Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Patents The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

MS Files For NZ Patent On XML Word Processor Files 60

Posted by timothy from the sneaking-things-through dept.
heretic108 writes "A patent application is currently being examined in New Zealand, which if granted, would bar anyone except Microsoft from using an XML file format for storing Word Processing documents. In contrast to copyrights, patents allow even the most elementary concepts to be patented. Apparently, nobody here is diligently watching out for such ridiculous patents, so the official deadline for submitting objections has passed. This suggests a likelihood that the patent may well be granted. I am not endeared to the thought that I might be breaking the law when I use OpenOffice.org to write documents, especially since the concept of storing docs in an XML format was certainly not thought of by Microsoft, so have written a formal complaint to my Member of Parliament. Hopefully there'll be a public outcry within New Zealand."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Files For NZ Patent On XML Word Processor Files More

MS Files For NZ Patent On XML Word Processor Files

Comments Filter:

  • Prior art, film at eleven (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:58PM (#8028458) Homepage Journal
    Other word processors do XML, and have been doing it. It can probably be overturned.
    • I agree. And from all the news with the Eolas, it seems as if any prior artwork makes a patent null and void. Thank goodness for that, if it is true.
    • Problem is that it needs to be overturned.. if memory serves, the NZ patent system is similar to US in that if the PO grants the patent, it's by definition legal and therefore the proof of burden & other fun stuff is on whoever is trying this overthrowing of grant.

    • Re:Prior art, film at eleven (Score:5, Informative)

      by mcdrewski42 ( 623680 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @05:02AM (#8029815)
      Interesting that patent application 20030237048 in the USA Patent Office [uspto.gov] lodged on Christmas Day 2003 is for a Word processor for freestyle editing of well-formed XML documents


      Abstract
      A word-processor that provides a freestyle-editing environment for editing an XML document while monitoring the XML document for well-formedness. The word processor monitors the XML document to determine if the XML document is well-formed and to automatically correct the XML document to maintain well-formedness.


      Asignee Name: Microsoft Corporation.

      I wonder if they are related at all?
      • Well, there's definitely prior art for that one. From SGML editors like SoftQuad's Author/Editor to XML editors like XML Spy.

        Chris
        • Incidentally, are tickets for your gig at The Garage going to be available? Stargreen could confirm that the venue was booked, but couldn't get tickets. Or are they only going to be available on the door?
      • Just like they "well formed" HTML to break standards?

        How long before you get "de-Microsoft your XML" software appearing?
      • Can you believe that a M$ program would create or edit "well-formed" XML? They can't even consistently write their own abominable .doc format, I sometimes have to use OpenOffice.org to rescue a file that Word has saved and can't open again.

        In any case, as I think lots of people are saying, there is lots of prior art. Who do they think they are kidding? It is simply another of the Convicted Monopolist's blatantly dishonest tactics. IIRC Bill stole computer time from a university to get his dodgy software bus

  • prior (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:04AM (#8028503) Homepage
    Web pages are, in essence, word-processed, and they were one of the first demonstrated uses of the XML format. They include all the features word-processed documents would require, including formatting and font information. I can't see how any judge could overlook this as prior art.
    • I think you're absolutely correct, but then again, if Microsoft is doing this, there must be some reason; they've gotta be up to something...

  • Would you like prior art with that? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anaxagor ( 211917 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:06AM (#8028518)
    Apparently, nobody here is diligently watching out for such ridiculous patents.

    When challenged by reporters over the volume of prior art which negates this patent, a Microsoft spokesperson replied "Apparently, everybody here is too patently ridiculous to be diligently watching out."

  • Without the details, this story is pointless (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Smack ( 977 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:07AM (#8028531) Homepage
    The title of a patent is worthless. Patents are all about the implementation, and we know nothing about what Microsoft is claiming here.

    Honestly, the story rebuts itself:

    "Without knowing what is in the patent in detail means it is somewhat difficult to provide a meaningfull objection. "

  • How can you patent this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by a.koepke ( 688359 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:09AM (#8028541)
    Quote from the Wikipedia on XML [wikipedia.org]: "Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of structured text".

