Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Patenting Office XML Formats
Posted by
michael
on Sat Jan 24, 2004 05:03 AM
from the uh-oh dept.
from the uh-oh dept.
mmurphy000 writes "News(.com)+ reports that Microsoft has filed for patents in multiple jurisdictions to control the way other applications use Office's new XML-based file formats. Musings from pundits suggest that OpenOffice.org and other applications might be blocked from interoperating with Office. This, of course on the heels of today's article on Bruce Perens' concerns over patents."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Patenting Office XML Formats
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 455 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Microsoft - what a trip (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see the headlines now - "RIAA and Microsoft make double bust - RIAA found illegal MP3s and Microsoft found someone using XML output from Office".
Microsoft - "How far do you want your head up your backside today?"
Closed for openess open for business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Closed for openess open for business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Closed for openess open for business (Score:5, Informative)
No you won't. MSDN is just a developer network with documents, tutorials, articles and support.
If you know how to work with the formats, you don't need MSDN, even for this kind of "MSDN permission" you're talking about.
When you subscribe MSDN you don't receive any special MS authorization.
Australia (Score:5, Informative)
This may prove counter-productive for MS (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday January 21 2003, @12:29PM)
If by using DRM/Palladium etc. to prevent both:
- Using ripped off copies of Word
- Interoperability with Word
Suddenly a word document will be vastly less useful in the wild than it is now.
Right now I, my mother, her dog and it's accountant can all read Word docs one way or another but none of us have shelled out for Office, and we probably never will.
I actually love using basic HTML for docs, the only problem is that "a document" is actually a bunch of resources. If there was some encapsulated for (a simple zip even?
(This is where someone calls me a Bozo and tells me it already exists...)
Re:This may prove counter-productive for MS (Score:5, Interesting)
You can, however, MIME-encapsulate your document to contain the HTML and the resources in the same file, very similar to how email attachments work. That is described in RFC 2557 [ietf.org]. This is the format that Internet Explorer uses when you do Save As|Web Archive (Single File).
A perhaps even cooler way would be to use data: URLs as described in RFC 2397 [ietf.org] to include the resources inline where they are references. This is not supported by Internet Explorer however, so the general public won't be able to see your documents.
data: URLs are extremely cool. If you use Mozilla, check out this example:
(remove the spaces that slashdot adds and paste it in your address bar).
Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
People who develop using Microsoft technology (.Net) are just insane. How long will it be before parts of the
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even XML microsoft used WAS standard based. Everything they take from the standard and open architecture. The only problem is that they make a little (but significant) twist(e.g Active directory with LDAP and kerberos). So at the end of the day, its not much different than the classic proprietory craps. Now patents make it even more difficult as interoperability is effectively blocked leagally. I am not saying you shouldnt use C# or CLI . What I am saying is just because they are based on open standards *NOW* doesn't mean that they will remain to be.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
They will accept any standard, including patented IP.
Here's the General Declaration: You may be subject to any license that Microsoft wishes, and licensing fees for use of the CLI,
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://idunno.org/)
I'm sure Sun and the W3C would be interested in that claim
This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-20010709/ [w3.org]
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12/ [w3.org]
Editors:
Martin Gudgin (DevelopMentor)
Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems)
Jean-Jacques Moreau (Canon)
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (Microsoft Corp.)
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.angelfire.com/il/macroman | Last Journal: Friday March 30 2007, @07:17PM)
Hate to say I told you so, but I made the same point when Microsoft published their "open" XML spec for Office documents. I got flamed for that one.
"Open" means to Microsoft something entirely different from what most MS developers claim. "Open" means to Microsoft:
- Open to making independent developers pay royalties to Microsoft for code they (the independent developers) wrote.
- Open to tacking on additional terms and conditions to which the users must agree, or forfeit their investment.
- Open for use as a tool to combat this so-called "open source" movement.
Okay, I know this is going to sound like flamebait, but when will Microsoft developers ever learn?I understand if you have to make a living. Granted, we've all done dirty work at one time or another. But there's a big difference between someone who write MS programs simply because their users run Windows and those who support what they're doing. If Microsoft had its way, it would be illegal to write code for any platform without their explicit approval. This patenting of XML formats is merely an indication of much more insidious intent. Yes, Microsoft would put all developers out of business had they the resources to do so. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind to the last 10 years of the company's history.
