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 won't hold up if challenged, there is plenty of prior art.
Caveat Utilitor
That one I could see them getting a patent on, but on something that uses the abbreviation for "eXtensible Markup Language"?
Extending the use of it is what it was designed to do in the fist place.
Folks reading stories like these will simply conclude that America is on the wrong path. To be more accurate, I think folks at the patent office suffer from effects of "thought disorders."
Lots of companies have to get patents on everything just to protect themselves from lawyers. Deal with it. This is getting Old, Microsoft isn't the only entity that does it. You don't like it, change the system but quit with the obsessive observance of Microsoft patents. OR better yet, get rid of the real Patent trolls that put major companies on the defensive patent claim train.
How in the world can anybody even pretend to patent something that is entirely within AN OPEN STANDARD?
The very concept is ludicrous. We need to fire those people in the PTO, and replace them with homeless bums. At least they might get something right once in a while.
Don't bother. Just overhaul the entire IP system. So far Trademarks is the only member of the three types of IP that doesn't with regularity make headlines with how broken it is.
2004 called and it wants...etc.. you know the rest.
They filed this a long time ago, and of course for good reason as if they didn't some asshole little company would set up shop in east Texas and sue. As the kids say, don't hate the player hate the game. Our patent system is fucking retarded.
Any sufficiently obvious technology is indistinguishable from innovation.
Because it's using XML to try to help an app that doesn't understand the new element to figure out what to do with it, rather than just ignore it (as happens by default under XML, as you pointed out).
That anything can be bought.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Don't bother. Just overhaul the entire IP system. So far Trademarks is the only member of the three types of IP that doesn't with regularity make headlines with how broken it is.
I guess you've missed all the stories where sues for "breaching" their trademark? Here's a recent example. Another that's been bought up on Slashdot is Nissan Motors vs Nissan Computer. I agree that trademark law is the sanest of the three, but it still gets plenty of abuse.
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.
In other words, it's a way to include executable code in one part of the file, and a call to it in another.
Presuming your characterization is correct, what Microsoft patented is a particular way to build an unpatchable security hole into an XML editor. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Incorrect on both counts.
You need a degree in science or engineering to be an examiner, the examining corps has been hiring over 1200 examiners a year and fee diversion has ended.
The main problems for examiners has been lack of time (has not changed since 1976), a lack of an easy way to text search non-patent literature, increased number of claims, increased claim length, longer specifications, and more clerical tasks. Both the patent bar and the examiner unions want more time for examiners. Examiners do the best they can in the ~22 hours they have allocated for a case.
We will see what changes if Kappos (former head of IBM's IP dept) is approved by congress and takes over leadership of the USPTO.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
You should be modded to oblivion for suggesting that free and open discussion could be anti-Microsoft.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I am speechless... How much dumber can these Software Patents get?
Software Engineer: "Hey look, I made this window open by using Ctrl-O. Neat huh?"
Manager/Lawyer/CFO/CEO: "Write it up! We'll corner the market on opening any windows! They'll be stuck! HA! Brilliant!"
Software Engineer: "What have I done... Oh well, where's the sysadmins? I must frag."
Software patents do not make sense in our current system. We crave competition, we need it. You build a brilliant program, I'll find someone who will one-up you. Don't worry, you get to fight back. Just make your program better/stronger/faster. That's how it works here.
First rule of 'Software Club': You don't fucking patent 'Software Club'.
[throws mic on floor]
Peace!
if it cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop, then spending $10K to get it patented (or whatever amount is appropriate) would be worth it. If you only spent $1000 to produce it, the dang thing shouldn't be patented anyway.
That's absurd. That would limiting the use of the patent system to large companies (the guys currently abusing the system) and completely destroy the notion of the independant inventor. Brilliant and patentable ideas don't have to be expensive.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
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...
Isn't this basically the point of patents? To give inventors monopolies on their inventions for a limited time?
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.
Ah, prior art as in tags and attributes with similar functionality as "style" and "font" in (x)html. And to think that we we abandoned those in favor of external CSS, XML-schemes or just old fashioned DTDs.
I'm not sure when Netscape Composer started to use x(ht)ml instead of html, but it should predate the filing of this patent with a couple of years.