    It was designed for the storage of structured text. A word processor creates structured text. It is sort of logical to use the technology that was designed to store what you are creating. How is that being innovative or original? If they were using some other technology for this and it was not designed for this usage then maybe they would have a case.

    This is like someone creating and image format and Adobe taking out the patent to save documents in that format. It is dumb.

  • Why a deadline? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nucleon500 ( 628631 ) <tcfelker@example.com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:11AM (#8028556) Homepage
    The public missed the deadline for doing the patent examiners' job, so another stupid patent will probably be granted. But why is there a deadline in the first place?

    Complaints ought to be listened to both before and after the patent is granted. If obvious (OO.org) examples (*.sx?) of prior art are found, the patent office ought to revoke the patent, even if it's already been granted. If the company (patent owners are always companies, hmm...) doesn't like it, they should have to sue.

    • IP-dependent business couldn't operate on this basis, always having the chance that the rug will be pulled out from underneath them. This is why patents were set up in the first place, so that an inventor would be able to develop an original idea without having the rug pulled out from under them by a competitor stealing their idea. If you re-introduce the possibility of rug-pulling, you negate the whole point of the system.

      If people are exploiting the system and succeed in getting plainly obvious ideas pa

      • Closing the issue is indeed a valid goal. However, that is irrelevant when those filing the patent knew, or should have known, that there was relevant prior art.

        Having a deadline for prior art that was plausibly unknown to the filer is a good idea.

        But if you don't meet your obligation to disclose known prior art then you should have no rights at all. One of the most basic principles of common law is that you cannot benefit from an illegal act (at least once the illegal act is caught).

  • Bit more (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tabercil ( 158653 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [licrebat]> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:39AM (#8028715)
    Here's the webpage [iponz.govt.nz] of the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office listing the patent application. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have online the most crucial thing we're all looking for - nitty-gritty details of the patent.

    • An error has occurred while processing your request, please note the error below and contact our support line.

      Error: Prior to using this web site, please change your browser settings to allow us to update your cookies. The cookies will be used to ensure that you are a registered user who has properly logged on to the site.

      You may contact our Internet support line during business hours by dialing 0508-4-47669 (or +64-3-962-2606)

      But I do allow cookies! Perhaps I should call that toll-free number instea

  • Patents vs. Copyrights (Score:3, Informative)

    by sabNetwork ( 416076 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @12:40AM (#8028726)
    In contrast to copyrights, patents allow even the most elementary concepts to be patented.

    This is misleading or false. Copyrights do not protect concepts or ideas. A copyright protects a specific expression of an idea. Plagiarizing a copyrighted idea is completely legal.

    Patents protect ideas; copyrights protect the way they are presented.

  • What else can they do? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aufecht ( 163961 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:25AM (#8028943) Homepage Journal
    Seems to me that the only way MS can combat the wide acceptance of Linux is to make it illegal to use Linux. They realize that software superiority is something they can not achieve, so the only option they have is to leverage their monopoly power, vast hordes of cash, and dirty lawyers to insure their products reign supreme, both on the shelf and bundled with new computers. They noose is beginning to tighten. They see a serious threat that refuses to go away.

  • Why not HTML? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitect ( 217483 ) <digitect&dancingpaper,com> on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @01:51AM (#8029062)

    Honestly, HTML is a decent precedent for XML. Sure the structure is less ordered, and not so clearly delineated between logical/structral and layout/presentation halves. But the idea of using containing tags to structure text has been around since at least SGML in 1986 [iso.org].

    Let's hope that this patent applies to a specific implementation of XML, such as the form:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
    <XML>
    <this>
    <blob type="patented_binary_thingy"/>
    </this>
    </XML>

    Heh.

    • Honestly, HTML is a decent precedent for XML. Sure the structure is less ordered, and not so clearly delineated between logical/structral and layout/presentation halves. But the idea of using containing tags to structure text has been around since at least SGML in 1986.

      Actually, SGML was accepted as an international standard in 1986. SGML has its origins in the 1960s, but then so does object oriented programming. GML started then and over time was modified to what became SGML which became a standard in

      • To expand on that: implementing a word processor that exports XML has probably been done years before Microsoft entered its patent claim.