Okay, flame away.
Yet Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet Again (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 10 2004, @03:34AM)
You cannot generally make an open standard proprietary, what MS is good at is "damage and dillition" of an open standard. The enhancements, bugs, and misfeatures contained in MS implementations of open technolgies tend to become de facto extensions to the standard.
Examples:
- PPP
- HTML
- mpeg4
- SMB
- SIP
- Kerberos
- DNS
- ecmascript
They have varying degrees of success with this tactic, and to be fair most vendors do the same thing - but because of the market pentration that MS enjoys they are more successful at it than most. Proprietary lock in and vendor bashing is bad enough, once patents are added to the mess MS becomes truly evil in this area.Re:Yet Again (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 10 2004, @03:34AM)
That is why I state that there are different was in which MS extends open standards.
enhancements. If MS offers an easier way to pop open a window in ecmascript and documents it at msdn then lots of people will use it. No one is forcing those developers to use the MS extension, but users of the products of those developers and the developers of implementations that need to interoperate are dragged along for the ride.
bugs. If protocol x has a configuration negotiation sub-protocol and the MS implementation has a bug in its state transitions then all vendors must support work arounds for the MS implementation to avoid being seen as broken themselves.
misfeatures. MS often adds features that are not properly thought out and change the operation of a protocol in such a way as to create some pretty hairy corner cases. Vendors who do not want to be viewed as broken must deal with these cases - even if they do not support the extension themselves.
It is not simply a case of being better than MS, compatibility requirements with MS sneak into all sorts of things - sometimes as a technical requirement, sometimes as a business decision, and sometimes as the payoff to a bit of MS quid pro quo. Often the sheer size of MS removes the choice on whether or not to be compatible with them, especially in consumer software but more and more in enterprise software.
They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday November 01 2004, @04:55AM)
It also destroys what was the entire rationale for XML, doesn't it? What's the point of a convenient medium through which information may be exchanged if everybody starts patenting their DTD's?
Brace yourself for the next version of DOM/SAX/XPath that not only checks to see if the document is well-formed and/or valid, but that also constrains your access to that document based on some new kind of hybrid between DRM and XML Schema.
It's shit like this that makes me want to get out of computers and get into chemistry.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday February 16 2004, @03:55PM)
A patented, closed, proprietary file format can't hurt anyone if no one is using it. Use proper W3C XML or OOo filetypes, and sooner or later this may all go away.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Informative)
way and the business world is forced to upgrade to Office 2003, you may not have much choice in the matter when you get sent a word document in XML format.
At the moment I don't think there's much chance of that as Office reached the "good enough" point at Office 97. The point of course is that often you don't have a choice in what software you're forced to run.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/mobilesudoku)
If only more people had the balls to stand up to the so-called "office standards"...
Bob
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://beamon.ca/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 15 2004, @09:55AM)
That isn't going to work nearly as well as:
"Our office is standardized on Office 97, and with 200 seats, the cost to 'upgrade' to Office 2003 is beyond our capacity. Please resend the file in a backwards compatible manner."
That will get their computing department to ensure people save their files in a compatible format, as most businesses *are* going to stick to Office 2000 or Office 97. They've probably had that message sent to them dozens of times before you give it to them, so they're going to listen to it.
A one-off "it's not open source" message wouldn't get my suppliers, for example, to stop sending me their pricesheets in Excel files.
This is the same as using corel draw for your graphics. It might not be the graphics industry standard, but all the companies I've dealt with (From the National [yellowpages.ca] and Regional [phoneguide.ca] Phone Books to Local Newspapers [therecord.com], all the way down to the local Ad-Rag [kitchenerpennysaver.com]) will explain, in detail, how you can save corel draw files in a manner they will accept. They specifically mention corel draw because it *is* popular enough that not supporting it means lost business (despite popular belief by stupid hoity-toity graphics folks at the local learning centers). However, I'd not expect a document on how to save a compatible Xfig file...
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of which... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.vems.co.nz/)
Use proper W3C XML or OOo filetypes...
Didn't OOo do this kind of thing first with their XML filetypes? MS filed this in June 2002 in NZ, so surely OpenOffice.org has precent for a "Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML" maybe sans the "single file" part, which would have to be an obvious follow on?
