Microsoft Receives XML Patent 441
gsfprez writes "Well, i'm no patent lawyer, but if I'm reading this right, it seems that the basics of XML are being patented by Microsoft. If not the files themselves - at least what most of us would do with XML files. From the abstract: 'Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing scripts written in one or more scripting languages in a single file.' That smacks of what my config files do on my G5 for my G5, if you read it with a biased eye." We noted this was happening earlier, and now it's finally come to pass. While the patent does sound a bit dubious, a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself.
Quick... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick... (Score:2)
ASCII or EBCDIC?
;-)
Re:Quick... (Score:3, Interesting)
Other mainframes such as Unisys use EBCDIC too. I hate to say it, but a good portion of the world's data is still on Mainframes and still in EBCDIC.
When a-z are non contiguous... shudder.
You have to admit that the idea to control lowercase and uppercase with a single bit has it's advantages. In one operation you can test both 'a' and 'A'. ASCII makes you use test on both and use addition and subtraction instead of the more computer friendly bit fl
Re:Quick... (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? What's this then?
01100001
01000001
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you think that isn't true for ASCII? In ASCII a-z and A-Z are continuous and in-order with "A" starting at 65 and "a" at 97. That's a separation of 32, which makes them differ by a single bit.
Re:Quick... (Score:3, Informative)
Eh? It does?
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:why (Score:5, Informative)
Using XML to delimit script fragments in a variety of languages may or may not be particularly original; it seems to me that this is what the patent's about, rather than (shock, horror, page impressions, revenue) the whole of XML per se.
Re:why (Score:3, Interesting)
<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/vbscript">
' my vbscript here
</script>
</head>
</html>
This has been an HTML standard for how long? USPTO scares me.
Re:The reason (Score:3, Informative)
"OpenOffice would then presumeably be unable (from the legal perspective) to read and write "Microsoft" XML files."
I think the reverse engineering clause in the DMCA would protect this sort of behavior. Mind you, I'm not trying to portray the DMCA in anything resembling a rose-colored light, but I don't *think* the example you cited would be problematic.
I've actually had the opportunity to discuss this sort of thing (or something very similar) with an attorney who's a client of my company. Basically,
Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything, I'd imagine that this was more defensive than anything else.
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I just want to say that these kinds of patents are absolutely ridiculous. I am really wondering if there is prior art regarding this sort of thing (XML specifically) that can refute Microsoft's patent claim from 2000.
Anyone have information on that?
I'm waiting for Groklaw to jump in on this one.
Sheeple are the same wherever you go (Score:4, Insightful)
We geeks like to think we are different, and for the most part we are more intelligent than the average. We just aren't all as individualistic as we might like to believe. Geeks may be more selective in the herds they choose to follow, but most geeks still choose to follow one herd or another.
Not you, of course, dear Moderator person. You're a true individual. It's those other geeks over there. Sheep, I tell you!
Re:Sheeple are the same wherever you go (Score:3, Insightful)
A perfect example - *most* people think that they're of above average intelligence.
I don't think that we, as a group, are any more intelligent (on average) than any other group of skilled professionals, be they lawyers, artists, businessmen, or what have you. We're just very good at things that we consider require a high degree of intelligence. That's not necessarily always the case, and certainly does
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that Microsoft IS t
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent renewals in the United States (Score:5, Informative)
I think that a patent can be "renewed" once
"Renewal" on patents is different from "renewal" on pre-1978 copyrights. In the United States, patents last 3.5 years after they are granted; patents whose owners pay periodic maintenance fees [uspto.gov] are renewed to 7.5 years after grant, then 11.5 years after grant, then a maximum of 20 years after filing. Foreign patents may last up to a year longer because a U.S. inventor has one year to file for a foreign patent after having filed in the United States, and other countries' 20-year terms are counted from that.
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that if they wanted to, they really could crush all new and small companies like a bug.
I can only really see 3 outcomes:
1. Software Patents become irrelevant and therefore useless (HA!)
2. The big companies keep newcomers out with lawsuits
3. They keep collecting patents but never use them, and small companies live in fear that at any stage they can be crushed.
Its so ridiculous its almost funny.