        It wouldn't be hard to stretch the definition of a word processor to include HTML editors, because they usually create, open, display, markup and otherwise process text documents (what else?) and even allow you to print those documents, save them, and even send them to others digitally.

        Furthermore, any such HTML editor that uses or integrates HTML Tidy can write proper

  • yea right (Score:3, Informative)

    by McAddress ( 673660 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @02:07AM (#8029140)
    Hopefully there'll be a public outcry within New Zealand."

    call me a cynic, but considering that 90% of people use an OS that was copied from Apple, (Xerox) and that has since been granted numerous ridiculous patents on stuff they stole, I find it hard to believe that we will see a public outcry over this. the only peole yelling will be the one's yelling about M$'s monopoly, and no one had paid any attention to them yet, and that is unlikely to change in the future.

  • What NZ Patent Law States (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From what I read from the NZ Patent law, which has been taken from UK Patent Law the applicant needs to formally provide evidence that they are the first inventor, so I am not sure what chance does M$ have to make this claim

    My 2c

    [snip URL:http://www.piperpat.co.nz/patlaw/patact.html]

    Persons entitled to make application -

    (1) An application for a patent for an invention may be made by any of the following persons, that is to say:

    (a) By any person claiming to be the true and first inventor of th
  • Isn't the point of XML that its a fucking document markup language? If this patent made any god damn sense, whats to stop people from patenting marking up ANYTHING in xml? Patents are supposed to be nonobvious, and marking up documents in XML is PRETTY DAMN OBVIOUS.
  • Wasnt Microsoft recently on the recieving end of a rediculous patent decision. Something about someone having a patent on embedded objects in hypertext documents. I believe they have recieved quite a lot of support against this from their usual competitors (adobe, macromedia, ibm etc), those who cry foul when microsoft does something just like this.

    I suppose the business world is very forgetting. Or perhaps Microsoft dont intend to exercise the patent, and just want to make sure no one else gets it.

    and
    • I suppose the business world is very forgetting.

      Forgetting? If they learned anything from that whole situation, it was to make sure they hold the rediculous patents next time. It's way cheaper to file for a rediculous defensive patent than it is to defend an infringement lawsuit.
  • While Microsoft can patent this, there is no way they could possible enforce it.. Furthermore, New Zealand's population isn't very big, so will affect the open source world minimally. At the very worst Sun could just put a clause on the website, and if they get sued, they could practically just argue that MS never invented XML anyway. I think the true intention of it is to really stop the open source packages creating a unified format that they all follow, which is easily done in XML, which would be a maj
  • When they published the specs of Word documents I marveled and thought that maybe they were beginning to understand what this open IT era is all about.

    Instead, now they are going from embrace and extend to embrace and close up.

  • Kiwi law issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @07:03AM (#8030178) Homepage
    Does the Kiwi law allow for private prosecution aginst the New Zealand government? What would happen if a private prosecution aginst the patent office was clearly going to happen if they allow this patent to proceed seeing that it clearly isn't a new idea. I expect they will look at the issue much differently if they have to figure out where their budget is going to go. The Kiwi govt is small enough that they could not afford a law suit brought on by people from other countries and I'm guessing they would clearly change their tune. Of course they should punish Microsoft for outright lies in patent applications.
    • The Kiwi govt is small enough that they could not afford a law suit brought on by people from other countries

      Oh come on, its not Niue we're talking about here. What difference does it make where the people bringing on the law suit are from anyway? Court costs are court costs, they may vary according to where the court is, but they don't vary according to where the complainant is from.

      • Ok so they could afford it, but that doesn't mean they want to. They have 90 people working for them with a budget of about $4.5mil/yr. I've taken bigger clue sticks to much larger companies. The MED only has 700 people working for them. The MED's intent is clear and letting the patent office allow stupid patents is aginst their Statement of Intent.