BTW, more info is on the NZ Open Source Software portal [nzoss.org.nz].
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://konspire.sourceforge.net/)
Especially now that AbiWord can read OpenOffice documents, and as anyone who dual-boots (or runs a mixed-OS network knows), OpenOffice is the easiest way to edit the same documents on different OS's.
Microsoft Office is falling behind. It's pretty pathethic to see it at work, not able to open any SXW documents. What, you need to install a second word-processor just to hold its hand and convert documents?
Plus, as anyone working on important documents knows, what happens when your hard-disk, printer, or motherboard fails. "Sorry, you are not authorised to install MS-Office on a second computer" it will tell you, as you try to print your dissertation late at night on a borrowed computer... having a CD you can install anywhere without worry certainly has its advantages.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 17 2004, @05:03PM)
All this is well and good, but SXW documents probably make up a fraction of a percent of the documents out there, and being interchangeable with AbiWord isn't going to change that very quickly. Get real, please. I'd like to Microsoft Office squashed as much as the next person, but it's going to require features and performance, rather than file format wars, to do it.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Informative)
Sam Hiser, who handles marketing for OpenOffice.org, doubted the application would go far given the wide array of precedents for applications sharing XML data.
"I think it's going to be a non-issue, legally. I just don't think the patent will be accepted," he said. "This is Microsoft doing its aggressive best to protect its interests."
2) from reading the application:
I don't even understand what is the claimed invention (perhaps I'm just stupid in the morning), what is novel, original and non obvious.
And they keep repeating time and time again that all is in 1 file. So just use 2 and you are safe... (IANAPL, of course)
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA: It's not the US patent office but Europe and NZ.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Informative)
The European Patent Office has granted something like 30,000 software patents over the last 20 years.
But that has been done, without legislative approval, by the EPO re-interpreting the rules to mean diametrically opposite to what was originally intended.
It's applications like this one from Microsoft which make the current legislative battle in the European system, which will finally write the official law on this, so vitally important to win.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 31 2004, @05:25PM)
1) In the real world, you can file for a patent on literally anything, and it will often be granted no matter how ludicrous. With patents on one-click shopping, patents on putting a small trackball on top of a mouse, and patents on swinging sideways on a swing (I kid you not), Microsoft will have no problem winning a patent on XML data from Office.
2) Once they have been granted the patent, good luck fighting it in court. No matter how silly the patent actually is, and no matter how much prior examples there are of applications sharing data with XML, I think you'll have a hard time fighting off Microsoft unless you have exceedingly deep pockets.
This is wrong on so many levels... They are effectively forbidding you to manipulate your own data! Office documents are not like the Office application. Hell, they are not even like 'rented' data which you have licenced (as the MPAA would claim is the case with DVDs). Microsoft owns Office, but I own the documents I produce, and I reserve the right to do whatever I want with the data in them!
It has always been difficult to read such data into applications other than the one used for authoring. This has so far always been a technical issue (and one associated with many products, not just Microsoft's). Now, Microsoft will effectively make it illegal to use non-Microsoft tools to interpret the data. For me, this is another important point to take to management, if and when they will consider alternative products.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.curlypi.com/)
I was thinking of filing a patent for scratching my arse using a computer, but then I remembered I'm not American and have better things to do with six thousand quid.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday November 01 2004, @04:55AM)
The simple example is patenting the text file. You would say that no, they aren't actually patenting the format, but that's essentially meaningless if they patent the technique of reading the file sequentially from beginning to end one byte at a time.
I never said they were trying to patent XML. What I did say was that they were trying to patent the data expressed by XML (or at least that was my intent.) To me, an application of XML is just as much a file format as is, say, saving the data in flat binary, or as text, etc.
Re:They can patent file formats now? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://iki.fi/jni/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 27 2003, @05:14AM)
Did you not know that many jurisdictions allow software patents? They include things like methods for displaying data to users, methods for compressing data etc. Why would it not include methods for storing data?
Of course talking of methods (software) for an apparatus (normal computer) might sound confusing but that's software patents for you. People who talk about "obvious" patents being the primary problem with software patents are on completely wrong tracks. The patenting of software itself is the fundamental problem.
