Slashdot Mirror
Company Claims Patent Over XML
Aviran Mordo writes "News.com reports that a small software developer plans to seek royalties from companies that use XML, the latest example of patent claims embroiling the tech industry. Charlotte, N.C-based Scientigo owns two patents (No. 5,842,213 and No. 6,393,426) covering the transfer of 'data in neutral forms.' These patents, one of which was applied for in 1997, are infringed upon by the data-formatting standard XML, Scientigo executives assert."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+edifac t&btnG=Google+Search
Significantly older than 1997, and achieved the same goals as XML, though much less elegantly.
My blog
Somebody should patent the patent process. Quite possibly the only way to screw it up more.
if only i could patent the first post, but another anonymous coward would probably claim prior art.
But XML is essentially just a stricter version of SGML, which was developed in the 1960s already. Certainly that is prior art?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I will require one non-screwed up patent system as my royalty.
Cue all the comments on patenting breathing, 1s and 0s etc. etc.
I may not understand what they mean by "neutral," but couldn't that be construed to mean any open standard? Otherwise, XML doesn't transfer data at all, let alone in a neutral format. The format is defined by the use!
Well, I guess I'm not supprised. Does anybody else smell a Rat? After all, Micro$oft would love to sue OpenOffice and Open Document to the ground!!!!
Now pay me 50 kagillion dollars please.
XML is a derivative of SGML..WAY Older than 1997, I can't see how an IP attorney would suggest they actually litigate this. There is A LOT of prior art to go through, in a LOT of formats...This is going to take YEARS in a best case.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
How much more generic than "data in neutral form" can you get?
If such patents are held to be enforcable you americans really need to start shooting the judiciary to help them get a sense of priorities sorted.
According to this:
/ webmaster-2002/materials/savory/slides/img18.html
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops
the XML draft specification was prepared in November 1996. Good luck with that January 28, 1997 filing date.
As the article points out, XML is an outgrowth of SGML, which goes way before these filings. Yet somehow both patents manage to recognize neither SGML nor XML as prior art. Patent trolls indeed, I'm looking forward to the crunching sound their company makes when it is crushed. XML is too entrenched for the big players to ignore these losers.
Sig under construction since 1998.
From http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s3.paoli.html:
"Microsoft cofounded the XML working group at the W3C in July 96 and actively participated in the definition of the standard."
This was used in IE4.00 for their Channel Definition File (used to schedule "Pull" of channels, an idea that's largely died). I was implementing CDF files at Scala in '96/97. The patent was filed in '97.
What is really accomplished in all this? No one has stopped making websites with GIF images. After I install Fedora on my box, I race out for the MP3 libs. So, if this goes through, we will all continue to use XML regardless?
Click here or here.
Everyone prepare to be sued for your use of RSS.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Do these companies just forget they have a patent on some technology/feature and then 8 years later when their patent is included in a standard and a huge part of the community they say "Hey, didn't we patent that 8 years ago?"
There really needs to be some reform that states a company has 90 days, 1 year, or some short fixed period of time to bring a suit against a product, starting from the time it hits the market and is available to the public, the industry, or something.
The idea that you can silently sit on patents waiting for the world to embrace an obvious idea is an abuse of the system.
HA!
This is a joke (and a shitty one) if ever there was one.
They realize that they're suing very narrowly, anyway, right? XHTML is a subset of XML -- why not sue everyone on the web that claims compatibility with the XHTML doctype?
Absurd.
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
From the patent abstract:
The present invention simplifies the data modeling process and enables its full dynamic versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information.
XML is hierarchical data structure. Hence, his claim isn't valid.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
'Perwill's EDI software, which went live in 1992/3.'
Perwill is a horrible piece of software written by Polaris that maps from one text based format to another, it's mainly used for EDI but can be used for anything (you could probably setup an XML/SGML template if you could bare using the software for that long).
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
That's it... I'm going to patent an "agency enabling litigous under-achievers to assert ownership rights for ideas completely obvious to the most casual observer, and exacting confiscatory license fees therefrom". Yep, I'm going to patent the U.S. Patent Office, then chage dickheads like these "patent license" fees for using _my_ patented invention: The patent office.
About the word "if": If bullfrogs had wings, they wouldn't bounce around on their little green butts.
I use XML. Just wondering if I can pay by PayPal or will I need to give them my credit card details directly? I couldn't find a way to pay on their website.
The patents talk about data transmission in non-hierarchical forms only...isn't XML hierarchical with a defined structure...parents, children, etc. Doesn't seem like the patents cited here apply.
<slashdot>
<comment user="Northdude" moderation="-1: troll" date="2005-10-21 15:29:21 PM">
First post? Maybe not, because of the lameness filter...
</comment>
</slashdot>
I'd rather be sailing...
Let's review the patenet, line 1:
The present invention simplifies the data modeling process and enables its full dynamic versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information.
Uh... is it just me, or is XML ENTIRELY hierarchical?? In fact, it won't validate if you don't have elements nested properly. How can they even be serious?
Good 'ol data structures are superior to XML anways.
More efficient, easier to read, etc.
Ya, mod me troll. Whatever.
...less XML in my professional life would be an excellent thing. :)
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." Adolf Hitler
This fact:
Charlotte, N.C.-based Scientigo owns two patents (No. 5,842,213 and No. 6,393,426) covering the transfer of "data in neutral forms." These patents, one of which was applied for in 1997, are infringed upon by the data-formatting standard XML, Scientigo executives assert.
combined with this fact:
Daly noted that companies or even individuals often make patent claims on XML. For example, Microsoft, which uses XML as the foundation of many of its products, was awarded a patent for programming techniques related to XML.
shows me that the USPTO hopelessly is fucked up.
These people are either overwhelmed by the number of claims and have no time to do the proper research before granting a patent, or they are are just plain stupid. I'm going to be generous and assume that these examiners are given a quota that they have to have resolved each week and that they haven't the time or resources to validate every claim. There is probably also a lack of expertise in the USPTO to properly vet the claims made in these applications.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Which XML isn't.
Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
Time to start a 'Burn all XML' capain and get everybody to switch the good old S-Expressions =;)
XML is basically a subset of SGML, which has been around since the 60's and was standardized in 1986. I haven't RTFP though.
I may not have a clear understanding but if it is patented, doesn't that make it non-neutral?
From the patent submission,
The present invention simplifies the data modeling process and enables its full dynamic versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information.
How exactly is XML non-hierarchal? Every bit of XML I've seen is all data contained in tags that is structured in a hierarchy of other tags. And if XML is hierarchal, then how do these patents apply to XML data, are they claiming it falls under the "non-integrated" data? Heck, I could throw together a text file and transfer the data over like that, and that would non-integrated. Are they planning on patenting plain text too? This is ludicris. Any tech company with a vested interest in software needs to voice their complains about the horrific software patent situation.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
These insane patents are actually the best thing that could have ever happened. The way things are going now, there is going to have to be a major overhaul of the patent system. The instane patents have made it dramaticly clear that there is something wrong with the system (these are the tech equivelents of suing McDonalds because your kids are fat).
Had companies been less aggressive in patenting and litigating nearly anything possible, the system might go on how it is now for decades. These people are making the patent system collapse in a way that those against software patents don't have the power to do.
From Wikipedia: SGML is a descendant of IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML), developed in the 1960s by Charles Goldfarb, Edward Mosher and Raymond Lorie.
[Insert pithy quote here]
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<bite attr="me"/>
Yikes, that is some scary shit!
Well PHI did that for us in our payroll product in 1968. John Cullinane and Gil Curtis generalized it for the rest of the world in 1970. You guys bought it as Culprit, Culprit-Audit....in fact we bought three flavors of our own product from them. Any way we thought SGML defined the product in a much more elegant way, and that resulted in HTML, XML, etc.etc.etc... I gonna patent the conversion of English to Sanscrit, you never can tell when it will become popular eh?
That's it, I'm going through with my patent on whitespace. You're all going down! Mwuhuahahahahaha!
Mark A. McBride -- OmniNerd.com
Now we finally have an excuse to kill off XML.
What I would really like to know with all these generic patent infringment cases is what happened to being able to make an improvement to an existing patent and being able to create a new seperate patent without infringing on the original?
Example:
There is a patent for a widget to generate a generic document for an electronic medium. I come along and come up with a widget based on the same ideas but generates documents specially suited for view on, let's say, a handheld computer.
I would be using the same basic idea as the creator of the original widget, but with my improvements it has a much more specialized area, and performs in this area much better than the original could have.
until it becomes an issue for non technical people (Joe Blow) and that won't happen until they patent something more insanely stupid than what currently has been patented and the Patent office upholds it.
And I for one don't see that happening....
Maybe somebody should hire Jack Thompson to sue the patent office; he just might be the only lawyer fanatically stupid enough to do it.
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
would bankroll something which is a direct attack on OpenOffice....hmmm?
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
You shouldn't be able to patent a concept of data. Data perhaps, but a type of data? Wouldn't any open standard be a 'neutral form'?
FanFictionRecs.net
Sounds a lot like SCO to me.
Move over, Darl McBride, your days of glory are over. Get ready to be schooled by Wizard Doyal and his "Elemental patents" [sic -see Web site], now unleashing the power of D&D to annihilate tech companies using patents made of air, fire, water, and earth (but mostly air).
Wow, so a company that claims a patent on xml uses Dreamweaver to build their Web site?
I am pretty sure that SCO is thinking about investing in this small company... Microsoft will probably just try to purchase this company... Open Source will show prior art to this company... All employess will be replaced by lawers at this company... All of the lawsuits will fail this company... Lawers will be the only ones to profit from this company... The lawers find a way to ruin every profession,or at least get a cut, much like how coders should be held accountable to all the security flaws of the code they write... yeah i would quite my job and claim patents the day that happens.
Dan Mayer: my blog, essays, art, etc
Let the Armchair Patent Attorney contest begin! Whoever can come up with a conclusion based upon the least amount of evidence and reasoning wins one free week of 24 hours a day reading of patent applications.
What?
... I like to imagine that the person claiming these patent rights is doing so to shake some sense into the whole system. They must Know that there's no chance they can win, but the attempt to do so will force some lines to be drawn that will help a million more ambiguous cases. Am I the only one to think that this patent claim is the best thing to ever happen to software patents.
Bring it on so we can get clearer rules on when software patents have crossed over the line into the Land of Silly
hey wait, 4/1 isn't for a few months yet!
Please don't make fun of the vertically challenged.
And yet you can't see how an IP attorney would suggest such a thing..
:)
Quack, quack.
Icangetbywithoutitjustfinethankyouverymuch.
This is great, all of these rediculous patents coming out are wonderful. Now MS, IBM, Google, and all the rest of the big dogs get to try to unfuck what they thought would be the best way to corner the market. Way to go patent happy companies, if you would have just tried to let the best code win you would have been fine but you had to patent everything in sight, now look at the mess you have to deal with.
I'll fix the patent system, ready? You can only patent an implementation of an idea, not an idea. For instance, you can patent your code, but not what it does. Or just hire some people down at the USPTO that aren't total fuckwits that understand this concept to begin with.
