bends over for them, they own chunks of the national telecommunications and internet company, they advertise on all our media under several brands that noticably aren't "Microsoft". And our educational institutions push them heavily.

I'm not surprised at all that our Patent Office is handing this out, but I am (once again) dissapointed.

Re:XML

[Anonymous Writer]

So the Dark Lord Sauron dwells in NZ, waiting... plotting...

One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them.

The point of XML

[moochfish]

Great. With this, Microsoft is making XML is their own "proprietary" format. At least in that country.

Re:The point of XML

[eric76]

I think they've filed pretty much the same patent in the United States and in Europe.

Re:The point of XML

[zbaron]

and in Australia too. Link

MS Patents - A business strategy

[wcdw]

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?

Re:MS Patents - A business strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

The government here just legalised software patents.

I'm not a particuarly patriotic New Zealander, but I still hold a vague hope that perhaps our patent office may be a tad more strict in its final issuing.

Re:MS Patents - A business strategy

[jaavaaguru]

So they're attempting to do what SCO hasn't been overly successful with?

What defines a "word processing document"

[mrchaotica]

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?

Re:What defines a "word processing document"

[ghoti]

Is XHTML word processing document?

Well if the "self-contained" part means anything, then this does not apply to XHTML. Because even the stylesheet is usually a separate file, plus images, etc. So this only really applies to Office style stuff, and only from MS it seems (since OOo-Files are also archives containing several files, even if only text).

Re:What defines a "word processing document"

[lachlan76]

XHTML allows stylesheets inside the file, as well as inline styles.

Re:What defines a "word processing document"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh , just take any prior art like TeX (1970), Metafont, and LaTeX. IBM had a macro assembler language, and sick editors like Teco and APL, or directly printed in one of Knuth's books.

Now if MS 'invented' taking a small text file, and saving it so it it took up 1000's of extra bytes, yeah, pay that one.

Re:What defines a "word processing document"

[xemplify]

If the patent is for processing word processing XML files, how do they define that?

Microsoft have patented the W3C XML Schema definition for their Word XML format.

A requirement for an invention to be patentable in NZ is that it is a "manner of new manufacture", a term defined in the Staute of Monopolies Act 1623.

Microsoft must have convinced the NZ patent office that the Schema for their Word XML was a "manner of new manufacture". I.e. it defines a way for a word processor to "manufacture" or "convert" the XML storage format into a rendered document on screen.

Re:What defines a "word processing document"

[ghoti]

That's why I said "usually".

Re:What defines a "word processing document"

[smithmc]

If the patent is for processing word processing XML files, how do they define that?

C'mon, these are patents we're talking about. Defining stuff is completely optional.

Re:What defines a "word processing document"

[mrchaotica]

Oh, wonderful. Doesn't NZ have some sort of "novelty" requirement? 'Cause even if it is a "manner of new manufacture," it's a trivial one.

It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[ehack]

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 ?

Re:It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[Alien Being]

"You cannot blame MS for playing according to the rules"

They're not playing by the rules. They just try to slide as many things by as they can.

"nor can one blame the policticians for being accomodating and writing the rules to benefit such a generous contributor"

Really? It sounds like treason.

Re:It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[starmang]

You cannot blame MS...

I only got that far in your sentence. I did not read any further because it has to be utter rubbish.

Re:It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[Martigan80]

You know this reminds me of Braveheart. Why you ask? Well when William Finaly got Scottland back on the map all the "loards" cared about was their rank and position to get to the throne. Don't mind all the people who died for that right, they just "want whats theirs."

Like our and many other polticians, they want whats good for them. And MS is good for them, John Q Public can't afford that kind of influence.

Re:It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[Vince Mo'aluka]

You cannot blame MS for playing according to the rules

I agree. MS doesn't write the rules. They can try to influence the rules, but they don't hold any actual power (defined as the right to initiate force as a means to an end, which is the only universal, unambiguous way to define power). Only government -- or agencies acting on behalf of government -- actually hold the power to change the rules. MS may be acting unethically in trying to bribe government, but in the end, they are at the mercy of government just like anyone else.

nor can one blame the policticians

I disagree fully. If government doesn't hold the key, then who does? Government is 100% responsible for any abuses of government, because government and government only holds the key to that abuse. At the very least, power (remember the definition) can't be abused unless power exists in the first place. The only agency that can invoke, create, or destroy power is government. Therefore, government is 100% responsible for any abuses of the power it creates.

I am truly astonished to see people directing their anger at the lobbyists for attempting to bribe government, while at the same time, giving government the benefit of the doubt for accepting the bribe. Are you out of your freaking minds?

Re:It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[xemplify]

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.

You can blame yourself if you're against software patents but don't take action.

I wrote to the NZ Herald last week with the idea for the article that got slashdotted today!

I also made a submission to the government on the NZ Draft Patent Bill. I argued the same point made in the article:

"Patents allow firms to create artificial legal barriers that can hinder or prevent community-based peer-production ...

Allowing software patents is a decision favouring one form of software production over another."

Let's make our own rules!

Re:It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[lnxpilot]

You can't be serious.
So you're EXPECTING your elected officials to be corrupt?

Re:It's the stupid rules, stupid!

[ehack]

I am serious - of course, in th US all lawmakers are honest, and US companies are not buying politicians, they are just "lobbying".

Shatner?

[Rufus211]

This story.

Would be better.

If it didn't read like.

One of Shatner's.

Speaches.

Re:Shatner?

[Anonymous Coward]

That post.

Would be better.

If it didn't read like.

An 11 year-old's.

First spelling test.

Re:Shatner?

[ggvaidya]

Ah well.

This is.

Slashdot.

Do you really.

Expect any better?

Ah yes...

[xstonedogx]

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!"

Re:Ah yes...