Software patents will always give an option to make it illegal for others to be interoperable with your software. If you don't agree with this principle, then you can't agree with the idea of software patenting either. Some people might be confused by copyright (an entirely different branch of legislation) that allows reverse-engineering and interoperability but with patents, that's not the case. Indeed, patents can effectively destroy your copyright the software you have written because after you realize that it is covered by a patent granted to someone else, you won't have the power to license it under your own terms (and whether it is a closed or open licensing, is irrelevant).
For EU citizens, I recommend that you join the fight [ffii.org] against software patents. For people in different jurisdictions, I recommend taking a serious political stand against all software patents regardless of how ridiculous or serious they sound.
Yawn (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ccimackay.com/~dgriffith | Last Journal: Tuesday May 31 2005, @01:29AM)
ok, so it was last week, but still, jeez.
Europe fight this thing united! (Score:5, Informative)
Double-edged sword (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday May 01 2004, @04:37AM)
Typical scene that is not unheard of today:
"I've sent you a Word document"
"Why not install OOorg and use that instead?"
"What's that?"
"It's like Office but free and doesn't crash."
1 hour later...
"Hey, here's your document, and thanks for the tip!"
Point is that it's much easier to switch someone from paying to free software, and almost impossible to do the reverse. I (as a long-time OOorg user) will spend considerably more effort convincing someone to use the application than any MSOffice user will spend to get me to change back.
This wouldn't bother me so much (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 10 2004, @11:39PM)
Re:This wouldn't bother me so much (Score:4, Insightful)
Most large companies have portfolios of patents that they have no intention of enforcing, unless pushed into doing so (eg someone sues them for infringing on one of their patents, etc).
Now, I'm not saying that MS definitely won't charge a fee for using this, I'm just pointing out that it's a little early to be saying that they definitely will, too. Let's just all wait until the licencing scheme is announced before screaming at them, shall we?
We planned to make use of the XML from Word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We planned to make use of the XML from Word... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @04:03AM)
It's worked pretty well for Microsoft in the form of maintaining a monopoly for two decades now.
What Microsoft does is *exactly* what the free market is designed to avoid -- the consumer *isn't* benefiting, and things are stagnating.
Re:We planned to make use of the XML from Word... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.krose.org/~krose/)
If the consumer really weren't benefitting, then they'd seek out alternatives: they do exist, as I'm sure you know. I've been using one for 9-1/2 years: Linux and associated alternative applications.
Despite the fact that I dislike Microsoft's tactics, it's hard to dispute that their dominance of the market has encouraged adoption of computing by the masses by making computers more useful through easy interoperation: people want to know that what they buy can operate well with others' equipment, so any barrier to this is a barrier to adoption of computing in general. Most of the geeks here (myself included) couldn't care less about how easy or hard it is to get Office data into a Linux spreadsheet, but we are a tiny, tiny minority of all people using computers.
Of course, standards would get us to Nirvana just as market dominance by MS is and allow the tiny minority of us who use something other than Windows to make full use of our computing power under our chosen environments; but there's hardly an economic or public benefit argument to be made for having the guv'mint do our dirty work and go after MS just because they don't make the lives of (generously) 5% of computer users easier.
The only convincing argument IMO for getting the government involved is to ensure that We the Taxpayers aren't getting screwed out of our money by MS: from this perspective, the government doesn't need to pursue litigation, but only needs to state that they will purchase only software that stores and transmits data in royalty-free formats so alternative vendors can be used effectively in price negotiations. At this point, MS would be required to patent-unencumber their file formats in order to get their software into federal offices, and thus into the offices of federal contractors, and from there into subcontractors, etc. I don't see this option being pursued. Why? It seems like it would get MS to play ball a lot more quickly than decades-long litigation.
Re:This might not be SO bad (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ccimackay.com/~dgriffith | Last Journal: Tuesday May 31 2005, @01:29AM)
So, someone makes a change to an existing OSS filter, MS can say, "Hey! You used the details of our patent to further your work, pay up or we'll....(insert crushing legal threat here)"
Which means it's going to be much,much harder to get an OSS filter for the next version(s) of MS Office, as you'll have to be pretty strict with the reverse-engineering to ensure you don't wind up in the courts defending your work against a bunch of attack lawyers from a billion-dollar company.