I recently patented the use of two numbers, 1 and 0, and the use of them in representing a set of data or instructions. Along those lines I also copyrighted two digital songs, one consisting of the bit 1, and the other consisting of the bit 0. Since every peice of digital music repeats my songs more then 4 times (a whooooole lot more) every song is is copyright violation and owes me big. *shakes head* Will we NEVER see the end of these riduculous claims of copyright/patent/whatever-you-want-money-for infringement?! These are getting just plain absurd, as many of the comments above have pointed out, XML is based way earlier then '97, and its pointless for them to try and pursue this. I'm getting disgusted by the patent/copyright system in this country (from an American) and the greedyness people have in pursuing their (perceived) "rights". You can't wait 8 years, then all of a sudden realize something that many people are using is, in fact, your property, and you deserve money for it, that's plain absurd. Why didn't this come years ago, or were they living under a rock and not following tech developments? FTFA: "We're not interested in having us against the world. We're just looking for ways to leverage an asset; we have pretty concrete proof that makes us feel comfortable saying it is an asset," The first statement is quite pointless, because anything they try to pursue would be them "against the world" because of how many people use XML. Then 'leverage an asset' makes it sound like their patent is some way to get the company a ton of money (granted, a good reason to patent something) which *would* pit them against whoever is using "their product" due to infringement. *shakes head again* These stories of greed astound me, and for those who will aruge "well, if its true, they have a right to it", I'd say to read the dates on the patents (the newest is 2002) and wonder why they didn't pursue settlement back then? Greed is the only possible reason, plain and simple. Sure, they *might* have a case, is XML was started a few months later and not based on something decades older, but the fact is they don't.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
http://www.scientigo.com/web-content/Investors_cod eofethics.html
I think that page pretty much sums it up.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
John McCarthy invented LISP.
Since XML is just LISP S-expressions made ugly, there's your prior art.
I guess they could try to patent ugliness...
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
They definitely have a good case here.
Of course it would be nice if we could all get an excuse not to use XML ...
Isn't ASCII itself data transferred in a neutral form?
"News.com reports that a small software developer plans to seek royalties from companies that use XML, the latest example of patent claims embroiling the tech industry."
Yet another bogus patent claim from a jerk who thinks he'll get rich quick. I just can't stand it anymore. Somebody get a rope.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
With Microsoft investing largely in XML - more and more so with each product release - if it ever did make it to court, you can bet that Microsoft would sic the attack dogs on them and this would end very quickly. It would put Microsoft in a position to actually champion the common consumer. How often does that happen?
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
http://www.gtlaw.com/biographies/emailform.asp?id= 1377
wow. this company is literally across the road from me. anyone want some supersecret snapshots of the gatekeeper rentacop?
Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off right now.
I say we take off, and nuke these guys from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
... intent to commit fraud. The Fact we have a governing body supporting it doesn't help the matter but instead exposes what seems to be support for criminal actions.
This XML pantent thing is of course fraudulent but its also good news in a round about way.
It contributes to the exposure of this system of government supported fraud. For the bigger a software patent claim, as this is, the greater the pressure that builds up to what will be, in essence.... not a reform, not an overhaul, but a dumping of a government system that is NOT doing what it is supposed to be doing.
When patents hurt the consumer benefit of competition, suppress technology advancement and worst of all promote fraud, then it is time to simply remove the system all together.
I do not recognize software patents at all, but that doesn't mean I don't respect copyrights of the subject of patent.
The US did not involve the people in its decission to allow software patents. That alone is a contridiction of the intents of "For the People, By the People" of which this country was formed.
By its very nature, Software is NOT matter of patentability, it falls out of the scope of patents on core patentability qualifications. It is Abstract, It is a Natural Phenomenon of human consciousness that has simply moved from one media to another as we have developed such medias. From the grunts and sounds of unconscious (consciousness as defined by Julian Jaynes) human beings thru the technology advancements such as writing and all other forms of recording and playback or access of record to the non-static media of computing.
Programming is tha act of automating abstract complexity. Done so for the purpose of making the complexity easy to use and reuse by the users of the complexity. It is a recursive act all the way down to programming by flipping switches... or machine language on up the "automation of complexity ladder" to the point where we are today and will improve upon tomorrow....
This is a character attribute of being human, and regardless of whether or not you are using a computer. Establishing routines in your daily life or work process in order to simplify and perhaps allow your to think about other things, do other things, etc...No different than programming and the result of. This is the natural law of Man, who we are.
Software Patents are Fraud, simply because at the core scope of patents, they do not fit voidance of the abstract, physical phenomenon or natural law.
Fraud is the act of presenting something that is not what it is presented to be.
The act of presenting an illusion with the intent of wrongfully taking from another.
Software is copyrightable.
Knowing this makes its very clear that when someone claims there is no IP protection for software if there is not software patents...... OBVIOUS Supporters of the software Patent FRAUD!!!
Other than stirring up a bunch of Slashdotters these patents will have no effect. Patents are an offensive weapon- unless you have a lot of money in back of you a patent is worthless.
.inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper tried to sue them he couldn't find a lawyer who would take the case; the only reason he won was because he stubbornly bucked not only the automobile makers, but the court system - which deeply resents people who don't have lawyers.
Back in the 70's there was a company which had a patent on memory used as a character generator. They threatened to sue everyone, even sent all of the computer manufacturers letters in an attempt to extort money from the manufacturers. Nobody even bothered to respond to the letters; the company was completely ignored, and the threats simply went away
Up until the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper the automobile industry had never paid one penny in royalties to an outside inventor; they simply stole whatever good ideas those inventors came up with, and otherwise ignored them.
When the
It took him many years, but he finally won money from the automakers. As far as I know he remains the only outside inventor to ever get royalties from that industry. HIS ROYALTIES WERE FOR A LEGITIMATE INVENTION WHICH WAS BLATANTLY STOLEN. That is hardly the case here: these guys have patents which would never stand up to any formal scrutiny at all. They are attempting to extort money from the gullible.
Ignore them and they will simply fade away.
Okay, besides the fact that the patent is for a non-heirachrial data format, and XML most certainly is Hierarchial, what about prior art? XML came out of SGML. And XML itself was already a draft by 1996! XML Draft Nov 1996
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be bannana-shaped.
The way the USPTO is understaffed, the "presumption of validity" of patents is open to question.
Some judge needs to make such a ruling at least for certain industries like computer software. This would in effect open every affected patent open to "de novo" re-examination if challenged, either by the courts or by a hopefully-beefed-up patent reexamination board.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So the Open Office folks release 2.0.0 and throw down the gauntlet to Redmond about screwing with office document formats.