[NineNine]

I call troll!! (Not even a very good one at that... no examples, nothing... just some made up garbage... how disappointing)

so...

[sonictheboom]

is this what you might call patent spam? file millions, some are bound to get through?

Re:so...

[TheOldFart]

That's what makes this so naughty. Only large corporations are able to file patents for every brain-fart they come up with. The small guy is again rear-ended by the tool created to protect him.

Re:so...

[pewterfish]

Possibly more patent carpet-bombing, but your point is well made...

Re:so...

[homer_s]

Only large corporations are able to file patents for every brain-fart they come....
Brain fart? I have a patent on that - I'll see you in court.

Should be treated as fraud

[anth]

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.

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[gingerTabs]

Well that's interesting, but that effectively means that I as an inventor have to have the same knowledge skills and time as the patent investigators who do this for their job.

Somehow I think your idea will stifle innovation rather than drive it since no-one will file anything in case they missed some piece of prior art that they didn't know about.

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[mpe]

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.

From the Patent office position this would require both denying the patent and passing the application to law enforcement.
Another way of handling things would be that all future patents from the same entity are date stamped and put to the "bottom of the pile".

That is a fine, or maybe even jail time for that applicant and senior management at that company.

How about jail time for the corporate entity itself? If we are to persist with the fiction of "corporate people" they why not treat them in the same way as real people.

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[mpe]

Well that's interesting, but that effectively means that I as an inventor have to have the same knowledge skills and time as the patent investigators who do this for their job.

Assuming they actually do do their job. Part of the problem is that patent examiners don't appear to be examining things as well as they should. As well as an issue of "If I don't understand it then it must be novel".

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[gingerTabs]

Now that's a common problem that I don't dispute - but it's partly caused by the fact that with so many new patent applications the examiners are pretty much snowed under.

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[Cyn]

To: All employees
Subject: Blame bill.

Hello all, this is your CEO. I just wanted you all to know that Bill Foobar from Internet Development got the good idea to patent something that was trivial - and we have a little problem because of it.

We are now in the process of restructuring to support our new business goal: making license plates. It is our plan to do this for the next 5 to 10 years, with vacation time for good behavior. If you are unsure how you will be needed in this regard, don't worry - you will be pressing license plates like the rest of us. See you tomorrow! Wear something you can get dirty.

Sincerely,
-Iquit Freely, CEO

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[mpe]

Now that's a common problem that I don't dispute - but it's partly caused by the fact that with so many new patent applications the examiners are pretty much snowed under.

By itself this would simply make the patenting process go more slowly. With the added "risk" of a patent being denied because of "prior art" which came into existance after an application was made, but before it was looked at.
Failing to examine applications properly (including passing questionable applications) most certainly is a shortcomming of patent offices not doing their jobs.

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[Software]

all future patents from the same entity are date stamped and put to the "bottom of the pile".

Putting them on the "bottom of the pile" sounds like they would still have a chance of being approved. Instead, how about suspending the company's filing privileges for a period of, say, 6 months?

I don't agree with the concept of jail time. Let the punishment fit the crime. Filing fraudulent patent applications -> filing privileges suspended.

Re:Should be treated as fraud

[jaavaaguru]

I back that idea. It's fraud IMHO.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[BorgDrone]

"Patent the idea of patenting other peoples ideas"

That's a good idea, I'll file a patent application right away!.

Objections?!?!?!

[php_krisp]

How does one object??!? all these patents are going out of control. Any ideas? Chris

You certainly can!

[interactive_civilian]

ehack said:

nor can one blame the policticians for being accomodating and writing the rules to benefit such a generous contributor.

Yes, you certainly can blame the politicians here. It is not their job to accomodate generous contributors. It is their job to represent the will of the people (ALL the people, not just the wealthy contributors) that they are supposed to be governing.

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.

Re:You certainly can!

[Unordained]

It is their job to represent the will of the people (ALL the people, not just the wealthy contributors) that they are supposed to be governing.

What about cases where a politician is elected (even by more than 50% of the voters) but his constituency disagrees with him on a particular issue (say, 75% against him) -- should he go with his declared platform (which was bought as a whole) or the will of the people? (I'm not saying that's the case here at all. I'm wondering what should define "the will of all the people" in the mind of the idea politician.)

Re:You certainly can!

[mpe]

Yes, you certainly can blame the politicians here. It is not their job to accomodate generous contributors. It is their job to represent the will of the people (ALL the people, not just the wealthy contributors) that they are supposed to be governing.

In many places (including the US) the deciding factor is ment to be simply one of geography. In the case of a real person where they live in the case of a corporate person where they have their registered office.

This "vicious circle" could be easily broken if there were politicians that actually cared about their constituents

All too often the "generous contributors" would not meet any meaningful definition of "constituents" anyway.

Re:You certainly can!

[Cyn]

In Soviet Russia - the politicians blame YOU!

Re:You certainly can!

[Hairy1]

Its easy to be critical of the Politicians, however the fact is they are not bowing down to US interests at all. The Patent legislation is currently under review, and there has been a prolonged consultation period. Thats not to say the current form of the draft legislation is exactly what we want, but to suggest that "generous contributors" are influencing Government in a major way is just not accurate in the New Zealand environment.

Thats not to say they don't have any influence - but nothing like the obvious failure of democracy that is the current US administration.

But they're _not_ playing by the rules!

[mrchaotica]

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

Re:But they're _not_ playing by the rules!

[Zemran]

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). We will complain and we will win a few battles but they will win the war.

Re:But they're _not_ playing by the rules!

[da_matta]

But that's kind of the point: you really can't blame the companies applying for these kind of patents if it's actually possible to get them. Whether we like it or not, it's the patent offices that in the end set the policy of what's patentable and what's not. It's the fault of the patent system in general that they try to compensate the lacking resources by accepting everything and letting the courts decide. This is the problem that should be fixed.

