Microsoft seeks XML-related patents

CNET News.com ^ | Last modified: January 23, 2004, 12:24 PM PST | David Becker

[Bush2000]

Microsoft has applied for patents that could prevent competing applications from reading documents created with the latest version of the software giant's Office program.

The company filed similar patent applications in New Zealand and the European Union that cover word processing documents stored in the XML (Extensible Markup Language) format. The proposed patent would cover methods for an application other than the original word processor to access data in the document. The U.S. Patent Office had no record of a similar application.

Microsoft representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

XML-based capabilities have been one of the main selling points for Office 2003, the new version of the market-leading software package. By saving documents as XML files, the new Office will allow back-end computing systems such as corporate databases to retrieve and reuse data from documents. XML support also allows Office to become a client for viewing and manipulating data from Web services and complex enterprise applications, such as customer relationship management software.

The proposed patents apparently seek to protect methods other applications could use to interpret the XML dialect, or schema, Office uses to describe and organize information in documents. Microsoft recently agreed to publish those schemas and is looking at opening other chunks of Office code.

Despite those moves toward openness, the patents could create a barrier to competing software, said Rob Helm, an analyst for research firm Directions on Microsoft.

"This is a direct challenge to software vendors who want to interoperate with Word through XML," he said. "For example, if Corel wanted to improve WordPerfect's support of Word by adopting its XML format...for import/export, they'd probably have to license this patent."

[Bush2000]

Like it or not, patents are a weapon of choice for tech companies.

Patently Offensive

Open source developers will probably not be able to use this functionality without getting sued.

[Southack]

The U.S. Patent Office is forbidden by law from issuing any patents for ideas, devices, or systems whose construction and use is intuitively obvious to any expert in said field.

Take that as you may...

[Reelect President Dubya]

The real inventions were the automobile and the computer.

Patenting a program makes about as much sense as patenting a route from San Diego to Miami.

[daviddennis]

Wow. That's pretty darn sick, considering that XML's entire value exists as an interchange language that's public and open.

D

[blowfish]

In Microsoft's hands, anything is a potential weapon.

[rit]

Considering they have been sued multiple times for patent infringement, and have either settled, or been found guilty, or had the case dismissed, I do not know that this is an issue.

Has MS ever enforced a patent against GPL'd code? How many times has the GPL been enforced against others (through settlement, ...etc). I think the later is the larger of the two.

[ArrogantBustard]

StarOffice uses XML format for all its documents, and has decent "filters" for importing current M$ Office stuff. M$ knows this...

[Bush2000]

Has MS ever enforced a patent against GPL'd code?

Not sure. But if MS does sue -- and the defendant is found to have infringed -- it won't matter whether the code is GPL'd or not. Anything and anyone that touches the infringing code is poison.

[Doug Loss]

The U.S. Patent Office is forbidden by law from issuing any patents for ideas, devices, or systems whose construction and use is intuitively obvious to any expert in said field.

It's comforting to believe that that means something, isn't it? Unfortunately, the USPTO has been granting jaw-droppingly inappropriate patents on things with long and easily discovered histories of prior art for quite some time now. The patent system in this country is very seriously broken.

[rit]

As I recall, in the recent Microsoft announcement regarding its IP strategy, there was some language about licensing the IP portfolio for non-commerical (academia, research, non-profit?) use.

[Reelect President Dubya]

Unless Microsoft invented XML, I cannot see how they can be granted a patent for using it.

[Bush2000]

XML is a markup format. This patent covers the specific scenario of a word processor loading document data from an XML file. Regardless whether anybody disgrees with the broad nature of the patent, MS now has the Constitutional right to prevent others from infringing.

[silversky]

Like it or not, patents are a weapon of choice for tech companies.

IIRC, this "weapon" was made WMD by Clinton in 1997/1998. Inventors and small business have long stopped to benefit from patents - they can't afford litigation and patent maintenance. Only legal service companies make money off patents. They are are made up of lawyers, have the right connections and can use any silliness to suck up money out of any business. The technique is much like the lawsuits against tobacco and firearm companies.

