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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<bite attr="me"/>
Wow, so a company that claims a patent on xml uses Dreamweaver to build their Web site?
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.
I guess they could try to patent ugliness...
No good; there's prior art.
(ducks)
Erlang.org: wow
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?
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:
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.]
Wow... this neutral gas is a true innovation... seeing as when you add all the parts together, it's 100.032859%
"Air 1.2 - Now with 0.032859% More Wow Factor"
I am the breaker of Chairs!
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
>>> Methane -
I'll patent air with Methane > 5%
Anyone who produces this will owe me an ass-load of money.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
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