        If the complaint is backed by an international group whos finances can not be known, then its going to be a very big risk should they lose. The result is t

  • Someone bult the wheel... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by curious.corn ( 167387 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @07:27AM (#8030293)
    ... and Microsoft is patenting the idea of rolling it... sigh! What is this with comp sci? Whatever naive, obvious and trivial mental association made in this field is considered insightful discovery! I'm a cheap ass sysadmin and everyone I know (except the real compsci dudes) venerates me for my quality expertise! WTF? Side note... this news can't be true; and if it were, it would violate the very principle of the Antitrust Lawsuit. How can something (XML) designed to enfranchise the IT world from proprietary undocumented formats be limited in it's applicability so that it can't be used for the very specific application it was developed for?
    Sigh...

  • Text of Claim1 of EU version (Score:5, Informative)

    by JPMH ( 100614 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @07:50AM (#8030401)
    It looks as though a very similar patent application has been filed in Europe, EP 1376387 [espacenet.com]. Clicking on the 'Claims' button in the top line of the page reveals:
    EP1376387.
    Word-processing document stored in a single XML file
    Applicant(s): MICROSOFT CORP (US)

    Claims:

    1. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable components, comprising:

    a first component for reading a word-processor document stored as a single XML file;
    a second component that utilizes an XSD for interpreting the word-processor document, and
    a third component for performing an action on the word-processor document.

    ... and so on down to claim 31.

    This is only a patent application, not (yet) a granted patent (in fact in the EU the patent application has only just been published, on 2 Jan this year).

    From the 'priority number' (US20020187060 20020628) it looks as though the original application was for a US patent, filed some time in 2002. So that is the cut-off date for prior art.

    The full paperwork file for the EPO patent application can also be viewed, at EPOline [epoline.org].

    • This isn't much of an issue as far as OpenOffice's format is concerned. The .xs? files are simple zips containing a half dozen or so xml files, which lay beyond the scope of this pending patent.

      On the other hand, isn't this almost what the situation was back in the good old days of HTML3 and 4?

    • Word 2000 can "round-trip"* well-formed XML - they claim it's HTML, but it's actually something HTMLish in XML (basically XHTML with the wrong namespace), plus Office and Word extensions in their own namespaces for the word-processor-ish stuff. As far as I remember, Word 2000 HTML supports a pretty large subset of the features Word 2000 .doc files do.

      (*: i.e. not just export like Word 97 did)

  • Is this even possible? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2004 @08:47AM (#8030622) Homepage Journal
    I am assuming that someone somewhere already holds a patent for the XML markup language.

    The whole point of XML as i see it is to enable information interchange easily on a wide range of software platforms, packages and over the internet. Correctly formed XML not only contains data but it should also contain markup that describes how the data is stored, allowing anyone to read/write to the XML document.

    Im guessing that the person who filed the original patent for XML would have made statements towards this effect. Would this not create a conflict between the two patents?

    In any case the audacity of Microsoft never ceases to amaze me and this outrageous current application shows that we really need more techies in the right places. They cannot be allowed to continue to abuse the system in this way, taking advantage of people who know no better.

  • Real XML or M$ XML? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Peartree ( 199737 )
    Does that include real XML formats like OpenOffice/StarOffice or the M$ XML format that Word uses?

    • OpenOffice store their documents as three XML files in a zip, whereas the patent is on the use of a single XML file. I'd say they're safe.

      What I don't understand is why Corel, ArborText, Altova, Adobe and so on, didn't complain about this one. They all had XML word processing tools before Microsoft even knew how to parse XML.

  • MS knows that OpenOffice.org and StarOffice are using XML for storing word, spreadsheet, presentation documents. I believe that the purpose of this patent is only for the marketing. Now MS can say they own a patent on XML Word Document, just like it was an innovation from MS. Therefore, it will be difficult to create an application which is able to read these documents (the format is protected) without paying some fee.

  • Remember that XML is a cut-down version of SGML, and SGML has been around for several years. That having been said, Microsoft is claiming a patent on something that has already been in use for quite some time, and in the manner that they specify. Framemaker uses its own markup language (MML), but its structure and purpose parallel that of SGML and XML.

Slashdot Top Deals

"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather

Close