well, it is likely more general than just xml, but it uses xml as an example of "one embodiment" of the "invention." this is a typical construction and i expect this is what they've used to construct the (granted) application.
if they went for a more broad patent (encapsulating multiple language scripts in a single file) i've been doing this in shell scripts for years. it is trivial (and not novel anymore) to use bits of Bourne (or other) shell to delimit other scripts in different languages such as awk. Not as easy as with XML, perhaps, but still possible, is not only using the script as a single unit but writing another script to extract only the wanted parts from the shell script. In fact... I've seen examples of this but I've never done it myself.
That may be sufficient prior art to deal with potential situations where this patent were ever asserted in court.
Of course, IANAL and I didn't read more than the abstract here, because I don't want to know.:)
My wife, gifted in the art of subtle hints, managed to convince me over time that she had no interest in diamonds at all. I was also able to confirm this with several of her longtime friends, and after some thought I arrived at a conclusion: If she wanted anything more than a simple band of gold, it would be a ring with her birthstone (emerald.) I finally found a ring with an emerald centerprice, with a few (much smaller) diamonds on either side. Thus, the diamond "tradition" was covered, for those that might otherwise have been critical, and she received a ring that was truly "hers" in the sense that it was personal and somewhat unique. I assure you that she was every bit as speechless when she opened the box. She still smiles every time she has the ring cleaned, and every time someone says "Ooo! May I see your ring? How unique!" or similar.
Several others have commented that the matter of engagement rings is all about pleasing your partner, and they're absolutely right. This kind of ring is more than a "token" or a simple "tradition"---it's a very personal gift. A gift this expensive *should* be something she will cherish for the rest of her life. If you can find such a special gift without compromising your principles, so much the better.
"It's hard to recall any industry which has so abused, neglected and exploited its customers and survived."
This assertion is unfounded. There are other industries where there are widespread examples of similar attitudes. "You need a new frob... No, trust me. You don't want to understand, but it won't work without it." However, there are many honest mechanics and there are many honest tech service engineers. A better example of another industry which exploits and abuses its customers is the entertainment industry. While there are some examples of inexcusable behavior in the tech business, the RIAA and MPAA want to strip people everywhere of their rights to use material. In the US, this right is presently guaranteed by law. There exist other countries where this right is not presently obstructed. These member companies want to repeal or otherwise invalidate the US law and impose or strengthen obstructions of this right in other countries. It is a monumental mistake to categorically dismiss an example of more prominent and funcdamental abuse which appears weekly or even daily on Slashdot.
As someone who remembers the first Slackware release and has been using Linux since version 0.12 (two-floppy + gcc and uemacs), I'm not only proud, but also determined, to keep using Slackware on my servers. It's dependable and stable, and it installs easily in under 1GB. Slackware doesn't fight me when I want to make configuration changes the traditional way, either, so 31 years of collected wisdom still applies and can be found on UseNet, the Web and in O'Reilly books. Most importantly, Slackware doesn't replace key pieces of software with untested crap. SuSE and Red Hat have their strengths, but for small, reliable server installs you can't beat Slack. If Slackware disappears, I'll probably switch my servers to OpenBSD. Until then, I'm keeping my subscription to Slackware.
And how much do you think the artist actually makes from "the slale of records?" Squat.
Ask just about any artist. The only ones
that make any real money at all from the
sale of their records are the ones that have
been around long enough to have a good position
to negotiate, or have actually started their
own labels. The rest of them make what little money they actually see from touring. Have you
bothered to look into what the artists have to say about the whole thing? The only people winning here are the Record companies and I for one don't see "copy protection" as enough of a value add to warrant the replacement of my equipment so I can hear the "new, improved
format." Next time, get your facts straight.
That's an interesting viewpoint, similar to
one of the major fears expressed by a several people: there is nothing to stop the entertainment industry from making all content "copy never" thereby preventing all recording and playback.
I strongly disgree with this sentiment.
I can count on one hand the number of times in the last year I have altered my schedule to watch something on TV when it aired, and I don't see that changing if the Industry won't let me record programs. If the new media formats don't allow convenient viewing and the old formats are no longer available, I probably won't be catching Hollywood's shows or their commercials, and I won't have a need for the new equipment either.
If you think TiVo will suffer a huge blow, imagine Sony's surprise when they find they have surplus gear they can't offload because the market for the new inconvenient devices is much smaller than anticipated? And if you think that's funny, think about how the advertisers will react when they find nobody is watching anymore!
I realize that some may place a higher priority on entertainment than I do, but I think most people agree that entertainment happens for them when they have time for it and are ready for it, and not when the Industry decides it will air. Such people will have no problem finding other ways to occupy their spare time.
What is specifically required is "proof by counterexample," not just claim that something preceded the patents. One needs examples (with dates) of specifications which use the techniques discussed in Konrad's patent documents. The HTML specs may be insufficient for such purposes---the patent covers subjects with more far reaching implications. However, research papers submitted in journals of the ACM or other prominent industry magazines certainly would be convincing evidence. I recall client/server computing discussed prior to 1994 in magazines such as UNIX Review, DEC Professional and Dr. Dobb's Journal. I also happen to know that I myself had a working client/server application in 1992 that was derived from an even earlier work. Let's see a show of hands: who has used Usenet? For the curious: No, I didn't "invent" Usenet. My work was more closely related to MUDs.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that Konrad may not need to prove that his patent was in before the buzz or first implementation. It may be sufficient for him to prove he "invented" client/server computing, which would be easy to do if the earliest documented example of such research turned out to be his own.