Forgot about embrace and extend (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://dsv.su.se/~oscar-ja/)
I would have agreed, if after broadly adopted he would have said "they stop playing according to the standard and thereby break compatibility with other software". If you're an analyst on Microsoft, you should know what embrace and extend is, and I think he should have mentioned it here. That is, unless he's partial to Microsoft, which the company claims it isn't [directions...rosoft.com].
Now all we need... (Score:5, Funny)
Cross platform? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line is, if you want to avoid a lock-in a.k.a. pay to view your own documents if you decide to stop using M$ Software, don't start using the 'new' M$Office in the first place.
my 2 cents
What does this mean for WinFS (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.schmerg.com/)
The PDC bloggers and MS internal staff are writing extensively [anopinion.net] about WinFS - especially Mike Deem [anopinion.net].
One of the concerns people have with WinFS is "but then any other program could fiddle around with the individual records of what I store, how do I hide stuff or stop them making my 'files' inconsistent by screwing up or deleting individual records" - and if MS want to patent some aspect of their getting Office ready for this, does it mean we're all supposed to patent our XML before we stick into WinFS ??
WinFS, Oh you mean Cario's Object File System (Score:5, Informative)
(http://itheresies.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 28 2004, @12:06AM)
September 1, 2003 Eweek 'Longhorn' Rollout Slips [eweek.com]
could this be a good thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also would it be possible for me to "make" a file reader/convert for my own private use?
absolutely no surprise at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
not that anyone for a moment should have suspected these douchebags would.
they're just speeding up the inevitable, making even more clear why software patents suck ass, and why it's urgent for everyone to reject proprietary technologies NOW. RIGHT NOW. the sooner you do it, the sooner the pain will be over, and the sooner you can start reaping the rewards.
Reminds me of SCO... (Score:5, Funny)
Monopoly abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is MS technology should not be used in any way, and we should not belive a bought department of justice will do something about it.
This may sound paranoid but is unfortunatly true. Once you are stuck with MS products they may change the license for new versions as they see fit. If it were not for Linux, Windows would be really expensive today.
Back in the day... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.iluke.net/)
??? = Patent the format. (Score:3, Funny)
1. Base your new Office suite on an established format.
2. Modify the standard.
3. ???
4. Profit.
MS have finally filled in the ???
For those who don't like to RTFA - Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite those moves toward openness, the patents could create a barrier to competing software, said Rob Helm, an analyst for research firm Directions on Microsoft.
"This is a direct challenge to software vendors who want to interoperate with Word through XML," he said. "For example, if Corel wanted to improve WordPerfect's support of Word by adopting its XML format...for import/export, they'd probably have to license this patent.""
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS. THE REAL MOTIVATION FOR THE PATENTS = ATTEMPT AT CREATING A ROYALTY INCOME STREAM. YOU WILL SEE MORE OF THIS AS MICROSOFT TRYS TO PROP UP ITS FAILING PROFIT MARGINS.
Do like GIMP did... (Score:5, Interesting)
OOo could offer something similar if the patented XML format became as popular as the
Oh Crap (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.twinhelix.com/)
However, I'm a New Zealander, and I'd love to actually try and shoot down this at the NZ patent office based on the wonderful prior art that is OpenOffice.org. However, I saw these two "claims" in the patent:
The rest of the patented method applies to OOo, as OOo provides schemas and writes out a well-formed XML document etc. etc. etc. However, I'm not sure if OOo provides "hints" in the files (anyone care to comment what MS is on about there?).
The kicker is claim [0009]. If you save a
IANAL, but this appears to mean that this patent is "sufficiently original" (haha) that it can probably slip past the rubber-stamp-brigade at the patent office as OOo won't be citeable as prior art. Apparently the NZ patent office is sufficiently stupid that they recognise the "one-click" patent, so I don't hold high hopes for this one.
So, has anyone heard of a word processor that has an XML file format that contains all its binary data? If so, post links under this thread
P.S. And NewtonsLaw, if you're reading this, I hope to see a plan of action on Aardvark [aardvark.co.nz] tomorrow
Re:Oh Crap (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.edgeio.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 09 2005, @10:42AM)
Note that binary data embedded in the XML was explicitly REJECTED by OpenOffice.org [openoffice.org].