The next day, some garage shop nobody's heard of before manages to get airplay with an outrageous threat to sue everyone using XML. Their front's statement reads like the same script Darl McBride's been spouting from for the last three years. And Microsoft "refuses to comment".
Nah...there couldn't possibly be any connection now, could there?
[sarcasm off]
Ok, so it's not the best press a company can get - but as the old saying goes, "Any publicity is good publicity".
<message> <to>Scientigo</to> <from>spiderworm</from> <body> ,,|,, do you really want to be the new SCOm of the earth? ps - your company's name is really stupid. </body> </message>
Having read the patent, I too am stunned that they received a patent for this. The patent is far too broad and should have no authority.
My arguement:
The patent defines a data type as:
Physical form property of a data value, e.g., numeric, alphanumeric, photo, drawing, sound, video, time series, geo-spatial, etc.
So their patent applies to any data type. Which means prior art would apply to any data type. I propose that "web pages" are a data type within the patent definition and their properties, boldness, paragraphs, words pictures, etc. are all nuetrally stored and transmitted via HTML.
They are trying to enforce this patent on database data information transfer, but I think the patent is too broad to be limit this view. These guys have a patent on the web, but the web is prior art.
They should never have received it. Shame on the Patent Office.
The only people to profit from this exercise will be lawyers.
machinator omnis sine licentia
I bet they are the same person. Now it makes sense.
"I don't make up the rules, I just play by them." -- Me
Microsoft uses alot of XML in their software, internally like Powerpoint and well I'm sure there're many more or even in Vista.
It's my belief that patent law, and most cases in general don't come with a high enough penalty. I think that if someone wants to sue another. That, whatever they are seeking in damages would be applied back to them if they lose. Sort of like a wager. So if you want to sue for 50 million in damages for something... you better be sure you'll win or you get the 50 million dollar bill. This would greatly reduce the number of frivolus law suits that make it into the courtroom that block the "fair and speedy" trial we are promised. Obviously Criminal law would work differently. I have to say that I am really getting tired of the companies with the money making strategy of "sue everyone" to make the quarter. Go build something for a change. Sheesh. /end slashdot opinion
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.
XML is so fscking stupid. Let them have their stupid patent.
Lets go EAGLES!!!! All the way!!!! EAGLES rock, everyone else sucks c0ck!!!
That last tag should be "byte"
Or maybe on the USPTO. Mohammed, where's that IED?
About a month ago there was a post from a person saying s/he worked for a company working on XML stuff. The poster was suggesting that her/is company was wading in the waters for the time when it would litigate using its XML patents. I think the target was supposed to be Microsoft's XML forthcomings. I wonder if this article has to do with the same poster.
This reeks of FUD of the SCO flavor. Has anyone checked if M$ is somehow involved?
I can imagine patents and copyrights begin to gain the kind of unpopularity that welfare gained in the 70s and 80s. There are parallels. Welfare was meant to help the poor; but the programs were poorly designed. They there it was a short step to argue that the programs hurt the poor, aided by a few well chosen horror stories. Then a little banging of the idea's head up against a bedrock American values (self reliance), and you get the end of welfare as we know it.
Patents are supposed to help the business climate, but the program is sloppy that it exerts a chilling effect on innovation. There are no shortage of horror stories to buttress this. The bedrock value you break the whole system on is freedom itself.
Of course, the flaw in this scenario is the difference between the right and the left. We on the left have always been more of a crowd-type-mob than a mafia-type-mob. If there is no grass roots impetus, then there will be no movement.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Shouldn't he/she be held accountable for any really STUPID decisions made?
Jesus, the amount of prior art related to this patent, and its similarity to so many other very questionable tech-related patent grants makes one wonder: Maybe if the examiners had their butts held to the fire, maybe they would be more careful about what they grant patent rights to...
???
Nice matching quote at the bottom:
The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be. -- Lao Tsu
How about we just start an international mob whose purpose is to brutally murder anyone greedy enough to file patents and attempt to enforce them in obnoxious ways? We could grow our business by moving onto broader issues like human rights.
I think the official announcement should be that it died of abuse.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahah ahahahahhahahahah..............
What a retard...
- nYx
Both patents use that word, and while some could argue that XML *can* also be hierarchical, I believe that on that basis alone, any attempt at a patent infringement case would be summarily dismissed with all court costs assessed against the claimant (right word? I ain't no lawyer; I mean patent owner). Of course, the other likely possibility is that any lawyer bringing such frivolous litigation may well be taken to task by the judge and/or suffer various forms of castigation by his/her/its Bar.
/. readers actually click on the links in an article?
Is it really true that less than 0.0001% of
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<businessPlan>
<items>
<item id="1">get troll patent</item>
<item id="2">make frivolous claim</item>
<item id="3">???</item>
<item id="4">profit!!!</item>
</items>
</businessPlan>
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
The name has a few more letters than SCO, but their tactic seems like RIAA's...
1) Claim we use/have something of their's that they claim we should not be using
2) Hire a third party to do the "shakedown" (law suits)
3) Profit!
I am so fucking sick of this crap. The patent system is critically broken and they are apparently relying on litigation to fix it. Lame, lame, lame. Maybe I'll patent commucation through a viscous medium by oscillation of neighboring molecules to reproduce pressure waves across distances.
That's it! I have the patent for sound.
Michael
http://www.lolife.com/
Quotes from that web site:
"This signature quote intentionally left blank"
If these ducks awaken a large enough giant, maybe said giant will finally get the patent system changed. I mean, really, who here wouldn't reach for the 'rejected: prior art' stamp after the first reading?
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
The prolbem I see is that Tim Bray on his own labs blog in the early 1990s did detail xml long before these patent applicaiton dates.. Can we say whoops?
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Apparently they're having a little trouble working it out:
d eofethics.html
Scientigo, Inc
Code of
Ethical Conduct
Coming soon.
http://www.scientigo.com/web-content/Investors_co
covering the transfer of 'data in neutral forms.'
