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."

Comments

One word - EDIFACT

[pieterh]

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.

Re:One word - EDIFACT

[Uruk]

I don't see how this guy's got a case anyway. From his patent statement:

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.

That seems to seal it - he's disclaiming heirarchical data structures isn't he? Wouldn't it be fair to say that if anything, XML is a hierarchical data structure?

<I>
    <always>
          <thought>
                <so></so>
          </thought>
    </always>
</I>

SGML?

[slavemowgli]

But XML is essentially just a stricter version of SGML, which was developed in the 1960s already. Certainly that is prior art?

Re:SGML?

[gstoddart]

While technologically XML is a descendent of SGML, it's used for a substantially different goal: SGML is intended for markup of documents, XML is intended for rendering non-document structured data in a way that allows it to be processed independently of its data type.

Close. XML is not 'intended for rendering non-document structured data'.

XML allows you to create structured data, be they documents, data interchange, paramet lists, or recipes. XML made some of the schema definitions less ambiguous and more rigid -- SGML had all sorts of things that made parsing difficult. XML didn't say that you can't use XML to store documents and must use it for data. They just said "we'll simplify the rules so that things like yacc can parse the grammar". That's all.

XML is completely purpose agnostic. So, actually, was SGML. SGML was primarily used to make structured data, but there was never an expectation that the SGML files were "document" vs "data". Though the original uses of GML/SGML may have been for marking up documents, that wasn't required.

I was using SGML for structured data interchange about 10 or 11 years ago. In the same way, I'm free to use XML for either data, documents, or anything else. The DocBook DTD was around in the SGML days, and is still in use now -- it defines documents.

As these patents are very clearly about data, not documents, I don't think SGML is a valid antecedent.

Not really. The stuff in a document is data to the program that runs it. It is a perfectly valid (and well established) usage of SGML to contain what you're calling data -- config filed, parameters, etc. SGML was being used for data back in the day. Much like XML can be used to represent a 'document', or to hold 'data' -- XML-RPC or the ArborText editors are both uses of XML as an interchange format.

An instance of an XML file (ie. an XML document) is either data, document, or whatever it is intended to be.

It is completely false ot say that XML and SGML are differentiated by what the purpose of the contents of the file is. And it is completely valid to say the long history of GML/SGML/XML are so much before these patents it's not funny.

Looooosers.

[Godeke]

According to this:

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/ webmaster-2002/materials/savory/slides/img18.html

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.

Re:Looooosers.

[1ucius]

Incorrect, fortunately. You can't patent something you didn't invent (i.e., independently conceive). 35 USC 102(f). Moreover, even assuming your hypothetical patentee did independently invent the same thing, they would need to prove they conceived that invention before the publication date of the draft specification or magazine. 35 USC 102(a). They may also need to prove they conceived the invention before the author of the publication. 35 USC 102(e) and 102(g).

Invalid Claim

[robbyjo]

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.

Antother word perwill...

[oliverthered]

'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).

Re:Antother word perwill...

[dgatwood]

How about structurally-tagged content dating back as far as the late 1960s?

A Brief History of the Development of SGML

For that matter, XML is just a specific, more restrictive dialect of SGML. The SGML draft standard was first published in 1985, twelve years prior to this patent. Since XML is a proper subset of prior art that existed prior to the filing of this patent, XML in effect existed prior to the filing of this patent.

If this ever goes to court, the company should expect their lawyers to be prosecuted for barratry.

Re:Antother word perwill...

[radtea]

Not only does SGML predate these patents by a long, long time, XML itself was announced at SGML'96. I took a copy of the draft standard home from that meeting. So XML also predates the earliest patent application by on the order of a year.

Re:Patent protections

[k3s]

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.

Re:I don't get it...

[Krach42]

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.

Barratry

[Anonymous Coward]

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.]