Re:But they're _not_ playing by the rules!

[mrchaotica]

Sure you can! You can blame both!

Re:But they're _not_ playing by the rules!

[da_matta]

IMHO, no you can't. It would work if every company would "be honorable" and only apply for "the good patents", but that's probably not going to happen.. In todays environment you really must apply a patent for all the key aspects of your product so that you're not hurt by some Eolas-wannabee five years from now. And if your protective application is accepted, you might as well try to utilize it.

To make things worse, it's only the big players that can afford to play this game. You're ok as long you're small (or huge with a portfolio to cross license), but once you become a threat you get slammed.

It might as well be that MS will try to hurt OpenOffice with this (in FUD if nothing else), but I'm confident that the most important reason was to protect their number one product.

Re:But they're _not_ playing by the rules!

[snero3]

*assuming NZ's patent rules are anything like the US's

Unfortunately once the free trade agreement goes into place they will be exactly the same. One of the things the US strongly enforces when approach the subject of a free trade agreement is that you accept some of their laws and the IP laws are one of them. This is basically put in place to persecute pirates according to US law but it has the side effect of allowing stupid things like this stand outside of the US.

Very few countries have the power/will to say no to a free trade agreement with the states, mainly due to the huge market the US presents, so some of the stupidness we see in the US IP law will be replicated around the world.

Re:But they're _not_ playing by the rules!

[mrchaotica]

That brings up another interesting concern: if this gets granted in NZ, with the free trade laws, won't it apply to the US too?

Interesting

[Planky]

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.

Re:Interesting

[rongten]

And I would be interested to know how to help the fight from the soon to be victim of crony capitalism EU.

Re:Interesting

[jrumney]

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.

Perhaps you have hit on their strategy. Many countries will grant automatic patents once a patent is recognized in 7 WIPO countries (though most will require at least 2 of the 7 to be US, Japan or EU). So maybe they're looking for the easiest way in through the back door.

Um... prior art...

[beelsebob]

Explain to me in what way the xhtml documents I find all over the web are not word processing documents stored in xml?

Re:Um... prior art...

[bwcbwc]

Also, since XML is a subset of SGML, wouldn't all of the old SGML document processors constitute prior art? Especially ones that allowed storing macros and subprograms in SGML?

Patents

[ta bu shi da yu]

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.

Re:Patents

[eric76]

if a patent gets rejected for being obvious

Has that even happened since the Louisiana Purchase?

Re:Patents

[yog]

Such a policy might have the unpleasant consequence of discouraging individuals from filing patent applications at all, since obviousness is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe better for patent examiners to hire people who are more computer savvy, who can see these ridiculous claims for what they are. In the U.S. at least, patent examiners tend to be engineers and other types of highly educated people, but apparently software engineers are not yet in evidence in their ranks.

Re:Patents

[gl4ss]

3. would make for front-companies that the big companies used for filing patents.

again, wouldn slap just the little guy who can't afford to buy gazillion front companies.

Re:Patents

[ralphdaugherty]

if a patent gets rejected for being obvious

Has that even happened since the Louisiana Purchase?

A patent reform bill recently in the news being considered in the Senate would ban diversion of patent fees to the general fund. At this point patent applications are moneymakers for the US government.

Not only moneymakers from patent fees, but there is no way the federal government will willingly give up a source of control through which to extract bri^H^H^H political contributions.

Patent reform is government reform.

rd

Re:Patents

[mpe]

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.

Actually better would be to allow them to file several more patents. But not look at them for at least 6 months. This means that the patent office gets the fees plus 6 months interest. In the case of such an entity submitting lots of frivilous patents after the first 40 or so any more would be considered "pre-expired" even if they had been valid in the first place.

Re:Patents

[ralphdaugherty]

Actually better would be to allow them to file several more patents. But not look at them for at least 6 months. This means that the patent office gets the fees plus 6 months interest.

No, the way to hinder frivilous patents is to just keep the fees.

rd

idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[mcbevin]

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.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

It's pretty straightforward: we've seen what happens when the "U.S." (meaning large American corporations *coff*MS*coff*) decides that foreign legislation is an impediment to its business interests.

Are you a South American or Indian government looking to mandate the use of Free/open software? You can expect a visit from Microsoft-ites bearing gifts and whispering about possible unfortunate repercussions of the ill-advised decision you are about not to make. Are you a European government looking to halt or slow the adoption of U.S.-style patent laws that will surely prove inimical to your domestic software industry? You, too, can expect a visit from suited "industry representatives" suggesting that branch offices in your country are not immune to budgetary cutbacks and reallocations.

If pressure isn't being applied somewhere to get an absurd patent like this accepted (the phrase "trial balloon" comes to mind) then of course the blame lies with a patent-system gone berserk... given past performances of the parties in question however, this seems unlikely.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[mrchaotica]

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.

He was attempting to show that this kind of thing (that is, using shady tactics to poorly implement and then profit from other people's ideas) has always been Microsoft's modus operandi. It would have been nice if he had cited some other examples, like DOS, Windows, Internet Explorer, etc. to connect the dots though.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[SirSnapperHead]

I like your comment's anti-anti rant. Except the quote you pulled wasn't about G L O B A L I S A T I O N. It was about a free trade agreement whereby the United States uses ths agreement to insert it's own laws into another countries' laws.

This was recently done to Australia, and included extending copyright to 'harmonise' with the United States, and legalise software patents in that country as well. Other nice things included an attempt by the United States pharmaceutical industry to force the Australian government to abolish their subsidy system which makes medicines more affordable for citizens.

I can only assume the author is pointing out that further kow-towing to the United States legal system will mean further sillyness in the Patent office.