Am I too late to patent plain text?
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Seems they have not got around to actually deciding on business ethics yet; so is the perfect time. :)
d eofethics.html
http://www.scientigo.com/web-content/Investors_co
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
My patent #145,623,623,125 covers the use of
"... zero as a placeholder for the digits of the decimal or other arbitrary number system, including, but not limited to, octal, hexadecimal, and binary."
I note that you have used a zero in your post, as a place holder for the "ones" digit of the decimal number "thirty."
Please remit $5 to PayPal account #34213, or you will be served with a cease-and-desist order as soon as I can get my fat head out of my ass. Thank you.
Half of me says this is ridiculous, given that there is prior art for a universal representation of hierarchically structured data going back to, say, 1959.
The other half of me says that if we're lucky, this might kill off XML and encourage use of simpler data representations, including my personal favorite.
See my signature below for more flamebait.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Why isn't there some sort of time limit on how long you can sit back before choosing to file lawsuits against companies over patent infringement? XML has been in widespread use for at least 2 years if not longer. This company had to know it was out there and being used. So, they had to know it infringed on their patent.
Why didn't they stand up and say anything earlier? Oh yeah...because back then it would have meant alot less money to be gained. Doesn't this amount to blackmail? Or borders on racketeering?
ah, someone beat you to the punch, there
[theonion.com]
The Admin and the Engineer
Let's apply for a patent for a netural gas with the following composition:
.03% .002% .0002% .0005% .0001% .00005% .000009%
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 1%
Carbon Dioxide -
Neon -
Methane -
Helium -
Krypton -
Hydrogen -
Xenon -
Wanna guess what I'm gonna do if I can get a patent on that?
<start evil laughter>
All of you will be my slaves and I will rule the world!!!
<end evil laughter>
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
I'm publishing a DTD for expressing the human genome in XML. Then we can sit back and watch the patent fight between these guys and the gene patent guys.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
From patent #5,842,213:
After re-reading that a few times, I think I've figured out that it's basically saying that this isn't an invention, it's a philosophy. This is so fscking general it could be equally validly applied to hypermedia, or frame logic, or tuple spaces, or any of the thousands of schema-less data representation models out there.
Really, the whole patent begs the following three obvious questions:
This was of course, *bound to happen... sort of like !Russia !USA gaining nuclear weapons
0 00005.html
o lds_eolas_patent/
/somewhere an O.B.I.T. logs my defiance of our benavolent^^^^^elected leaders.
What's needed now in my opinion, is a patent ban treaty, between the major patent holders, ie, a means
to totally get rid of patents once and for all.
It's rather ironic that Microsoft, which is attempting to curry public favour by stating "Patent reform" whilst still
attempting to patent things like a "text editor" interacting with XML
http://blog.cfdl.auckland.ac.nz/archives/brent/
will in fact be the most likely target of this insane patent.
The arguments against patents have been won, Europe will not implement patents and even the beast (Microsoft) admits that the patent system is broken, hardly surprising when one considers that Microsoft looks increasingly likely to have to fork over some $500 million to Eolas, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/uspto_uph
In the final analysis, I think the only debate will be *how* patents will be reformed, and when... not if.
It's enivatible I think that the largest patent holders, when stung often enough by the little guy will lead the drive to all but abolish software patents.
Indeed for Microsoft and IBM and companies of similar patent stockpiles.. patents will be useless.. IBM and Microsoft can't or won't *war* with each other over patents.. but, each is vulerable to some pipsqueak developer, who claims to have patented the latest trendiest "ungabunga" technology.
Waiting for Al Gore [1], to assert patent rights on the Internet.
[1] You remember Al Gore.. the guy who won the election in 2000 don't you?
The first patent (5,842,213) doesn't cover all applications of XML. It might cover some, however. The most relevant claim is this one:
11. A method of transferring data in electronic form from a computer comprising the steps of:
a) organizing and storing the data in neutral form that is to be transferred;
b) organizing and storing the names, definitions and properties of the structural tags used to express the data in neutral form; and
c) transferring the data expressed in neutral form along with the names, definitions and properties of the structural tags that make up that neutral form data.
Which sounds to me like it would cover transferring XML with a schema embedded within the document, or transferring both the document and linked schema at the same time. Other uses of XML would still be allowed.
This claim is probably too general to survive reeximanation, though. It basically amounts to "transferring data and information about how the data is structured together". I'm sure somebody with a better knowledge of IT history than me can very easily name some prior art for that one.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the names, definitions and properties of the structural tags used to express the data in neutral form are themselves treated as data and expressed in neutral form.
The schema is encoded in the same format as the data. Also a relevant claim to XML with embedded schemas. Rules out prior art that transferred data and a program that could process it together, unless the program was expressed in a similar structure to the data (LISP programs might count here).
13. The method of claim 11, further including the steps of:
a) adopting a compatible system of data typing;
b) using the system to express in neutral form both the data values of a set of information being transferred and the names, definitions, and properties of their associated structural tags; and
c) combining and transferring both the data values and the names, definitions and properties of the structural tags of the data values in a single neutral form transfer file.
I don't quite follow this one. Anyone got any ideas what it means?
14. A method of incorporating neutral form data values and the names, definitions and properties of their associated structural tags into an existing computer environment comprising the steps of:
a) comparing the names, definitions and properties of the components of the structural tags of the data values with those present in the existing environment;
b) entering a data value structural tag component name, definition and properties into the dictionary system of the existing environment if it is not already present; and
c) recording equivalency where a structural tag component in the dictionary system of the existing environment is found to be different but equivalent;
d) thereafter, adding the data values into the neutral form file of the existing environment.
Merging two XML files by combining their schema, then combining their data.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the neutral form data values are new data values.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the neutral form data values are transferred data values.
Different reasons why you may want to do 14.
17. The method of claim 14, further including the step of incorporating a unique authoring designator of the originating environment during the naming of components of structural tags to insure a lack of overlap between the structural components of a data value and those in the existing environment.
