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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!"
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"/>
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.
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
... 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
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.
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?
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...
???
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.
<?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.
Quotes from that web site:
"This signature quote intentionally left blank"
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?
You forgot to:
first!Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
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
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 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.
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
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
The company that brought this suit forward should be countersued into bankruptcy
and its officers sued under the RICO act.
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
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.
Funny how the "Code of Ethics" page's only content is, "Coming soon".