Microsoft is NOT just one of many companies playing this game of course. They are the biggest company in the world, and are setting the agenda on software patents as a key plank in their business model. Pointing things like this out is about speaking truth rather than company bashing.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, nice of this Microsoft basher to show all his stripes.

Nice ad hominem there.

People don't hate Microsoft because it is Microsoft, they hate it because of their low quality, overpriced software and illegal business methods.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[mcbevin]

Look, we all have our valid reasons for hating Microsoft.

However, if an article writer singles out Microsoft for criticism as if they were the only company doing this, and takes the opportunity to go on about how it all relates back to Gates' evil plans which hes had from day one, when all they're doing in this instance us something its competitors are just as guilty of, then its Microsoft bashing.

And when they take a case regarding NZ patent law and mix it into an anti freemarket-rant, thats showing their stripes.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[mcbevin]

I agree with you there more or less there. Anti-globalisation people often seem to end up protesting against the interests of the people they're supposed to be supporting - the poor, or the 'developing' world as you put it.

The USA government unfortunately has a nice history of bending words like 'free trade' to meet its aims (think 'democracy' == our allies, 'terrorist' / 'communist' == our enemies etc).

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[JohnFluxx]

Ah, the sound of another microsoft excuser whining "but everyone else doing iiiittt!".

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[mpe]

I like your comment's anti-anti rant. Except the quote you pulled wasn't about G L O B A L I S A T I O N. It was about a free trade agreement whereby the United States uses ths agreement to insert it's own laws into another countries' laws.

Both "free trade" and "globalis/zation" often appear to involve what a certain well known author called "doublethink".

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[mpe]

However, if an article writer singles out Microsoft for criticism as if they were the only company doing this, and takes the opportunity to go on about how it all relates back to Gates' evil plans which hes had from day one, when all they're doing in this instance us something its competitors are just as guilty of, then its Microsoft bashing.

Except that Microsoft is rather unusual in having been found guilty of breaking laws several times.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[mcbevin]

For example, we have a long-standing ban on US nuclear-powered ships coming here. We're entirely nuclear free here, and it's a popular policy. Speaking democratically, it should probably stay. However the US would prefer our government acts undemocratically and scraps the policy.

Its not really an issue of NZ-democracy vs US-undemocracy here. The US wants certain things from NZ, which happen to be not what the NZ public wants. Similarly NZ wants certain things from the US (i.e. abolition of US agricultural subsidies) which happen to be not what the US public wants. But I wouldn't conclude in the latter case that 'NZ would prefer the US government acts undemocratically and scraps the policy' - at least, not with any implication that NZ is against US democracy which is what you're implying in the other direction, especially in stating 'A free trade agreement with the united states is poison for national democracy ....'.

The real issue is that any free-trade deals between the world's superpower and individual small countries like NZ are bound to be lopsided. Thats inevitable as long as the small countries fail to join together in negotiating with the US, or as long as the US remains the world's superpower (i.e. as Europe or China grow in power, then they increasingly counterbalance the US, and then NZ thus has more export options or can play these world powers off against each other in negotiating). However the point is that NZ has to make the best of the current situation, and although any free trade deals with the US are bound to be lopsided in near future due purely to the balance of power, they may still be a better alternative to no such free trade deal.

Re:Why the fight?

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

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.

Full patent text

[ta bu shi da yu]

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.

Re:Full patent text

[eric76]

In case anyone is interested and wants to be fully informed what the patent [iponz.govt.nz] actually says [iponz.govt.nz] (so rare a quality in a slashdot reader I find these days), then here is the abstract:

I'd like to know what the patent actually says.

At the same time, I'm not particularly interested in what the abstract says.

Re:Full patent text

[WoodieR]

on first read that looks more like a hook into the OS, than word-processing per se ...

Inventive step

[moderators_are_w*nke]

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.

Re:Inventive step

[stixman]

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.

According to the abstract, the inventive step is to use a so-called "XSD" to "perform an action" on the document, to "validate" it, or do "display" it. Ingenious!

Re:Inventive step

[xemplify]

Under current patent legislation in New Zealand there is no inventive step requirement for something to be patentable. However this requirement will be added if the proposed Draft Patents Bill is passed into law.

Did you bother to follow the link?

[ta bu shi da yu]

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.

Re:Did you bother to follow the link?

[eric76]

I must have missed something.

One link showed an error. The other was a doc file that contained the abstract.

Re:Did you bother to follow the link?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Damn. Looks like they are using cookies in their searches. Sorry about that. Snarky comment retracted.

Try this page, then go to the patent search, then in the "New Zealand Number(s)" field type in 525484. Click on "submit Query" (in the box ABOVE the search fields). This will give you the patent.

Re:Did you bother to follow the link?

[pommiekiwifruit]

Someone has obviously already patented "deep linking" so the patent office can't provide context-free links :-)

Defensive patenting

[potcrackpot]

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.

Re:Defensive patenting

[Pecisk]

I don't agree with your arguments that defensive patenting is effective in that way you described. Patents are very rarely checked for dublicates so it is common that many patents overlaps with each other in as many ways as they can. I compare this all patenting absurd more like creating modern warefare, for example, nukes. If I will have a big, nice, shiny nuke who can turn your capital into ashes in matter of seconds, you won't try to threat me with your nukes too. So we will be equal.

About those guys who won't have any kind of this nukes? Naah, they don't count.

Yeah, I know, in such situation there is no much for free market, is it?

Re:Defensive patenting

[Pecisk]

Microsoft strategy WAS consistent when they pushed for software patents in the first place - because they thought benefits will be more than loses. They were simply wrong - as many greed-driven iniciatives in the world today.