Could be construed to cover XML namespaces, if you read it right. This stands a chance of being novel, seeing as XML namespaces had not been implemented in '97 when the patent was filed.
The second patent seems less relevant -- it seems to relate to the same application that the first patent covered, but doesn't seem to add much to it that is relevant to XML. It is worth noting that the second is explicitly about a data serialization format, probably fairly similar in scope to the Java's java.io.Object[Out/In]putStream classes.
I call shotgun ...I get to ride in the up-front passenger seat!!! Oops, we are talking about patents aren't we... SHOTGUN! I got a patent on that... thingie over there that has now become popular and now I want to cash in..... except you have to forget that XML came along before my patent was filed....and the stuff about inter-operability...you have to ignore all of that inter-operable ascii stuff that came before. But if you drop all of those prior art claims and stuff, then yeah, I'll be in the millions, millions, millions I tells ya!
More seriously, there should be a 1 million dollar fine for stupid patent claims. That would send the greedy little patent-o-matic small fry crying home to mamma!
If we keep our fingers crossed and don't mention the obvious prior art, maybe we get lucky and this thing kills XML. Then, we can go back to the prior art systems, like s-expressions, which were actually a lot nicer and a lot simpler than XML.
For years he's been under the obviously mistaken impression that XML was his invention. Ref http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/sun-info/standards/xml/ why/xmlapps.htm .
What the hell kind of name is 'Scientigo'? It's a bastard child of a marketing brainstorm that erupted in a sea of crappy names.
Why not call it Synergistix or Fabutechlous or something else just as stupid.
Oh I know, maybe Shitepatentprofitigo.
I own patents on ASCII, duh, hand over your money, NOW!!!
BTW, you all still own me royalty on my patents on 'Respiration', the process of converting oxygen to energy. I will withdraw my pending lawsuit on the entire mankind, only if the reasonable royalty of 'dollar-per-breath' is paid, or 5-for-$3.99.
"That's why McDonalds sues everyone who uses a "McSomething", because to protect their brandname, and trademarks, they have to."
Well I just had a McIdea...aw, crap. Seriously I figured the Anti-XML crowd would be throwing a party, and calling up Netcraft about now?
I wonder if the Common Business Communication Language counts as prior art: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/cbcl.html
why still legal?
"...versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information. This is achieved by expressing data modeling, storage and transfer in a particular non-hierarchical, non-integrated neutral form...
XML is pretty strictly hierarchical. its schema or their equivilent DTD are essentially a set of grammar production rules, a NESTING of structures. these bozos are talking about something not just vague but quite different in their patent.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
If there was ever an obvious prior art in one of these bullshit hairbrained patent suits, it is SGML, of which XML is a subset (and html originally too, although the browsers let the strict compliance slip). SGML has been around for a long time.
In any case, stuff like this shouldn't be allowed to proceed. It's pure and simple bullshit tactics on the part of companies that otherwise have no real product.
Since I'm sure I'm not the only person who had to look this up. :)
barratry (br'-tr)
n., pl. -tries.
1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
2. An unlawful breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew resulting in injury to the ship's owner.
3. Sale or purchase of positions in church or state.
[Middle English barratrie, the sale of church offices, from Old French baraterie, deception, malversation, from barater, to cheat. See barrator.]
"These people are either overwhelmed by the number of claims and have no time to do the proper research before granting a patent, or they are are just plain stupid. I'm going to be generous and assume that these examiners are given a quota that they have to have resolved each week and that they haven't the time or resources to validate every claim. There is probably also a lack of expertise in the USPTO to properly vet the claims made in these applications."
:)
So, what they need to do is set up a SlashCode site, post the patent filings as articles, and let the public post comments and references to prior art which get moderated so they don't have to dig too far. After two weeks, they can review and process them. Simple
I got my start in the tech business doing support for an EDI software company- For those not aware EDI - Electronic Data Interchange - was setup to allow business to business transactions before the internet was widely popular. When I was working with EDI , there were several main communication networks, which were really nothing more than an overly complex electronic mailbox. These networks were a royal pain in the ass because they all had different communicatioon protocols, usually worked with only specific brands of modems, and could be accessed with only very specific software.
Amazing what huge companies can force their little vendors to do. Anyway, the EDI documents where essentially text documents that where defined according to a standard. The definitions where often "modified" by the companies and its partners (causing moe headaches for software vendors). But the bottom line is EDI at the end of the last century filled a niche that XML has made **MUCH** simplier. In fact XML was one of the reason why I changed my focus and got out of EDI, I saw that the Internet and XML specifically were going to make EDI nothing more than a legacy dinosaur.
-MS2k
if it doesn't work -- use more.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
The thing that's bad about this is that assuming these guys have enough money to front the lawyers they can sue their way into riches regardless of whether it's a valid claim. All they do is send nastygrams to a bunch of small companies they believe to be infringing on their patent seeking royalties. Invariably a number of those companies will pay up to avoid the potential of open ended legal battles.
...
So in the 90's it was:
1) Do something cool
2)
3) Profit
In the 00's it's
1) Do something somebody else did before
2) Sue everybody who already did it
3) Profit
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
On sending data via an electronic mechanism... come on, if this doesn't get smacked down thoroughly I'll get royally pissed!
There is so much wrong with this I can't even begin!! Freakin' misuse of patents by doughheads who seek to make money on other people's efforts!
GRR!
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Yes. They have 17 years to defend it.
The cake is a pie
server is asking for a slashdotting. Shall we oblige?
Consider this my application:
LOL FIREFOX EXPLOITS LOL
I will donate ten thousand dollars to the charity of CmdrTaco's choice if someone makes this movie.
(Just kidding.)
That is an interesting take on it. But would not any tool or medium, by your definition, be the transferal of human thought and action to a different medium?
