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
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.
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 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.
Um, no? MS's new document formats are XML based as well.
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
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]
someone should patent using teh same fucking joke everytime a patent story comes up. or maybe patent the mod process that keeps rewarding people like you.
I wish that I was a catfish.
Royalties would be what is accomplished.
The LZW algorithm that was patented and people had to pay royalities.
With all the other posts describing prior art, I don't think this claim will hold up.
Trademark isn't the same thing as patent law at all. Because Trademark really *is* use it or lose it.
That's why McDonalds sues everyone who uses a "McSomething", because to protect their brandname, and trademarks, they have to.
If you can show that a company knew about your possible use of their trademark and did nothing against it in a reasonable amount of time, then they lost out, and you can use it.
At this point, if you made Google at Timbuktu, and Google didn't do anything about it, then later you grow big enough to cause Google concern, they've already lost out, because the damage to your business Google at Timbuktu of losing what is now your brandname also, would be unfair, just because Google decided to wait to do something about it.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
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.
Uhhhh... the root element can be empty. JFYI.
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.]
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
Getting kicked in the balls by an army of midgets in steeltoed boots is "slightly more friendly" than ASN.1
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Yes, they have some fact to them. I am an ex-examiner who left back in 1991. My "expectancy" was, as I recall, 17.4 hours/balanced disposal - a "balanced disposal" is the average of all first actions on the merits and all disposals (allowances, abandonments and appeal briefs). Thus, for each application, you get one count when you act on it the first time and another count when it's disposed. Thus, two counts divided by 2 = 1 balanced disposal, or, using a common formula expressed in the Office, (n + d)/2.
Yes, that is correct. Based on my explanation for how production is calculated. if an application is issued on the first action (i. e., no rejections, or formal objections or restrictions, etc.) then you get both a "new" count and a "disposal" count; one balanced disposal in one, relatively easy to do action.
The only check against examiners just willy-nilly "putting a blue slip" on every application ( a reference to the old days when a small, blue colored multi-carbon form giving the classification data for the allowed application was stapled to front inside face of the case file wrapper) is what PTO management policies (both stated and actually done in practice) do. Since production is automatically monitored and tracked (religiously, along with other "assembly line metrics, such as acting on responses within two months of submission, first action on the oldest new application every two bi weeks, etc.), but checking the merits of the examination including the search area (which is recorded), evaluating all the prior art of record in the case, reading and understanding the application, and, most significantly, checking the prior art against the claims) is a lot of work for the supervisor, and with the upper managment's constant screaming to get pendency down, you can guess what gets emphasized and monitored like a hawk, and what gets decidedly pushed back as "nice to have", but "don't let it get in your way of making your numbers".
The reaction to this by working examiners runs the gamut, as in any organization with multiple players. Some, clearly, just take the attitude "I'll just give them wnat they want". Depending on their orginizational political skills they know how not to raise alarms about pushing out work that "looks" shoddy; managers, who have to report to their bosses who are also monitoring the numbers of the units mangaed by their reports, quickly learn to take the attitude "you have to do the best job you can within the time alloted." These examiners usually get rapid promotions up the top working grade of "Primary Examiner" (The production requirememnts go up with each promotion) and are likely candidates to move into management, thus, perpetuating the management culture. Other examiners, realizing that the time provided is inadequate, work extra hours to meet the numeric metrics, and, if they still end up slipping and can't produce cosnsistantly over 100% end up being harassed by production-obsessed managers. Of course, such examiners tend never to make it to management, and, the first time they end a quarter with production below 95% (marginal) or 90% (unsatisfactory) they will immediately have actions taken against them. If they don't get over 95% they get fired, no matter how good their cases are.
From what I've heard from a friend who still works there, t