Re:Defensive patenting

[mpe]

I compare this all patenting absurd more like creating modern warefare, for example, nukes. If I will have a big, nice, shiny nuke who can turn your capital into ashes in matter of seconds, you won't try to threat me with your nukes too. So we will be equal.

A situation called MAD :)

About those guys who won't have any kind of this nukes? Naah, they don't count.

Except for trying to make sure they can never get their hands on any nukes.
Where the analogy breaks down is that cross licencing of patents requires a large minimal number of patents. Whereas even a few nukes will keep your country reasonably safe from invasion (even by countries which have lots of nukes).

Re:Defensive patenting

[cortana]

And rightly so. If Microsoft is so against software patents, why are they lobbying for them in the EU?

Just because they haven't gone on the offensive yet doesn't mean they won't in the future. Why give them the chance?

Re:Defensive patenting

[Vitriol Angst]

A patent for an XML document is sort of redundant, since the purpose of XML is to allow documents to work with other applications. So, XML itself is prior art here. Not only is this patent office overburdened, they have people who don't know some of the more principle technologies.

[Begin Rant]
The reason Microsoft gets sued for patent infringment is that they are often caught stealing other companies Intellectual Property. MS doesn't usually sue companies that it competes with, since they usually die off or get bought out. Their favorite technique is to steal IP, delay any court proceedings, then buy up a 51% share (usually cheap because the company is getting crushed and has no market by this time) and vote to not sue themselves. They did it to Stacker. I've kind of quit bothering to keep track of their various misdeeds. They've learned to buy up polliticians so not much will be done about it.

They could defend themselves better through real innovation. But they have rarely been successful with their own ideas. All the great things they are known for came from other companies. Even OLE (I forget the company), Active X, Video For Windows (QuickTime), Internet Explorer (Spyglass/Mosaic), Drive compression (Stacker), video streaming for the web (Burst), Windows 1-3 (Mac OS 7), Excel (VisiCalc), Word (MacWrite), Windows Networking (Novell), DOS (CPM), etcetera, etcetera. There are whole websites devoted to the littered bodies. I just have to do my part when anyone suggests that Microsoft is a good company. There is a difference between good and bad corporate behavior. Some companies compete well and hard and that is OK. But MS is still run like a pirate outfit and they constantly abuse the marketplace in ever new and exciting ways. IBM, on the other hand, has changed its ways and now is a tough but fair and innovative corporate citizen. It annoys me to see the cult of the winner in the U.S. love anyone who gets power, no matter how. There are honorable people like the late Sam Walton (hate the kids), and many others who saw a need and filled it. 'nuff said.

[/end rant]

If someone has time, please challenge this.

Re:Defensive patenting

[MightyMartian]

Clearly Microsoft wants to have its cake and eat it to. It wants to be immune from idiotic patents, but wants to be able to file all manner of idiotic patents of its own. Clearly it's compiling a portfolio of patents to crush OpenOffice when that software finally reaches a point where it's a substantial threat to Microsoft's big revenue generator.

Re:Defensive patenting

[runderwo]

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.

Consistent? Then why are they the primary lobbyist behind the EU software patent initiative?

Hmmm.

[ta bu shi da yu]

Sounds like Word all right.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[ggvaidya]

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 :).

Total drivel

[ta bu shi da yu]

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.

Re:Total drivel

[Keeper]

The fact of that matter is that the patent was granted! If MS didn't get that patent, someone else would have. And that someone else would have sued anyone with money for licensing fees (a certain suit regarding the use plug-ins that come up automatically comes to mind).

This has nothing to do with them trying to make it harder for competing software to be created (as evidenced by the fact that they have yet to use any of their patents in an offensive manner).

The SYSTEM that allows these patents to be granted and abused is to blame, not the entity trying to avoid getting creamed by the system.

Re:Total drivel

[potcrackpot]

If they really wanted to shut open office out that badly, there's easier ways to do it that patenting something in *new zealand*.

I agree that open office, star office, and all the rest are an eventual threat MSOffice's market dominance and that they need to do something about it (like make office better value for money), but this patent is not going to help one whit.

Look at this: Sun pushes open office standard, specifically talking about an open document standard using XML - basically the OASIS format format.

I never disagreed that it's a crap patent. It is. But it's unenforceable without MS opening itself up to yet more legal challenges over its anti-interoperability tactics.

Re:Total drivel

[mpe]

The fact of that matter is that the patent was granted! If MS didn't get that patent, someone else would have.

Actually the point is more that the patent should never have been granted to anyone.

The SYSTEM that allows these patents to be granted and abused is to blame, not the entity trying to avoid getting creamed by the system.

The same "logic" would give a large number of crimianls a "get out of jail" free card.

Re:Total drivel

[Keeper]

Actually the point is more that the patent should never have been granted to anyone.

That is EXACTLY my point. But it was granted! So you're going to blame Mirosoft because they applied for it? They're perfectly within their rights to APPLY for it. Anyone is perfectly within their rights to apply for a shit patent. They shouldn't be granted it! You can argue "they should know better than to apply for it", but the fact is, if they weren't granted it, someone else would have been (because the patent office gives out shit patents)-- and that someone else would have sued the living crap out of anyone with an XML document format.

The same "logic" would give a large number of crimianls a "get out of jail" free card.

What twisted universe do you live in? The system defines the rules of the game, not how you treat those who break the rules. And in this case, everyone is following the rules.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[R.Caley]

Patent the idea of patenting other peoples ideas;

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).

Patenting XML

[Chris Kamel]

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?

Re:Patenting XML

[mrchaotica]

Yes. Now they can say "We support Open Standards! *snicker*"

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[the_womble]

Sorry, I have found lots of prior art for that.

Sliding scale for patent filing

[jonbrewer]

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.