There is Action Theory which describes the development of tools through the interaction between Acts (intentions), internal actions (thoughts, ideas), and external actions. Tool refinement is a major component of this theory whereby tools are created to meet some Act, by the interplay between internal and external actions. Tools themselves are physical manifestations of that interplay. They are also refined and become a major component of our thought process. This, according to the theory, is because external artifacts, like tools, are inextricably related to internal actions like our theories and ideas. This relates to XML in that the concept of an extensible markup to impose structure to flat data, and the way in which we do it, are too related to be kept separate.
Therefore, a patent on the idea of something necessarily imbues purvue over any tool or technology that reflects that idea. Such patents themselves are tools of a sort and I think it is worth considering just what Acts they must have been developed to realize.
Oh dear, only two words and you got one of them wrong.
XML documents are SGML documents, and SGML has been around a lot longer then 1997. In fact, SGML was the model for HTML (and, I think the original HTML spec was a subset of SGML as well)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
OK. I'm just getting sick of stupid patents. There's no fricking way anyone's going to convince pointy haired types that software patents are a bad idea. But there's no excuse for the morons that agree to sign their name up as an inventor for a patent.
So, in the interest of not hiring morons, why don't we just keep a database of all the people listed as software patent inventors and agree not to hire them. Put your name up against a patent and it's harder to find a job...
OK. It'll never work... But I have successfully managed to block patent applications by refusing to sign my name up as an inventor. Others I know have done the same thing. You don't make any friends, but if you just say, "I believe XYZ is prior art and thus this is not a valid patent" there's very little they can do.
You can't apply for a patent unless *you* are the inventor. *You* don't have to agree to be on the patent. No inventor, no patent. So if you think software patents are a good idea, make sure you convince all your friends. Then at least we'll only get patents written by morons (oh wait, mission accomplished...)
Two questions ... Why is it still up?
And, if you open it in Konq 3.4.2 it shows it and then dissappears when the page finishes loading...
The company that brought this suit forward should be countersued into bankruptcy
and its officers sued under the RICO act.
I've got a patent on the letters 'X', 'M', and 'L', filed in 1997.
I am not aware of any prior art.
I was at the third World Wide Web conference in Darmstadt, Germany in March of 1995 where they discussed "SGML Lite". This was one in a series of discussions that eventually led to the development of XML.
I clicked the "Solutions" link at the bottom and all of a sudden my browser window disappeared.
Technically, it would be "transfering date", ie. "The suggestion that recipient engage in immediate and vigorous self-fornication" in a "neutral form", ie. "In a non-proprietary format that is readily understood by all recepients, regardless of location".
Seriously, this practice of granting overly general patents is getting completely ridiculous. The standard should be, "I invented something which does something nothing else on earth can do, or could do unless it copies the way I did it". And you should have to *produce* a working version of that invention.
And if you're ever found to have patented something which is "patently ridiculous", you should be forced to pay the same licensing fee you tried to charge others, everytime YOU use the idea.
Say... that's a pretty good idea. I should probably patent it.
We're always hearing of lawyers who file groundless suits. How often are they prosecuted for barratry? Seems like the barratry officer would be the most popular guy around, except among the lawyers.
--
make install -not war
How I wish that serial killers would start targetting these patent trolls, instead of 5'4 blondes born on april 17th.
:-/
That and domain hijackers.. a favorite restaurant had their domain jacked, and it now points to a porn site devoted to rape pictures. I was a wee bit surprised the first time I checked the menu while at work
I think I am going patent "sitting", and then "sitting at a computer terminal for the purposes of entering, and/or obtaining information."
I'm sure everyone is goig to appreciaten and utilize these novel concepts, and everyone's lives will be made better. Soon, after that, I am going to patent walking.
Sheesh, we're to these people get off, but then agian we all should get off our lazy apathetic buts, and do something about the process.
Here's an idea... Why don't someone (we/you/me..) make a web page with a growing list of names of the CEOs (or Cxxs in general ;-) ) behind the companies making these claims - exposing them to the public in a very accessible way. This way, these people will get negative vibes attached to their names - not only in the slashdot community (and similar) - but also making it harder for them to find venture capital for their next "project". Going after the people behind seems to be the only way these days... (as with SPAM)
...what e-mail program should I use?...let me consult my magic 8ball! *slosh slosh* hmmm... "outlook not so good"
Anything that can kill the XML boondoggle would be a good thing. The too-numerous WS-* groups have been doing a pretty good job of overspecifying XML-related standards (and of pulling standards out of their collective WS-ASSes when no prior art exists - an even better way to produce unuseable standards).
And the death of XML would leave Web Services untouched, since XML is unnecessary for RESTful Web services.
Would this "intellectual-property licensing firm" happen to be based in Utah? Or perhaps Pennsylvania?
Scientgos board of advisers web page:
----------------
One of the most difficult challenges that a CEO of a small to medium-sized company faces is the evolution and management of an effective business development effort. For Scientigo our approach was to create an Advisory Board dedicated assisting the executive management and also being a highly effective alternative approach to business development. We are adding top individuals with proven talents to offer advisory services ranging from with technical, marketing, business development, investment and intellectual property.
Bill Ide
* Partner, McKenna, Long & Aldridge
* Former President, American Bar Assoc.
* Former General Counsel, Monsanto Corp.
----------snip----------
Well we can see where this idea came from, a fomer president of the A.B.A. and a lawyer for Monsanto, what a declaration of ethics.
It looks like a hoax. All they're saying is "we have 4 patents" and "we are marvelous because we've discovered a way of storing data and doing things with it"
Their web site looks like a spam email to me...
Read 35 U.S.C. 102 very carefully, and in its entirety. Their filing date was January 28, 1997. The first XML 1.0 recommendation didn't come out until February 1998. The first draft XML came out in November 1996, but that's less than a year before the filing date, so 102(b) doesn't apply. There's still 102(a) to contend with, but if they can prove their data scheme covers XML and they invented it before November 1996, this might not die so easily. There's obviousness to consider in 35 U.S.C. 103, and they didn't mention SGML in any of their prior art disclosures. Still, don't dismiss this out of hand.
consider this ... say a joe schmo opens a coffee shop named google in timbuktu. even if google comes to know that there has been a "trademark" violation its simply not worth it for them to go after such "google"s
Even if Google wanted to sue there's nothing they could do about trademark infringement as a coffee shop is in a totally different business. Now if he were to start a search engine name "google in timbuku" then Google would have grounds to sue. In the first example there is no dilution of a trademark, in the second there is. See Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Or see The Blue Note.
