Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patents XML Word Processing Documents
theodp writes "Embrace. Extend. Patent. On Tuesday, Microsoft was granted US Patent No. 7,571,169 for its 'invention' of the Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML. Presumably developers are protected by Microsoft's 'covenant not to sue,' so the biggest question raised by this patent is: How in the world was it granted in light of the 40-year history of document markup languages? Next thing you know, the USPTO will give Microsoft a patent for Providing Emergency Data in XML format. Oops, too late."
This patent wouldn't seem to affect OpenDocument, since OpenDocument files are not, AFAIK, single XML files, they are JAR archives with several XML files (and others) inside.
No, ODF is a XML-based document format. An actual system would be a word processor application that utilizes the ODF file format, for example OpenOffice today.
The filing date shown on the patent is Jun 2002.
The ODF format was first discussed in December 2002, and finalized in May of 2005.
So it would seem Microsoft's patent comes before ODF.
As is all too often the case here on Slashdot, the summary has seized upon the title of the patent, which has no legal effect whatsoever, while ignoring the actual patent claims, which are all important.
If one actually reads the claims, one sees that the main new part of the invention are the 'hint elements' contained in the XML file. The written description expands upon what hint elements mean: "hints are provided within the XML associated files providing applications that understand XML a shortcut to understanding some of the features provided by the word-processor. By using the hints, the applications do not have to know all of the specific details of the internal processing of the word-processor in order to recreate a feature."
Basically, the invention here is the inclusion of information that lets third-party programs better understand what to do with the format. You can imagine, for example, if HTML included something like this. The del ('strikethrough') tag might be written:
That code would allow a program that did not natively understand the tag to implement a simple version of it. The idea is to allow new features to be introduced into the format while enabling older versions of the software to use them without updating their code. The necessary code comes with the file.
Now, whether that's still new and nonobvious, I don't know, but it's a significantly more accurate summary of the invention than "Microsoft Patents XML Word Processing Documents."
One of the claims in this patent is that everything is stored in a single XML document. That is not true of ODF. An ODF file is the result of zipping up a bunch of files including not only XML files but various other things, such as image files.
Wrong. Each claim stands alone, that is why they always start with a basic all encompassing Claim 1, which probably wouldn't hold up under scrutiny, and refine it in later clauses to cover every special case they can think of. Usually at least some of the claims are mutually exclusive, so to create something that violated all of the claims at once would be impossible.
But not before SGML. The whole thing is a pile of shit, a worthless patent predated by at least a quarter century (and probably a bit longer) of markup languages. The US patent system is fucking broken, because if it worked, Microsoft would have been sent packing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And isn't SGML in part something IBM contributed to? So we can hope IBM will contribute to defending "prior art". Without actually reading the patent (I just read the patent abstract), what seems to be "unique" is the XML encoding along with the XSD style sheet; document markup languages are -really old hat- (Scribe's still my personal favorite :-). So "attacking" the patent based on the documented derivation of XML from SGML would seem to me to be a viable strategy, and many mark-up word processors of the previous millennium (including Scribe, if I remember right) had the concept of a 'document style sheet'.
This patent is -particularly stupid- based on the patent abstract. (Hey, if the President can make snap judgements without doing full research, why can't I do it, too???)
What matters isn't what the abstract says, it's what the claims, especially the independent claims, say. Here are the two independent claims in this patent, formatted for improved clarity (I hope). They basically say the same thing, except that the first is a "method" claim, claiming a method for doing something (in this case, "creating a document in XML in a computing device that is understandable by many applications"), while the second is an "apparatus" claim, claiming an apparatus (in this case, "a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions for interacting with a document") that performs a function:
Samna/Lotus Ami Pro used a text-based markup language for documents. It predated Word for Windows (aka Microsoft Word).
ODF descended from the older OpenOffice/StarOffice file format ("OpenOffice.org XML"), which was already XML-based (it's very similar to ODF).
OpenOffice 1.0 used that format. It was released on May 1, 2002. Boom, obvious prior art.
Then maybe the real story here is how Microsoft has extended XML to include non-standard features, which they can implement in their own software while restricting third parties from implementing the same features...
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Framemaker
We were using there markup language to create documents back the the early 90's. Not sure when they started.
Who is John Galt?
You mean XPS?
There is so much prior art for this, it's just sick. ODF, for one thing.
Heck, I even wrote an XML based text editor back when I was learning Java in 2001 or so.
All I can say is maybe I should file a patent for "Patenting inventions currently covered by patents"
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
I see you are one of the 99%. Patent applications have a long list of claims going from general to specific. The examiner can toss out the broader claims. After that it is up to the court. The court does not get involved until there is a plaintiff, and patent cases, being civil cases, can be extremly expensive to litigate. FOSS projects are by nature too poor to play.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
How about something like this?
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/02/07/openoffice.html
Dated February 07, 2001. States that OpenOffice (its first release as open source) already uses the format and goes on to explain some of the XML used.
The second patent office already exists. Its called the court system.
The problem with the funding system is: You (the accused infringer) fund that second one.
Have gnu, will travel.
Framemaker was created as a cheaper alternative to interleaf in the mid 80's. The following site has a version timeline.
http://www.daube.ch/docu/fmhist00.html#Timeline%20of%20FrameMaker
Heck, I even wrote an XML based text editor back when I was learning Java in 2001 or so.
Go read the patent. Go!
The darn thing isn't for a pseudo-WYSIWYG XML editor. It's for a specific bundle of features that let you save your non-XML based word processing file as one single XML file, which includes bookmarks, styles, and "formatting hints" as well.
Making your word processor save to XHTML, or a randomly selected XML dialect? Obvious. The specific way you do that, and include some conventions for features that XML really wasn't meant to support? Non-obivous, and therefore patentable.
Also not all that broad.
And, of course,, the real nice thing: this patent only applies if you through a lot of formatting crap into your XML file as well... and I certainly don't remember anyone dumb enough to do that before Microsoft.
Red Hat love patents too.
I'll just point you here.
If anyone on here actually bothered to read the patent they would see they are not patenting XML Documents. They are patenting a specific implementation and XSD format for multi application XML Documents. SGML nor open office would qualify as prior art as that is NOT what the patent is about.
But if they sue you, you'll go broke defending yourself, and then they'll win a default judgment against you because you didn't show up in the new venue that you were notified about yesterday.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
OpenOffice (as StarOffice way back) reinvented the whole "OLE 2" thing to support in-place editing on multiple platforms, which of course wasn't (I don't know about now) compatible with MS Office's implementation.
-- Sig down
If someone patents regular expressions would it be like an IP Perl Harbor?
There must have been a reason why Bell Labs didn't patent them. The setuid bit was patented. They documented it in the back of the Version 7 Green Book in the early 1980s.
More like "patent rejected, $20k wasted". The cost of a patent application for a typical company is usually many times higher than the fee you pay to the patent office. Patent applications are complex legal documents, and patent attorney fees are usually a substantial portion of the total cost. You will also need to have your technical specialists to spend time consulting the attorneys. And you may need to perform a preliminary patent search, which means even more expensive hours spent.