Re:Sliding scale for patent filing

[fuzzybunny]

Fun idea, useless with those numbers. Companies file patents to (a) protect themselves against lawsuits ("if you sue me for patent infringement, I'm likely to have something in my archive based on which I can sue you back") and (b) make money through licensing.

The monetary gain for a company, in the case of (a) through avoided legal costs, and for (b) in actual revenues far exceeds the trivial amounts you specify.

Make the scale geometric and it starts having teeth :)

Re:Sliding scale for patent filing

[mpe]

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+.

It might work better with a geometric progression.

Re:Sliding scale for patent filing

[fuzzybunny]

So make up a geometric sliding scale of registration fees for new companies too :-)

Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Prior Art

[headLITE]

Most notably, OpenOffice's native format is based on zipped XML which can be manipulated by other software quite easily.

Microsoft are just patenting what Sun's been doing for a while now.

This one slipped through the watchers...

[Linker3000]

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.

Nukes are bad. Let's make more (our) nukes.

[Pecisk]

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.

Re:Nukes are bad. Let's make more (our) nukes.

[mrchaotica]

Well, they'll get away with it at least through 2008 in the US...

Re:Nukes are bad. Let's make more (our) nukes.

[m50d]

Why not? It's worked for the US government.

Re:These guys are lame

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

We should get Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Sir William H. Gates III to duke it out in a joust, just like real knights of the empire.

Opposition

[zxombie]

The NZOSS is opposing this patent as pointed out here

Re:Opposition

[xemplify]

The NZOSS is opposing this patent

In New Zealand we are fighting software patents by making it a national issue that the political parties will have to face.

The NZOSS is arranging a meeting in which MP's from various political parties will be speaking about their parties position on software patents. The meeting will be in early May on Parliament grounds, Wellington. To find out more join the NZOSS openchat mailing list. Please mod up. ;)

Re:Why the fight?

[terryfunk]

Microsoft in no way invented XML. Dave Hollander invented XML.
http://www.mhxml.com/myinfo/MyBio.htm

Microsoft's retirement fund?

[shibbie]

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?

Patenting defensively

[Anonymous Coward]

If M$ want to promise the 'rest of the world' that this is a defensive patent, they should do something like promise (in a legally binding way) that anyone has a royalty-free license to this patent at any time where they are not in patent litigation with Microsoft.

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.

Attention: Boss

[ewe2]

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.

Re:TIred of everyone giving Microsoft heat

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, right. All that means is that they haven't used their patents against Free Software yet. That will change soon, at least according to their leaked memo...

Software patents are a necessary evil

[Mr_Tulip]

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.

Re:Software patents are a necessary evil

[mrchaotica]

All developers are guilty of this, including Microsoft and a whole myriad of open-source software 'clones' of commercial products.

Gee, I wonder why. Could it be that it's necessary in order to create any non-trivial software?!

Re:Software patents are a necessary evil

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Could it be that it's necessary in order to create any non-trivial software?!

You think the only way to make a non-trivial word processor is to copy the UI style and feature set of Word very closely?

That's truly very sad.

Re:Software patents are a necessary evil

[gebbeth]

No. There is nothing wrong with having "cloned" software that performs the same function. Compete on features and user interface and performance and the lack of bugs in your software. If software patents had been established early enough, there would be only one word processor and only one spreadsheet and only one web browser. Forget open source software as they would never be able to afford to license.

Re:Software patents are a necessary evil

[tepples]

You think the only way to make a non-trivial word processor is to copy the UI style and feature set of Word very closely?

In a world where training is expensive, yes. Imagine if the Sholes (QWERTY) layout of the computer keyboard were copyrightable. Please read this document published by the League for Programming Freedom.

Re:Software patents are a necessary evil

[mrchaotica]

No, I don't. HOWEVER, I do think the only way to make a WORD FILE IMPORT/EXPORT FUNCTION is to copy the WORD FILE WRITING FEATURE of Word very closely, just as how I think that to make a MP3 playing program you need to copy the MP3 decoding algorithm very closely, or that to make a Zip file reading program you need to copy the LZW algorithm very closely, or how to make a website you need to implement the idea of a "shopping cart" very closely (and how "one click" is obvious in that context), or that when you're making a toolbar with icons if you want a "help" function using a "?" icon is necessary, etc.

Re:Software patents are a necessary evil

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Please read this document published by the League for Programming Freedom.

Fair enough, I've read that. It appears date from nearly two decades ago, a time when feature checklists dominated product advertising and UI research was a minor academic pastime. I could fly a 747 through the gaps in some of their arguments as they apply today, in a world where usability is a key differentiator, and a lot of popular application areas are running out of major new features. Which parts of it did you think would convince me they were right?

Re:Software patents are a necessary evil

[MightyMartian]

Unless we're talking about a pretty trivial bit of software, I can't see how screenshots are going to help all that much. I have an in-house accounting package that's been in steady development for nearly five years. While the screenshots may give another guy an idea as to what an Accounts Receivable journal or General Ledger should look like, there's a good deal of buried complexity in the database management end of things; the core of the program if you will. I'd say you'd have to be a wizard, or, for the more mundane, I guy armed with a good disassembler, to lift the underlying code. In the first case, there's no defense against magic, and in the second, my code is copyrighted, so if someone steals it, then I don't need patents to get justice.

I can bring up MS-Word's screens and get some very vague idea as to functioning, but without source, I'm still going to have to write the glue that produces everything from bold fonts to creating tables. Screenshots aren't going to be much damn good at all for anything beyond the smallest programs.

I mean, how do you suppose software is developed? Do you think developers, even MS's developers, hide in caves and don't look at competitors' featuresets and layouts? Do you honestly think that an E-commerce site coder wouldn't look at Amazon or Paypal? Whether it's a coder sitting in Redmond, Washington or in some God-forsaken place in North Dakota, we all get our inspiration from existing software. The difference is that MS has a lot of money to abuse the patent system, while the small developer, doing the same thing, has to hope and pray that MS or some like-minded corporation doesn't stomp on them very hard.