In the industry, patents are used to kill the small guy via legal expenses. It's an anticompetitive weapon that costs dearly to consumers. For example, if Microsoft gets this patent you will not be able to read your data with anything else but MS software. In a few years they will charge you an arm and a leg for your own data. Otherwise you will not be able to read it - other companies will be forbidden to offer a reading program. Anyone who puts his data into a proprietary or hidden format is a fool who doesn't know what he is doing. Unfortunately all MS formats are like that. The only reasonable choice is to ditch MS Office and go to Open Office. Don't put your property into someone else's backyard! It's foolish, OK!

[Southack]

"Regardless whether anybody disgrees with the broad nature of the patent, MS now has the Constitutional right to prevent others from infringing."

No. This article only says that MS is pursuing foreign patents on this technology.

As a patent holder myself, I can tell you right offhand that the EU has a big problem issuing patents on *anything* that has been published for more than a year prior to the patent application, ditto for the U.S. Patent Office.

And for the other poster who lamented patents being good only for lawyers, someone needs to remind him/her that our patent system was written only as a "license to sue" in the first place. Once you are granted a patent, you then have the right to sue to stop infringements. Of course, it is still up to you and your attorneys to prove that someone is infringing rather than improving (improvements are allowed, sheer copying or imitating is not). You also have to prove that your patent isn't overly broad, that your patent isn't superseded by someone else's patents, that the technology in question hasn't been published for more than a year, and that the technology in question isn't "intuitively obvious" to any recognized expert in said technology field.

C'est la vie.

[ArrogantBustard]

This patent covers the specific scenario of a word processor loading document data from an XML file.

StarOffice has been doing this for two years. Prior Art, anyone?

[N3WBI3]

it will be odd MS tried the same thing with SMB/CIFS and RDP and both are still supported under *NIX..

[N3WBI3]

Also this is nothing new open office has been using XML to import/export data for years can you file a patent when prior art exist?

[Bush2000]

StarOffice has been doing this for two years. Prior Art, anyone?

It all depends on the filing date. If MS filed this patent prior to any demonstrable expression, it wins; if not, the patent can be invalidated.

[justlurking]

It all depends on the filing date. If MS filed this patent prior to any demonstrable expression, it wins; if not, the patent can be invalidated.

I haven't been able to find any filing dates for US patents, but you can find the XML patents filed by Microsoft in Australia here:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/patsearch/search_page.jsp?sectionCode=SRC&keyNo=&name=microsoft&title=xml&pubFmDay=+&pubFmMonth=+&pubFmYear=+&pubToDay=+&pubToMonth=+&pubToYear=+&filFmDay=+&filFmMonth=+&filFmYear=+&filToDay=+&filToMonth=+&filToYear=+&ipcSubClass=&ipcGroup=&ipcSubGroup=&msg=Advanced+IPC+Mark+search+criteria%3A&ipcAdv=

The most relevant one is:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/patsearch/search_section.jsp?sectionCode=DTL&keyNo=2003204397&name=MICROSOFT&title=XML&lastLoaded=24/Jan/2004%2022:00

It was filed on 2003-05-23, long after many examples of prior art.

[Bush2000]

It was filed on 2003-05-23, long after many examples of prior art.

Whoa. Slow down. Note the priority date is 28-JUN-02 (United States of America). Which means that there is an earlier filing in America which you haven't found yet.

Priority date Patent

A patent application may claim as a priority date the filing date of an earlier patent application provided that the earlier application was (i) filed in the previous 12 months, (ii) filed by the same applicant as the later application and (iii) filed in a Convention country. Thus the later application need not be made in the same country as the earlier one. In practice, this means that all patent applications filed in Convention countries in a single year by the same applicant and relating to the same subject matter can be given the same effective date of filing. This effective date of filing is important when considering if the invention in the patent application is novel and inventive.