I don't know when the discussion first surfaced, but I'm pretty sure encoding binary data within the XML file in base64 and similar formats was being discussed on the Open Office mailing list well in advance of Microsoft adding it to their file formats. If that is the case, then the only problem would be if Microsoft have used an encoding that could be protected.
Patent license for Microsoft XML already exists (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.gnutelephony.org/)
Some may recall, for example, this past article on this topic here [slashdot.org], or the specific license terms offered here [microsoft.com], the key points of which are specifically GPL incompatible.
When national governments choose to build and distribute information, such as the Danish national government has, on patent license encumbered document formats, whether or not royalty bearing, possessing field of use scope, disclaiming of certain legal rights such as to bring suit, or other specific restrictions, or even composed of terms permitting unlimited modifications to the license by the license holder, as this one also does, such governments are creating restricted markets in the public's own goods. This is of course fundimentally improper and certainly is also illegal restraint of trade in the European Union.
There are many implications in having patent encumbered XML schemas, all of them negative for the schema so encumbered. I had long ago considered this specific possibility and considered what actions I would find nessisary to take when that day arrived. One option I think might be useful is for those in Europe to file a brief with Mario's office (European Competition Minister), and note how this issue relates to their current anti-trust case.
Patents.... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Ford, which is considered the model on how to build cars and do processes HAD to get around patents so that he could build a car that EVERYONE can afford.
2) Windsurfer which invented the windsurfing board had a patent, which they only enforced two years before the end of the patent. Until five years before the end of the patent there was no Wind surfing industry. Windsurfer then cashed in and forced bankruptcy of major windsurfers. Where is Windsurfer today? Sitting on money doing nothing.
3) Laser had a patent which caused nobody to do anything with lasers. Once the patent expired we ended up with laser pointers, last light shows, etc, etc..
4) Patents CANNOT be bought and defended by "small" people. Patents cost about 40,000 EUROS a pop and this is not money for the "small" company. This is money for the large company.
Now about your reference to MS and Internet Explorer. Say what you will, but Netscape was no better than Microsoft. I was around in the Netscape days and they were bastards. Once I represented a company who wanted to purchase five thousand licenses to Netscape. Netscape ignored the company because it was too small and companies like Deutsche Telekom were more important.
Microsoft might clone ideas, just like all of the other companies do as well in the industry. The software industry is like writing, we all clone!
The problem in software are the contracts. For example why do I have to buy Windows 5 times for a single computer?
Sir, I would have wished that you would have used your lawyer abilities to reign in the contracts instead of going for the easy cash in Patents. Remember you are going to be responsible for a mess that *I* have to live in.
MSFT getting more into IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone else see the patents as an excuse to charge companies that develop Office/XML solutions for corporates additional licensing fees with this patent?
Ghandi's theory of non-violence (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Doing the right thing, and suffering the consequences.
It could be interesting if the entire world violated software patents just like its violating copyrights - but also willingly suffer the consequences/punishment. According to Ghandi this is the most effective way to fight the illegitmacy. By willing to suffer the consequences, you are effectively making your opponent's sword worthless.
Will patents prevent reading MS format files? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://billposer.org/)
As I underestand it, if MS patents their file formats, that will prevent anyone without a license from generating files in MS Office formats, but it will not prevent people from displaying them or converting the information into other formats. That's because such patents are for methods of "storing" information. I know this seems pedantic, but law is pedantic, and I'm thinking of the precedent of LZW compression. Without a license, you couldn't generate GIF images but you could display them and convert them. So, although I'm distrustful of Microsoft (and don't use their products), and opposed to software patents, perhaps these patents aren't as dangerous as they seem. Any lawyers know for sure?
abiword is prior art against this patent (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 07 2006, @07:46PM)
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use xml as a document processors file format given that abiword already does this.
I believe that abiword could be used as a flat out 102 rejection saying that any xml file format would be obvious. Also given that fact that XHTML is the current HTML standing and waiting spec.
Does anyone know how to contact the patent examiner on this? I'm looking at uspto.gov, but not sure how to tell them how obvious this is.
When I was there I rejected a patent filed by Microsoft for their font data structure as I believe that it is just a data structure and there was nothing unobvious about how you lay out the font data. Especially given the fact that they gave me their old font data structure. In my opinion this is no different. Its just XML!