Microsoft Patent for XML Based Word Processing Files

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.

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.

I don't know enough about the technology/software issue to know if that's the case

While this is another poor analogy, you can think of it as if the French government patented french words and grammar. Then telling everyone that currently speaks French that they own a patent on it and by the way we might charge a license fee for it in the future.

I think that what's missing here, but is in the updated is the fine point of how MS wants to patent the arrangement of XML and schema files that uniquely describe a Word document in XML format (not XML itself). Is that patentable? Are they allowed to patent a data format (seemed to work with FAT)? Are 3rd party developers allowed to way to reverse-engineer a way to access those files or is the Word doc XML format protected by the DMCA?

Well you've got me there, I don't know enough about the technology/software issue to know if that's the case.

That can be helped. Here, I got some links for you: XML Homepage

Answers from Microsoft:Microsoft justifies it's patent move

Same, different source

To quote a bit:a representivie of Microsoft said "While the XML standard itself is royalty free, nothing precludes a company from seeking patent protection for a specific software implementation that incorporates elements of XML"

So, they aren't patenting XML per se but it's use in word-processors. Their XSD files. However these files come with the following license:Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas"

So, that's the situation. We have XML, designed to be used as open standart, like HTML. Microsoft used it in their new Office application with the above license. And now, they suddenly want to charge money for that. I'm not a lawyer but this does look vague at best.

My issue is the seemingly endless attacks on everything MS, this appears to me to be just another.

Well, you have to admit with moves like these they make a nice target out of themselves. So, in a sense, you are right. This is a sort of attack on MS. The question is however, do they deserve it? In this case, yes. In others? We'll see.

I think that what's missing here, but is in the updated is the fine point of how MS wants to patent the arrangement of XML and schema files that uniquely describe a Word document in XML format

I had the impression they wanted to patent not their unique format but the idea of using a single XML formated file for word processor.

Like, if open-office used *two* files they wouldn't be violationg the patent but if they tried to store it in a single file, that would be a MS idea and in violation of the patent.

But your interpretation seems to be right. They want to make their XDS files unaccessable to other applications. Why then use XML at all and not some own format? And what about their license?

The whole thing is idiotic, IMHO.

But your interpretation seems to be right. They want to make their XDS files unaccessable to other applications.

I sure hope they aren't able to patent the generic (and obvious) of a word-processor saving a file in a XML file format.

Why then use XML at all and not some own format? And what about their license?

Embrace and extend. Once you're locked into using their XML schemas, they'll be able to sell you the software and servers that can do 'things' with it.

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.

What about things like the Token Ring architecture, or the spanning tree algorythm. Then there's the famous AT&T patent of the SUID bit, where Dennis Ritchie actually came up with a physical mechanism for the patent. In fact, here's something that Dennis Ritchie had to say on just that topic.

Mark

Embrace and extend.

Alright.

Once you're locked into using their XML schemas, they'll be able to sell you the software and servers that can do 'things' with it.

Yes, but I could that too. They released their specs on their webservers. Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas

So, since they granted me this, I could make Software that does "things" with their files, couldn't I?

What I'm saying is that this has a very great potential to result in freezing out the small players. IMO, copyrights and patents were not ever intended to be a barrier to entry to a market or intended to be a monopoly protection mechanism.

Does someone 'invent' a method of sorting or do they 'discover' the method? If the former then they should be able to patent it. But if the latter then they should be able to copyright the code that they write to take advantage. If you can patent something like a sorting algorithm that you 'discover' then why could you not patent an adding algorithm or a "binary number scheme". Could a physicist patent the algorithm for temperature conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit?

My opinion is that I could copyright the specific implementation in code that I use to make a Fahrenheit to Celsius conversion if it is somehow unique but that I can't patent the conversion formula itself.

I feel the same way about Token-ring architecture. I don't think it should be patentable as a concept, but the code I write to implement it should be copyrightable. If another 100 companies (or programmers at home) want to enter the token-ring networking market then they should be able to write their own code from scratch to implement that concept or pay me to license my code if they want to avoid the development effort. Thats competition and its a good (and conservative) thing.

I realize thats not how it works now. I just think that how it works now is intended to squeeze everyone out but the big boys.

I have no problem with a company defending their inventions. However, I DO have a problem with Microsoft trying to patent something they did NOT invent, something that is the public domain and was created far in advance of their "claim".

XML is a recommendation developed by the W3C orgainzation as version 1.0 was first published by the W3C back in Feb 1998. The initial XML draft was came from the SGML converence back in 1996. For a complete history, see http://www.w3.org/XML/hist2002

Their patent should be denied or invalidated due to prior art.

I just think that how it works now is intended to squeeze everyone out but the big boys.

I think that will occur, but only as a side effect. I don't think that's the intent. The intent is to create a growing and never-ending stream of billable hours for lawyers.

There are several industries now in which lawyers have inserted themselves into the money flows in such a way that either side's lawyers can claim to be doing something valuable, but the value exists only because the other guy's lawyers exist. Were both sides to go "lawyer-free," the cost structure of the industry as a whole would be lowerered, with no less value being delivered to customers.

I think that's what's going on here. The computer industry is simply having its drain into the lawyer community installed. When this is complete, a money flow of some size will be extracting value from the industry and putting it in the pcokets of lawyers. The industry's customers will receive higher prices, less value for the money, or some combination.

Obviously, the solution to this problem is for everyone to give up productive economic activity and join the ranks of the lawyer class. When the only money changing hands in the economy is lawyer fees from lawyers suing each other, the paradigm will have achieved its full fruition.

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.