He would, wouldn't he? - Mandy Rice-Davies
|
|
|
Microsoft gets XML patent
MICROSOFT seems to have caught people by surprise by being granted a patent on XML-based formats.
For a few years the Vole had been trying to create open standards derived from its own XML-based file formats, such as XPS and Office XML. True, much of its work was seen as an attempt to stop competing formats, such as the Open Document Format. However Microsoft did get some support for its cunning plan.
It appears that the patent was filed in late 2004, when Microsoft was engaged in its rigorous defence of its open standards.
It has the catchy title "Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML."
However it covers the use of XML documents by any word processing software.
The patent office appears to have seen AbiWord's XML definition and looked into the use of XML in online contexts, but decided that VoleWare predated it.
The patent appears to cover both the creation of the XML document and the file that's created.
Now that the patent has been granted there is a question what the Vole will do with it.
In the EU, the Vole is under pressure to increase its software's interoperability. If it tries to enforce its patent it will almost certainly be fined into a coma by the competition commissioners.
It is possible that Microsoft might just want the patent in case someone tries to patent the method first and then extract royalties from it. In which case we would expect the outfit to release it as royalty-free any day now. If not, there are going to be people who are a little wary of what the Vole is up to. µ
Share this:
Share
I guess this officially takes the "open" out of OOXML (microsoft's "standard" that was pushed through ISO by less-than-scrupulous means).
Not that there ever was anything "open" about OOXML in the first place, but this patent will just make microsoft's plans to hold the world hostage with proprietary data formats all the more blatant and impossible to ignore. We need open standards, not proprietary formats that microsoft can use to sue all other competing businesses into oblivion.
XML is an open free standard which Microsoft has nothing to do with. To claim it as their own is the definition of PLAGIARISM.
The Supreme Court is hearing Bilski this fall. No one knows how they will rule, however it looks like they have three options:
1) Decide that ideas which are not connected to any physical machine can be patented.
2) Decide that a machine must be involved, but not necessarily part of the idea.
3) Decide that the patent must be for a machine.
Whichever the Court decides, it will send shock waves through the Intellectual Monopoly community. If the decision is for Item 3, which is quite possible, it would invalidate a huge number of patents, including this one.
Fighting a Microsoft patent is quite the task. It would take mighty deep pockets to _attempt_ to take this down. Any particular company has strong incentives to pay smaller short-term royalty costs instead.
something for doing what it was designed for.
Whatever next - using electricity for electrical things?
The prior art required to laugh this out of court is XML!
good. now some lame company nobody has ever heard of can't sue them for millions claiming they invented it first.
the us patent system is ridiculous, designed so large corporations have to pour millions into it every year just to protect themselves from gold diggers, meanwhile small companies can't compete because they don't have the quantity of patents required to reach the 'i won't sue you - if you don't sue me' stage where companies like ibm, intel, and amd are at.
Just a clever way to drain millions of useful dollars from the economy.
Software Patents need to revoked and canceled, or shortened to a validity of only 3 years. Many tech hardware patents should also be drastically reduced to only 4-5 years duration (From original filing date, not the date the patent is granted!). In the fast paced world of IT these time periods are long enough to make money on a great idea without slowing down the whole industry.
Patents are supposed to have value because they represent valuable new inventions. In the world of IT, most of the value of patents comes from the technologies they represent becoming entrenched. Many different methods, possibly better methods may be invented but if a technology is entrenched it is hard to change. In a Patent court case if you can show an alternate way to accomplish something equivalent to a disputed patent, and the only value the patent has is that it has become the entrenched technology, then that should be enough to overturn the patent. Or the patent could be assigned a different class where licensing is compulsory but at a very very low fee.
Remember: Patents don't exist to protect investors and ensure they make money from their work, Patents exist to encourage new inventions to be created - much like a bribe saying "Make something good and we'll give you protection to get all the money from it". These bribes are not needed anymore in IT. Development will continue anyway. Being first to market with a great new product is plenty of incentive.
I wrote an XML-based application for my final-year project at the University of Birmingham. As it is an officially-published work, I seriously doubt anyone will have any difficulty in striking down Microsoft's patent with an example of prior art: I graduated in 2000, well before this patent was filed.
When you give a patent for a freaking word or colour the patent system is broke. Now MS owns the net format? Total BS and another reason I Loath MS and their we want to own and rule the world business model.
I will use MS only for my games as I have done for the last several years but that is it. OS X and Linux for me and Open Office that is truly open is my choice. Long live .odf
Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you can enforce it. When in doubt, grant the patent and leave it to competitors to challenge the validity in court.
Microsofts claims appear to be paper-thin :) MS can't have it both ways. Those who agree to OPEN STANDARDS don't like patents monopolising the standard which then is no longer an OPEN STANDARD.