FaclonShould there be a Law?
OK so I did the following:
~$ whois scientigo.com
and my (patented) command line replied:
--snip--
Registrant:
Market Central
7810 ballantyne commons pkwy
--snip--
Then I googled for "7810 ballantyne commons pkwy"
Check the result for yourself!
To "beg the question" means something other than what you think. Look it up. Google is always there.
Just define some or perhaps in your schema and you should be fine, right? I'm not sure if they have only true neutral or also neutral good/evil, etc. covered, though.
But don't take my word for it--IANAL.
OMG that is hilarious. This needs to be +5 funny!
Clickety Click
The original joke went:
There are 3 types of people: those who can count and those who cannot. The joke being that the person cannot count. Thus, the equivalent binary joke is 11.
SGML, HTML. Case closed. (Other than the sheer assholery of these people...)
Jebus, I just read the first paragraph of their home page:
We have numerous elemental patents issued and pending in the field of Enterprise Content Management with a revolutionary artificial intelligence we call Business Process Automation.
They consider 'Business Process Automation' to be 'revolutionary'. Bwahahahaha!
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Funny how the "Code of Ethics" page's only content is, "Coming soon".
... there is no good way to run a patent office.
It seemed to run just dandy before the flood of business method and software patents hit the system.
Perhaps we need to define what is "patentable" rather than just throw up our hands and resign ourselves to bureaucratic mediocrity (of the system, not the examiners).
Neither business methods nor software should be patented period!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
I mean, if they send electronic pulses over a wire, wouldn't that have a charge?
Doesn't sound neutral to me, damnit!
Name______________
Address________________
Cit y___________ State____ ZIP________
Phone number_______________
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The role of the patent system, I would argue, is not one which fosters ingenuity.
That is exactly what patents, and copyrights, are for, to promote creativity in science and in the arts. Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress of the USA Constitution specifically states that:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The GNU article you link to is talking about software patents. That I agree with, I'm against business method and software patents. Software already enjoys protection, it's called copyrights. "As The Economist says, software patents are simply bad for business." Agreed!!! And the only protection business methods should get is the protection of trade secrets. Patents shouldn't be issued for dna or life either. Physical items like parts in a vehicle, computer, or printer should get patents though. While some things may be invented without patents many things wouldn't be, who wants to spend lots of tyme and money to invent something if they can't enjoy the fruits of their efforts by being granted for a limited tyme the right to patents?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Always add 1 to 2 years on the patent dates filing. As one who has made several patents it is important to point out that if a patent was thought up in 1995 it usually doesn't get a date stamp until 1996 or 1997. The courts know this and go on the date the patent was initiated on and not the date it was filed.
Now on the topic at hand. All this person has to do is prove that his patent doesn't cover SGML but does cover XML and he wins. Not saying that is a good thing but just a fact that it doesn't matter the evolution of XML but which came 1st, The patent or the XML and does the patent cover SGML if it doesn't then we are screwed because Lawyers and Judges are just slimey (sp?).
I'll get bashed for this I'm sure, but I wonder how many of the folks here trashing Scientigo for following up on their patent would do the same if it would result in money in their pockets? I'm sure the percentage would be quite high.
I do think its quite stupid to make other companies pay royalties for using a FORMAT. What people will do for money these days...
We should support his lawsuit...
Considering that by far, Microsoft uses XML more than any software company and in a wider variety of products...
So this would hurt Microsoft more than anyone else - so we should be anti-Microsoft SlashDot trolls and support this guy.
Nevermind that Microsoft co-authored XML, and was probably one of the first companies to use it commercially in IE4 before this patent was even applied for...
(Jokes and satire intentional, and if you don't get them, just move along)
ok, lisp lists pretty-printed to a file, if you insist.
circa 1954.
Can represent any data, from any ontology, you like,
in a fully general, simple, standardized notation.
yawn.
Why is it that the word "patently" only makes
sense before the words "false","incorrect",
or "ridiculous"? (hmmmmmm..)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
In soviet russia XML patents you.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
Qoute from the patent text by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information. This is achieved by expressing data modeling, storage and transfer in a particular non-hierarchical, non-integrated neutral form So XML is a non-hierarchical structure ? :)
Of all the different useful ways of storing data on a computer, I can't think of one that doesn't place some hierarchy upon it. Maybe programs written in Malbolge would count but even then you've got the OS dividing memory into OS memory space and process memory space or the file system placing related disk sectors of a malbolge files closer together and denying access to certain sectors.
Being a precursor to XML is prior art. I wonder how the patents handle that, or mention it at all.
Hmmm so many patents based around patenting pre-existing technologies...
If some one can find a way to patent stupidity and charge loyalties, they will be rich beyond their wildest dreams and perhaps encourage more people to think.
Otherwise we can clone the inventor of firing x-rays at glass (CRT's) and make a fortune that way before the technology becomes obsolete.
Food for thought!
You keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Oh, wait, I found it. An excerpt from the FAQ (I just selected a huge portion of it, the important bit is second):
Will you delete my comment?
No. We believe that discussions in Slashdot are like discussions in real life- you can't change what you say, you only can attempt to clarify by saying more. In other words, you can't delete a comment that you've posted, you only can post a reply to yourself and attempt to clarify what you've said.
In short, you should think twice before you click that 'Submit' button because once you click it, we aren't going to let you Undo it.
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 7/10/02
Are there any guidelines for posting?
Yes, as a matter of fact we require that at least one user per topic post the Soviet Russia Joke. Apart from that, we leave it up to the Lameness Filter
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 7/10/02