Slashdot Mirror
MS Files for Broad XML/Word-processing Patent in NZ
Unloaded writes "In the New Zealand Herald, Adam Gifford has written an
article blasting Microsoft for burying the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office in paperwork. One example is Patent 525484, accepted by the office and now open for objections until the end of May, which says Microsoft invented and owns the process whereby a word-processing document stored in a single XML file may be manipulated by applications that understand XML."
Would this be the same Microsoft that is arguing for patent reform?
So basically, MIcrosoft is trying to stop OpenOffice, AbiWord, Pages, etc. from being able to import and export Word XML files. Wonderful.
At least it's not patenting those apps from reading their own format, since they aren't single files (zips and bundles, respectively).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Patent the idea of patenting other peoples ideas; that ought to stop most of Microsofts patents. =)
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
There is a really really good explanation on what XML is and why it works here.
The W3C states though that:
XML was developed by an XML Working Group (originally known as the SGML Editorial Review Board) formed under the auspices of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1996. It was chaired by Jon Bosak of Sun Microsystems with the active participation of an XML Special Interest Group (previously known as the SGML Working Group) also organized by the W3C. The membership of the XML Working Group is given in an appendix. Dan Connolly served as the Working Group's contact with the W3C.
I understand that microsoft aren't claiming to have invented the technology, but it really annoys me that they are trying to patent a use, and a small extract of a software they had only a small part in developing!
http://www.sandstorming.com
If the patent is for processing word processing XML files, how do they define that? Is XHTML word processing document? What about Docbook?
And how is it that word processing XML in particular is innovative and worthy of a patent? Isn't it fundamentally the same as processing any other XML?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You cannot blame MS for playing according to the rules; nor can one blame the policticians for being accomodating and writing the rules to benefit such a generous contributor. Anyone here say vicious circle ?
This is not a signature.
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.
This "vicious circle" could be easily broken if there were politicians that actually cared about their constituents and the welfare of their city/state/country rather than caring for the almight dollar/yen/euro/etc.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
They're tricking the patent office into accepting their applications which are just outside the rules.* That patent isn't innovative, nor is it even new at all! What Microsoft is doing is like watching somebody create the automobile and then patenting sedans. It's just a subset and a particular use of an existing technology, not anything new at all!
*assuming NZ's patent rules are anything like the US's
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It would be nice to have some non-monetary penalties apply for frivilous patents. Like, for instance, if a patent gets rejected for being obvious then the firm doing the patenting must wait six months before filing another patent. It would do two things:
1. Teach the business that they should be more careful when it comes to patents, and
2. Frees up the patent office to do better research.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
That post.
Would be better.
If it didn't read like.
An 11 year-old's.
First spelling test.
In case anyone is interested and wants to be fully informed what the patent actually says (so rare a quality in a slashdot reader I find these days), then here is the abstract:
Patent 525484
A computer-readable medium having computer-executable components comprises a first component for reading a word-processor document stored as a single XML file; a second component that utilizes an XSD (XML Schema Definition) for interpreting the word-processor document, and
a third component for performing an action on the word-processor document.
The computer readable medium can further comprise a validating component configured to validate the word-processor document or a fourth component for displaying the word-processor document. The XSD represents a word-processor's rich formatting and the XSD is published and is available to applications other than the word-processor. The word-processor document can include hints to applications that understand XML.
The action may be selected from parsing, modifying, reading, and creating the word-processor document and may be fully recreating the word-processor document according to a word processor's set of features.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The problem with this article is that it misses the point. Like any good troll, the author asserts facts and opinions that can't be denied, supporting what is unfortunately a skewed and unfair underpinning perspective.
Yes, the patent is a poor one - although MS did it first (I think), the idea isn't particularly great; it is an obvious idea from just reading the XML RFC.
However, a google search for "microsoft patent case" reveals page after page of results for microsoft being sued for patent infringement. None of the results, as far as I can see, pertain to Microsoft suing someone else.
A great deal of large companies have a strategy of defensive patenting: if you've got the patent, no one else can; plus, if you've got one they (an aggressor) infringe and they've got one you infringe, there's a chance that everyone will just forget all about it.
Microsoft's strategy is consistent with their talk about overhauling the patent system - the system is garbage, but they should hedge their bets and defensive patent in case it (the system) doesn't get changed.
No-one is getting screwed as much as Microsoft over patents. The author is simply picking on an easy target.
Sounds like Word all right.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
There is an unbelievable amount of prior art.
Tangentially relevent: one news story recently which seems to have slipped past /. was the decision that in the EU non-published but `everyone knows that' information can count as prior art to kill a patent. (it was a biotech patent, but clearly the argument has wider applications).
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
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.
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.
US Patent Office
Provisional patent application: PPA1283405995
Applicant: Microsoft Corp., Redmond
Date: 12-Feb-2005
Synopsis:
A rotating, magnetically polarised (variable), spherical device occupying a non-fixed position in time and space, comprising a semi-liquid core encased by an unstable, multi-layered outer shell surrounded by a mixed-composition liquid/gaseous environment with a range of complex environmental variances, capable of hosting a variety of surface and sub-surface, organic-based life forms supporting social and other interactions at various levels of intelligence using a range of simple-to-complex sensory devices.
AT&ROFLMAO
Microsoft in no way invented XML. Dave Hollander invented XML.
http://www.mhxml.com/myinfo/MyBio.htm
Well they did invent XML so I dont see what the problem is?
The problem is guys like you think this way and think they know and that they are right. Patent office clerks probably have about the same amount of information when accept patents like this as you do: a bit below nothing.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Landmark Victory in World's First Case Against Biopiracy!!
European Patent Office Upholds Decision to Revoke Neem Patent
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
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.
The same application has been filed at the USPTO as publication number 20040210818.
..... but isn't a patent supposed to cover one specific means to an end rather than an end in itself? In which case this ought to be struck right down.
But if that's not enough, then there is plenty of evidence that this is not novel {KWord, anyone? OOWriter?}.
And if the prior art is not enough, this sort of thing should be obvious to an expert in the field. In fact, all of mathematics is obvious to a mathematician.
How obvious need obvious be? It's obvious that fire conducts electricity, even if you have never thought about it; because fire is a chemical reaction, a chemical reaction contains charged particles in motion, and charged particles in motion can carry an electrical current.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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