Re:Why the fight?

[l3v1]

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.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[vinsci]

More information on this case here:

Landmark Victory in World's First Case Against Biopiracy!!

European Patent Office Upholds Decision to Revoke Neem Patent

there is no such thing as ... Defensive patenting

[pbhj]

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.

Would this cover XForms?

[Forget4it]

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.

Re:Would this cover XForms?

[mrchaotica]

Well, then I suppose it hinges on whether an XForms document is a "word processor" document (and whether the entire patent is bullshit, of course, but that goes without saying).

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[spiff42]

That wouldn't work.

Microsoft has plenty of prior art on this issue, and they have the funding for the patent lawyers to get such a patent revoked.

/Spiff

Suggested solution

[hedleyroos]

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.

Next up: U.S. Patent Office

[Anonymous Coward]

The same application has been filed at the USPTO as publication number 20040210818.

Writing topics in a language

[stivi]

If I understand it correctly, then it is like patenting that only I can tell or write science-fiction stories in the Slovak language?

Could be, but ...

[Craig Ringer]

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.

What, wait up a minute

[daliman]

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.

Taking USPTO Line

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

Translation into /. speak:

[geminidomino]

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.

Why would it discourage people?

[Lifewish]

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):

• MS gets employees to file patents on their own behalf then buys them up en masse as and when they get through.
• MS waits the six months then floods the patent office. Then waits six months. Then floods the patent office.

Solutions would be as follows:

• Put some kind of restriction on patent transactions. Either restrict the number a company can buy in a given time period (unlikely to work) or disallow patent reselling for a period of (say) 5 years. There are probably other, better solutions.
• Make the hiatus on filing retroactive - any patents applications filed after the date of the earliest rejected patent should be rejected without prejudice - come back in 6 months and refile, please.

Any thoughts?

Re:Why would it discourage people?

[ajs318]

An inventor has exactly ONE right in respect of their invention; and that is the right to have their name associated with their invention, for as long as anyone gives a damn. Anything else -- including making money out of it -- is just a bonus.

On that basis, I would have no quarrel with the idea of making patents non-transferrable, except that they may used as collateral for a loan -- on the understanding that a patent is akin to perishable goods and may become worthless while held in lien. What happens then is of course up to the borrower and lender.

Also, the Patent Office -- and not the patent holder -- should set royalty fees for use of patents, based on their own assessment, and be responsible for their collection and distribution. This would prevent differential licencing arrangements {charging different prices to different customers -- a blatantly anti-competitive practice} and outright blocking of licencing attempts. It ought also to simplify the process of getting a patent for individuals with little money {since one could borrow the cost of getting a patent, against the promise of royalties to come if the invention is successful}.

Re:Why would it discourage people?

[mpe]

Put some kind of restriction on patent transactions. Either restrict the number a company can buy in a given time period (unlikely to work) or disallow patent reselling for a period of (say) 5 years. There are probably other, better solutions.

An alternative would be to limit concurrent examination from any filer. Thus a flooding attempt simply winds up as a donation of money to the patent office.

Make the hiatus on filing retroactive - any patents applications filed after the date of the earliest rejected patent should be rejected without prejudice - come back in 6 months and refile, please.

With the filing date unchanged and a new filing fee...

Re:Why would it discourage people?

[Gentlewhisper]

I have a better suggestion.

Simply require a pricely sum of $50,000 payment UPFRONT upon the submission of any patent as an administration fee, and for patents that are approved, 95% of this fee will be refunded.

Those that are obvious rips, well, the PO will just prepare a nice and beautiful piece of paper (after all it is worth $50,000) documenting the reasons for refusal, and pfft!

That way, it is definitely in the best interests of the PO to reject as many applications as possible. The need for good documentation of the rejection reasons also means that they can't abuse their powers and wantonly reject applications for no reasons.

It's the perfect system.

If you can't risk mortaging your house over it, it is not worth patenting. That will get rid of those idiots who file patents that are trivially obvious. Like "pat-rights". Lol, like anyone gave them the rights to live.

Bear in mind, $50,000 is not a lot to a corporation, but with a million, they can only file 20. It is certainly not going to allow them to dump the PO with hundreds upon thousands of applications as they do now.

Re:there is no such thing as ... Defensive patenti

[KontinMonet]

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.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[squoozer]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong .....

[ajs318]

..... 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.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong .....

[m50d]

Bundling it into the same file does look novel considering OOo takes the clunky step of putting things together in a zip file to make the document a single file.

WPO - World Patent Organization

[mrdlcastle]

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.

Re:WPO - World Patent Organization

[servoled]

Your forgot one letter: WIPO. They don't actually grant patents, but they do accept filings through a patent cooperation treaty (PCT) that allows you to file your application in multiple countries simultaneously.

I would't be terribly suprised if WIPO turns into what you describe at some point.

tired of Microsoft is good

[alexandreracine]

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.

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.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[WoodieR]

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 ...

What is the job of a representative?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What about cases where a politician is elected (even by more than 50% of the voters) but his constituency disagrees with him on a particular issue (say, 75% against him) -- should he go with his declared platform (which was bought as a whole) or the will of the people?

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.

Re:there is no such thing as ... Defensive patenti

[m50d]

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.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[BorgDrone]

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"

Infrastructure to watch patent offices everywhere

[synthespian]

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.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[mpe]

There is an unbelievable amount of prior art.

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 /. was the decision that in the EU non-published but `everyone knows that' information can count as prior art to kill a patent.

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.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[R.Caley]

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.

