MS Files for Broad XML/Word-processing Patent in NZ

Unloaded writes "In the New Zealand Herald, Adam Gifford has written an article blasting Microsoft for burying the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office in paperwork. One example is Patent 525484, accepted by the office and now open for objections until the end of May, which says Microsoft invented and owns the process whereby a word-processing document stored in a single XML file may be manipulated by applications that understand XML."

MS Patents - A business strategy

[wcdw]

Sadly, they *are* likely to have at least some of their patents accepted, even if the more absurd ones wind up on /.'s front page.

And eventually they'll find a way to sue some company or another over one or more of them. If that company settles, rather than attempts to challenge the patent (which can be considerably more expensive), voila! - a profit center.

It's absurd that the only 'ideas' we're allowed to use in programming are those that either haven't already been thought of (and then it would be wise to get your own patent, or at least document prior art) or those that existed before the birth of the hideous cancer known as software patents.

But hey -- I feel so much safer, I guess it's *worth* losing all my rights, eh?

What defines a "word processing document"

[mrchaotica]

If the patent is for processing word processing XML files, how do they define that? Is XHTML word processing document? What about Docbook?

And how is it that word processing XML in particular is innovative and worthy of a patent? Isn't it fundamentally the same as processing any other XML?

Should be treated as fraud

[anth]

I think a lot of the problems with patents would go away if applying for a patent for something that the applicant knew had been done before, or should have known was obvious to someone in that field, was treated as fraud. That is a fine, or maybe even jail time for that applicant and senior management at that company.

I know, its not going to happen. Even if it did software patents would still be wrong.

Interesting

[Planky]

I find this interesting.

It would seem MS is getting patents like these in a delevoped country that has no strong competitors - nor a very strong head when it comes to things IT. This way, the patents will be in place before anything is noticed and the damage has been done.

Mind you, they are getting vague patents overseas (read America) such as this.

I'd be very interested in finding out who, if any, would object to patents such as these here in NZ.

Re:Why the fight?

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Well they did invent XML so I dont see what the problem is?

In a cute sort of twist, they 'invented' xml so that they could produce documents in excel, word etc... that were compatible with other platforms yet did not open their own file format. I guess they thought that being giving was fine when they didn't believe anyone could receive.

Re:Oh, great.

[matria]

Microsoft is a monopoly. It is illegal for such entities to engage in anti-competative activities that would be legal for smaller, non-monopoly entities. Microsoft has been convicted of violation of these laws, but nothing has ever been done to actually make it stop.

Re:idiotic patent approval == globalisation???

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps someone can explain to me how New Zealand's patent office approving dubious patent applications equals the US using globalisation to push their IP agenda?

It's pretty straightforward: we've seen what happens when the "U.S." (meaning large American corporations *coff*MS*coff*) decides that foreign legislation is an impediment to its business interests.

Are you a South American or Indian government looking to mandate the use of Free/open software? You can expect a visit from Microsoft-ites bearing gifts and whispering about possible unfortunate repercussions of the ill-advised decision you are about not to make. Are you a European government looking to halt or slow the adoption of U.S.-style patent laws that will surely prove inimical to your domestic software industry? You, too, can expect a visit from suited "industry representatives" suggesting that branch offices in your country are not immune to budgetary cutbacks and reallocations.

If pressure isn't being applied somewhere to get an absurd patent like this accepted (the phrase "trial balloon" comes to mind) then of course the blame lies with a patent-system gone berserk... given past performances of the parties in question however, this seems unlikely.

Sliding scale for patent filing

[jonbrewer]

Perhaps patent offices should implement a sliding scale for filing fees?

Instead of offering volume discounts, make each tier of filing (10, 100, 1000 p.a.) progressively more expensive. Say $75 USD each for the first ten applications, $750 USD each for 11-100, $7500 each for 1000+.

This would prevent overburdening of patent offices (they would have greater resources to cope) without discouraging individuals or small organizations. Can't see who it would harm, and it would certainly prevent abuse except by those with infinite resources.

Opposition

[zxombie]

The NZOSS [nzoss.org.nz] is opposing this patent as pointed out here [nzoss.org.nz]

Re:Oh, great.

[ecotax]

Call me ignorant, but why would any company NOT want to stop competition?

In an ideal capitalist world (how's that for a contradictio in terminis) companies would only compete 'fairly', that is, on the value of the goods they provide, thus creating the greatest customer value possible.

If my company saw a(n) (legal) opportunity to stop or hinder the competition, we'd grab it with both hands and do whatever we could to exploit that opportunity.

Which is a nice example on why there is no such thing as an ideal capitalist system. Under a communist system, you (and most other people) would try to get away with working as little as possible.

