Microsoft Patent for XML Based Word Processing Files

www.nzoss.org.nz ^ | Tuesday, January 20 | www.nzoss.org.nz

[SkyRat]

To say it in the words of Golden Eagle, "The dark side of Microsoft strikes again"

[SkyRat]

"Dark side of Microsoft" Ping

[Balding_Eagle]

Rubbish! Companies have the right to defend their inventions.

Surely you're not suggesting that you would simply stand aside as someone rifled through your house?

[Glenn]

Rubbish! Companies have the right to defend their inventions.

Off the cliff with you, Lemming.

[Young Rhino]

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes

[SkyRat]

Surely you're not suggesting that you would simply stand aside as someone rifled through your house?

The problem here is that XML is not Microsoft's "house". XML's primary purpose is interoperability. More like a public road than a house, if we stay with your analogy.

Developed by the WC3 committee if I'm not mistaken. Imagine the HTML protocol would have been licensed to a single company. We wouldn't be here in that case.

It looks more like MS on a power trip than a credible claim to me

[Snuffington]

Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes

Lol... The Onion's parodies and reality intersect yet again.

[shadowman99]

Rubbish! Companies have the right to defend their inventions.

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.

[general_re]

boing....

[Balding_Eagle]

You didn't address my original assertion, that companies have the right to defend their inventions.

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.

[shadowman99]

You didn't address my original assertion, that companies have the right to defend their inventions.

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.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Game, set and match, shadowman.

[for-q-clinton]

Companies have the right to patent and make money from those patents.

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.

[Arkinsaw]

Rubbish! Companies have the right to defend their inventions.

Oh good grief. This is like someone patenting "the sentence" because they wrote one.

[Snuffington]

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.

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.

[Arkinsaw]

Companies have the right to patent and make money from those patents.

I have no problem with Microsoft copyrighting their code, that is very different from patenting algorithms or data processing techniques. Can you imagine if someone had patents for bubble sorts, quicksorts, etc. Nobody would be able to sort anything without paying a license fee. If you wanted to write some software at home that performed a sort you would be unable to do it without paying a license. The barrier to entry would be very high for any small software company and we would end up with a few large companies and no chance of entry for new companies.

This is not a conservative concept and is in fact alien to the idea of small business and business freedom that we promote. It is asking the government to restrict entry into your market for you. We need a new Republican Teddy Roosevelt to put an end to this crap like he did in his time.

[Snuffington]

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.

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.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

Many of us enjoy using shareware. You can get some very good homemade software created by an independent programmer for a nice price. But if someone patents every data processing technique, protocol, algorithm, API, or file structure then these programmers will be unable to develop applications without paying license fees (which will be high to discourage market entry).

This is ALL about protecting and expanding monopoly powers and its blatantly obvious. They don't want a doorway to exist that their customers can use to move to another application.

I would like to patent "the use of a car to drive to a store and park in a parking lot". I will license this technology to no one.

[Balding_Eagle]

The problem here is that XML is not Microsoft's "house". XML's primary purpose is interoperability. More like a public road than a house, if we stay with your analogy.

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.

[Balding_Eagle]

I notice that you avoided answering a direct question again. Pretty telling. You are not as certain of the rightness of your position as your words would have us believe.

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.