Slashdot Mirror
well, it is likely more general than just xml, but it uses xml as an example of "one embodiment" of the "invention." this is a typical construction and i expect this is what they've used to construct the (granted) application.
:)
if they went for a more broad patent (encapsulating multiple language scripts in a single file) i've been doing this in shell
scripts for years. it is trivial (and not novel anymore) to use bits of Bourne (or other) shell to delimit other scripts in different languages such as awk. Not as easy as with XML, perhaps, but still possible, is not only using the script as a single unit but writing another script to extract only the wanted parts from the shell script. In fact... I've seen examples of this but I've never done it myself.
That may be sufficient prior art to deal with potential situations where this patent were ever asserted in court.
Of course, IANAL and I didn't read more than the abstract here, because I don't want to know.
My wife, gifted in the art of subtle hints, managed to convince me over time that she had no interest in diamonds at all. I was also able to confirm this with several of her longtime friends, and after some thought I arrived at a conclusion: If she wanted anything more than a simple band of gold, it would be a ring with her birthstone (emerald.) I finally found a ring with an emerald centerprice, with a few (much smaller) diamonds on either side. Thus, the diamond "tradition" was covered, for those that might otherwise have been critical, and she received a ring that was truly "hers" in the sense that it was personal and somewhat unique. I assure you that she was every bit as speechless when she opened the box. She still smiles every time she has the ring cleaned, and every time someone says "Ooo! May I see your ring? How unique!" or similar.
:)
Several others have commented that the matter of engagement rings is all about pleasing your partner, and they're absolutely right. This kind of ring is more than a "token" or a simple "tradition"---it's a very personal gift. A gift this expensive *should* be something she will cherish for the rest of her life. If you can find such a special gift without compromising your principles, so much the better.
Good luck... I hope she says "yes!"
"It's hard to recall any industry which has so abused, neglected and exploited its customers and survived."
This assertion is unfounded. There are other industries where there are widespread examples of similar attitudes. "You need a new frob... No, trust me. You don't want to understand, but it won't work without it." However, there are many honest mechanics and there are many honest tech service engineers. A better example of another industry which exploits and abuses its customers is the entertainment industry. While there are some examples of inexcusable behavior in the tech business, the RIAA and MPAA want to strip people everywhere of their rights to use material. In the US, this right is presently guaranteed by law. There exist other countries where this right is not presently obstructed. These member companies want to repeal or otherwise invalidate the US law and impose or strengthen obstructions of this right in other countries. It is a monumental mistake to categorically dismiss an example of more prominent and funcdamental abuse which appears weekly or even daily on Slashdot.
As someone who remembers the first Slackware release and has been using Linux since version 0.12 (two-floppy + gcc and uemacs), I'm not only proud, but also determined, to keep using Slackware on my servers. It's dependable and stable, and it installs easily in under 1GB. Slackware doesn't fight me when I want to make configuration changes the traditional way, either, so 31 years of collected wisdom still applies and can be found on UseNet, the Web and in O'Reilly books. Most importantly, Slackware doesn't replace key pieces of software with untested crap. SuSE and Red Hat have their strengths, but for small, reliable server installs you can't beat Slack. If Slackware disappears, I'll probably switch my servers to OpenBSD. Until then, I'm keeping my subscription to Slackware.
And how much do you think the artist actually makes from "the slale of records?" Squat. Ask just about any artist. The only ones that make any real money at all from the sale of their records are the ones that have been around long enough to have a good position to negotiate, or have actually started their own labels. The rest of them make what little money they actually see from touring. Have you bothered to look into what the artists have to say about the whole thing? The only people winning here are the Record companies and I for one don't see "copy protection" as enough of a value add to warrant the replacement of my equipment so I can hear the "new, improved format." Next time, get your facts straight.
That's easy....
I probably won't bother watching TV.
That's an interesting viewpoint, similar to one of the major fears expressed by a several people: there is nothing to stop the entertainment industry from making all content "copy never" thereby preventing all recording and playback.
I strongly disgree with this sentiment. I can count on one hand the number of times in the last year I have altered my schedule to watch something on TV when it aired, and I don't see that changing if the Industry won't let me record programs. If the new media formats don't allow convenient viewing and the old formats are no longer available, I probably won't be catching Hollywood's shows or their commercials, and I won't have a need for the new equipment either. If you think TiVo will suffer a huge blow, imagine Sony's surprise when they find they have surplus gear they can't offload because the market for the new inconvenient devices is much smaller than anticipated? And if you think that's funny, think about how the advertisers will react when they find nobody is watching anymore!
I realize that some may place a higher priority on entertainment than I do, but I think most people agree that entertainment happens for them when they have time for it and are ready for it, and not when the Industry decides it will air. Such people will have no problem finding other ways to occupy their spare time.
What is specifically required is "proof by counterexample," not just claim that something preceded the patents. One needs examples (with dates) of specifications which use the techniques discussed in Konrad's patent documents. The HTML specs may be insufficient for such purposes---the patent covers subjects with more far reaching implications. However, research papers submitted in journals of the ACM or other prominent industry magazines certainly would be convincing evidence. I recall client/server computing discussed prior to 1994 in magazines such as UNIX Review, DEC Professional and Dr. Dobb's Journal. I also happen to know that I myself had a working client/server application in 1992 that was derived from an even earlier work. Let's see a show of hands: who has used Usenet? For the curious: No, I didn't "invent" Usenet. My work was more closely related to MUDs.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that Konrad may not need to prove that his patent was in before the buzz or first implementation. It may be sufficient for him to prove he "invented" client/server computing, which would be easy to do if the earliest documented example of such research turned out to be his own.