I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I'm getting a bit tired of the whole "it's Microsoft so it must be evil" mindset.

It does indeed get tiring sometimes. But it can be frustrating to see Microsoft bullying around companies or organizations making products or technologies you'd like to see having a fairer chance on the market, instead of competing with them 'fairly' against them.

Patenting defensively

[Anonymous Coward]

If M$ want to promise the 'rest of the world' that this is a defensive patent, they should do something like promise (in a legally binding way) that anyone has a royalty-free license to this patent at any time where they are not in patent litigation with Microsoft.

Until that's done, a patent like this is 'intimidation' against those of us who just want to practise our trade as mathematicians and programmers. 'intimidation' gets you a bad name and gets resisted.

Re:Oh, great.

[mrchaotica]

Remember how the US pushed free-trade laws, forcing Australia to honor US patents? Well, those laws work in the opposite direction too, and I'm sure we're going after New Zealand next...

Re:Would this cover XForms?

[mrchaotica]

Well, then I suppose it hinges on whether an XForms document is a "word processor" document (and whether the entire patent is bullshit, of course, but that goes without saying).

Re:Oh, great.

[WoodieR]

it's XML, therefore it is an open standard is it not, and therefore can not controlled by M$ or any other entity except the standards setting body ? Or did I miss something here ? And therefore presumably NZ (or other) Patent Office can not in reality, or good conscience for that matter, grant any such patents, despite M$ efforts to create such FUD and misperception in the eyes of the public ? This is clearly their latest embrace and bastardise project ...

WPO - World Patent Organization

[mrdlcastle]

Is it just me, or should we have an international body that handles all patents? That way when a patent is submitted it applies to all the countries involved and we won't have people like M$ patenting things in other countries just because they know they can't get it passed here.

Re:The point of XML

[zbaron]

and in Australia too. Link [ipaustralia.gov.au]

Re:salmacis

[fshalor]

Pattents should go through some sort of peer review process. (I'm not going to argue the details, as IANAL.) But something like what publishing takes in the scientific journal world.

It can't be expected for the pattent jockies to be able to tell what's crap or now. Heck, we can't tell in a lot of markets since we may not know anything about them.

They either have to start a peer revierw, or pay for experts.

Peer review, blind, is a very elagant solution.

WTO?

[nurb432]

So, would this fall under the 'least common denominator' concept of the WTO?

"see, we hold a patent over there, so you must honor it over here"

Re:salmacis

[DannyO152]

Well, Microsoft's Counsel Brad Smith's prescription for repair is summed up as follows:

• Less infringement suits [against Microsoft],
• Other countries should harmonize their laws with the US, and
• The US government should charge less to small companies and individuals for their patent filings while the patent office collects fewer fees for increased work.

And these fix the problems, how?

But, reasoning from your point of view that this is the game and taking into consideration those who say that Microsoft's patents are all defensive, does Microsoft really need the ISNOT patent and the NZ xml patent in order to protect the good works that they do? When criticizing the nuclear arms race, opponents broached the question of just how many times does one need to be able to destroy civilization before someone starts thinking twice about lobbing an ICBM your way? Was Microsoft really being pushed around because they didn't have enough patents, i.e., they had no effective deterrent? Another point: here in the US, success-leeching litigation is brought by people who don't have products and thus aren't vulnerable to patent counter claims; in light of that, how good a defense strategy is "patent anything", any way? Meanwhile, as I observe the widespread acceptance and worship of the great American philosopher (Vince Lombardi) who writes in the The Art of Football: the best defense is a good offense, someone like me is suspicious of someone else who stockpiles item after item after item, defensively.

But you're really missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is NOT the case that MS is playing both good guy and bad guy and that you need to apologise for them.

MS is trying to change the patent system to their advantage, not FIX the patent system. See a previous /. link to what MS wants to do with patents.

They want the patent office to be better funded to handle the onslaught of trivial patent applications they keep shovelling out.

They also want to better defend themselves againt submarine patents that cost them a lot of money to defend against.

Their goals have nothing to do with fixing the patent system, e.g., by disallowing all software patents, or by tightening the rules so that only software as part of a true original invention that is part of a technical application is allowable.

Re:salmacis

[truthsearch]

When the rules are there, you play by them. That's just what Microsoft is doing.

In the US the rules state that you will not be granted a patent if there is prior art or if the invention is obvious. The USPTO is not properly enforcing the rules, but the law still stands. Microsoft is taking advantage of the fact that the rules aren't being enforced. Even though they would lose many court cases over these patents they apply for them anyway, knowing that they will almost never be overturned because smaller players can't afford the fight. That's not playing by the rules, that's circumventing them.

You can drive on the wrong side of the road when a cop's not around. That doesn't make it right.