Posted on 02/01/2004 7:55:20 AM PST by SkyRat
Microsoft has recently been making sounds that indicate it will use its patent portfolio to start to extract fees from other companies. A recent example was its use of patents around technology mapping short filenames to long file names, and how Microsoft is licensing this technology to embedded devices company which use FAT on devices such as digital cameras. So what else do Microsoft have in wait for us? How about New Zealand patent 525484 - "Word processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML". Filed on the 24th of April last year and under examination this baby seems to have slipped by peoples attention.
[Update] Details of patent found, and Microsoft responds here.
The information on the New Zealand patent site claims there have been no objections to this patent and that there are no related patents. Without knowing what is in the patent in detail means it is somewhat difficult to provide a meaningfull objection. From the description of the patent is is difficult to see how anything close to the description could be valid however.
XML of was designed so people could have access to their data outside of a single application, and in a form which was human readable similar to HTML. In fact the following items were the design goals of the WC3 who created XML: XML shall be straightforwardly usable over the Internet. XML shall support a wide variety of applications. XML shall be compatible with SGML. It shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents. The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute minimum, ideally zero. XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear. The XML design should be prepared quickly. The design of XML shall be formal and concise. XML documents shall be easy to create. Terseness in XML markup is of minimal importance.
XML was designed to be able to support a wide variety of applications, clearly a description which covers word processing documents. XML was designed to be human legible and easy to create. The only other point made in the brief description of the patent above was that the document would be stored in a single file. Word processing documents being stored in a single file is not exactly unique. In fact every popular word processor has stored the word processing document in a single file.
Finally we get to OpenOffice, which stores its word processing document in XML format in a single compressed file, which when uncompressed is actually three or four XML files. The main one is content.xml which contains the actual content of the document. OpenOffice provides clear prior art to this patent, and so we will be seeking to object to this patent, or at least have input to the examination process.
Surely you're not suggesting that you would simply stand aside as someone rifled through your house?
Off the cliff with you, Lemming.
Lol... The Onion's parodies and reality intersect yet again.
Hey everybody! Microsoft invented XML!!!!
I guess that was when Al Gore worked for them.
/sarcasm>
XML is a generic data format. To use XML as a storage format for anything is obvious, and should not a patentable. This is like Microsoft being given a patent on storing files to a harddisk.
Software patents are going to drive computer and software development overseas. And you will be wondering why the US allowed it to happen. Your answer is right here, if you choose to see it.
Do you believe that statement to be true or false?
As to whether the software in question is MS inventions or not; MS says yes, you say no (along with some other companies). That's what courts are for.
That's because I reject your premise that Microsoft has invented something by writing a file to XML. That's about as stupid as someone else building a bike and you patenting the method for riding on it. It's an obvious use.
Now we can discuss how screwed up patents lead to suits that the patent never intended; however, MS has been burned by this several times. So unless you're defending MS getting suit under just as silly patents, I'll assume you're not intellectually honest.
While we're at it, there is a huge backlog of people thinking they own the Brooklyn bridge. Those judges are sure going to be busy.
This is a pretty good example of patent abuse, which is rampant in the field of intellectual property. Microsoft invented nothing here, and anyone with even a little knowledge of the technology in question knows it. But they noticed a patent void, sent their lawyers in to fill it, and now the ignorant are left thinking this might be a valid claim. Now they're going to add to an already overloaded court system, in a case they're almost certainly going to lose.
If this sort of thing is allowed to continue unabated, real technical reesearch will be forced to leave this country. The ironic thing is that the entire purpose of intellectual property rights was to incent inventors. But, like most laws, it incented lawyers even more.
They certainly have. I personally believe Apple should never have been allowed to patent their "look and feel," with which they tried to kill Windows. This is a problem with the industry and the law, not with a single company. Microsoft is just so big they attract extra attention to everything they do.
It's still wrong.
Well you've got me there, I don't know enough about the technology/software issue to know if that's the case. My issue is the seemingly endless attacks on everything MS, this appears to me to be just another.
I listen to Mike Rosen (KOA Denver) and especially enjoy the show when a lib calls in. They also will avoid answering a direct question. Unlike Mike, however, I can't hold your feet to the fire on the air to determine the extent of your intellectual dishonesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.