World turning to open source soon is inevitable

[ralphdaugherty]

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

Re:World turning to open source soon is inevitable

[dick johnson]

What?

Did we invade New Zealand too?

Sheesh. I don't know how I missed that one. Did we find WMD?

When Did New Zealand become a U.S. state?

Re:Impressive XML Skillz - Not.

[tepples]

Perhaps the inventor of XML just knows that the web browser in use on more than 80 percent of Internet-connected desktop PCs can't read documents in the XML variation of XHTML.

Patents inhibit peer-production of software

[xemplify]

The NZ Herald article points out:

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 fees or defend themselves from patent litigation.

Allowing software patents is a decision favouring one form of software production over another.

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.

Of course - good example doesn't hurt any argument

[marat]

RTFS

SGML

[SgtChaireBourne]

What Microsoft is attempting to do is patent one of the uses intended for XML from the very start

The work on XML is based on changes desired for SGML. The main one being, in my mind, that XML documents must be well-formed which makes parsing much easier. So you could examine SGML and its uses for the last 20 years when it became a standard.

Prior art probably goes back into the 1960's, way before MS, if you also consider GML as well.

Re:SGML

[symbolic]

FrameMaker was also using its own markup language, MML, long before *ML was a twinkle in Bill's eye.

I am so overjoyed

[suezz]

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.

Re:I am so overjoyed

[Hairy1]

I really hope you are not American, as the US has already accepted the patent. Oh, you are being sarcastic. My bad :)

On another note I see most Slashdotters are missing the point. Microsoft are not patenting all word processing XML documents, just documents that use their magic filled XML schema. The real point here is that they are using Patent law not to protect something innovative, but to control who can interoperate with their formats.

The really evil thing is that if you write a document in Word, then save it as XML, your data is not mixed with Microsoft "intellectual property" - and therefore you can not do with it as you please.

Microsoft make a big deal about the patent being licenced reasonably, however that doesn't include being able to use GPL tools with *your data*.

SGML

[paulsnx2]

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

burst.com

[puke76]

The same Microsoft that destroys evidence relating to patent cases .

Patent Reform

[cybermage]

Not sure how the patent offices handle things like fees, but I think this whole problem could be fixed with a very simple structure:

• Flat Fee for all applications, accepted or not
• Big Surcharge on rejected applications where the application is overly broad or is merely theoretical (i.e., no implementation exists)
• Very Big Surcharge on rejected application that is substantially unchanged from a previously rejected application

This way, the patent office can continue to be a cash cow and have an incentive to protect our rights at the same time.

Agatha Christie

[alsy]

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

Re:there is no such thing as ... Defensive patenti

[kmo]

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

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.

Media Coverage

[aeproberts]

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.

Legal opportunity ? or Ethical opportunity ?

[Eternally optimistic]

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.

WTO?

[nurb432]

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"

What?

[abulafia]

That makes no sense.

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.)

But you're really missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is NOT the case that MS is playing both good guy and bad guy and that you need to apologise for them.

MS is trying to change the patent system to their advantage, not FIX the patent system. See a previous /. link to what MS wants to do with patents.

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.

Re:Patent the idea of patenting other peoples idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

The patent system was not designed to deal

[crovira]

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.

Time for the Baltar solutiuon

[SuperKendall]

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.

Prior Art...

[russotto]

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.

Ha!

[Civil_Disobedient]

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.

Yawn

[ad0gg]

What about IBM? Or are we just going to ignore the companies we like?

Re:TIred of everyone giving Microsoft heat

[MightyMartian]

I'm sorry, but I think MS has shown its true stripes enough over the last twelve or thirteen years that its pretty clear that they are not above the dirtiest of tricks. I don't think there's any benefit in software patents at all, and the kinds of idiotic patent applications MS has been making lately are pretty clear evidence of that.

UIs and designs *should* be protected

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:UIs and designs *should* be protected

[mrchaotica]

Why do you keep talking about the UI? That has almost nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about features. I was talking about how if this word-processing patent goes through, it will be illegal to compete with Word. I was talking about how these kinds of patents mean that nobody is allowed to make an efficient web store, regardless of whether it looks like Amazon.com. I was talking about how nobody would be allowed to make an operating system if somebody (hypothetically) patented the idea of a device driver. I'm talking about algorithms and data structures and basic paradigms (e.g. the idea of an "icon" or "shortcut key" and representing a spreadsheet in a grid widget) and all the other little bits that go into any software program more complicated than "Hello World" that you didn't personally come up with yourself.

Prior art...

[Troy Baer]

It seems like this should be pretty easy to challenge with prior art. For instance, emacs has had XML-specific editing capabilities since at least 1999 (and likely earlier):

(From http://www.lysator.liu.se/projects/about_psgml.htm l):

1999-10-10
Version 1.2.0 of PSGML with XML support is now released. Get psgml-1.2.0.tar.gz from lystor ftp.

That doesn't make Microsoft trying to patent this any less slimey, though...

--Troy

Interpretation

[Spy der Mann]

"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!"

Re:Impressive XML Skillz - Not.

[Spy der Mann]

Perhaps the inventor of XML just knows that the web browser in use on more than 80 percent of Internet-connected desktop PCs can't read documents in the XML variation of XHTML.

And yet, the author of this web browser that CANNOT understand XHTML, is trying to patent XML for wordprocessing uses. Can somebody explain to me?

Pay peanuts, get monkeys...

[BobboBrown]

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?

MacroMedia, Netscape Did it First

[GrassyKnowl]

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.

Patents for actual M$ innovations

[fade-in]

In reading all of this, it is clear that M$ is seeking patents for things they had no hand in inventing.

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?

That's a new one to me.

[ta bu shi da yu]

I wasn't aware that epilepsy was catching.