Re:There's at least one other possible outcome (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively (Score:3, Informative)
My eyes must be old.. (Score:5, Funny)
bait and switch (Score:5, Funny)
What next? (Score:3, Funny)
unimaginable consequences (Score:5, Funny)
By your definition, it sounds as though the development and innovations that would make farting possible would be impeded, since there would be prior art.
Sue this (Score:3, Funny)
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Banana</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Bananas are yellow, and research
has indicated that they are the favorite food of
monkeys.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-banana.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Orange</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Oranges grow on trees, and are the
main constituent of orange juice.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-orange.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Strawberry</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Strawberries are a popular fruit
in the Summer months.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-strawberry.JPG</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Tomato</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Tomatoes are a vital constituent
of pizzas and other convenience foods.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-tomato.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
</FRUIT>
Language (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't believe I am an idiot (open to discussion though
Re:Language (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft to Patent 1s, 0s (Score:3, Funny)
With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.
"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."
http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/humor/1n0_pate
Re:Microsoft to Patent 1s, 0s (Score:5, Informative)
Give credit where credit is due [theonion.com], coward!
From The Onion (Score:5, Informative)
Please properly credit your source. That article is from The Onion, circa 1998 [theonion.com]. The site you reference says it got the article from www.cars.com, which may be true, but it doesn't say exactly where on cars.com so the link could be followed to eventually find the real author.
And look how modest they are (Score:5, Funny)
not a patent of XML (Score:5, Informative)
the text of the
proxy
Re:not a patent of XML (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, the patent is a bit over the line, as compared to say, the light bulb or the washing machine. I mean, come on... You're putting generic stuff (code of different types) into a generic file type (XML) and then executing it. This isn't especially novel or unique, and I'm sure plenty of people (myself included) have been doing this for quite some time.
hmmmm.......Re:not a patent of XML (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't everyone else call this a virus?
-k
Oh great, a whole new way to create viruses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not a patent of XML (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's pick their abstract apart:
"Systems, methods and data structures" - yadda yadda yadda
"for encompassing scripts" - a way of storing a script program
"written in one or more scripting languages" - let's say JavaScript and VBScript
"in a single file." - Such as within an html file
"The scripts of a computer system" - as we said, JavaScript and VBScript
"are organized into a single file " - as we said, an html file
"using Extensible Language Markup (XML)." - Ok, xml instead of html - but don't forget xml and html are both specific subsets of sml. We'll continue with the html analogy
"Each script is delimited by a file element" - Give each script a unique internal name
"and the script's instructions" - The JavaScript or VBScript code
"are delimited by a code element within each file element." - The code tag goes inside the script name tag. This is similar to a <param> tag inside an <object> in html. This is a case where xml is cleaner than html, and one of many reasons the world is moving to xml. But we'll continue with the html analogy for now anyway.
"Other information" - attributes
"such as a name of the script" - in html this might be implemented as <script type="text/javascript" name="somename">. In reality, each JavaScript function has its own name, and a programmer refers to the code by the functions.
"and a functional description of the script may also be included in the file" - same as the last snipit, where you might have script type="text/javascript" description="This is a description">. Typically html programmers just put this into comments and documentation.
"using other XML elements to delimit that information." - As stated above, xml is better because of its ability to create tags. But I'm going to continue dragging the html example along.
"The language in which a particular script is written is also included within the XML format." - Similar to the type attribute in <script type="text/javascript"> or the old language attribute in <script language="javascript">
"When a particular script is executed," - When a user browses to a page with JavaScript, or runs in some other shell
"the file is parsed" - yeah, I hope so
"to create a list of the script names" - similar to function names, albeit with some encapsulation
"or of the functional descriptions of the scripts." - Its always nice to have a more human-readable version, especially if users are going to see program names.
"One or more scripts are selected" - On an html page, some JavaScript scripts may run when the page is loaded, others when a form is validated
"and the code for those scripts is extracted from the file" - read the script into memory into some blob text object
"and executed" - interpreted and run the script
"by the appropriate scripting process." JavaScript is done by a JavaScript interpreter, VBScript by a VBScript interpreter, etc.
"The scripting process that executes a particular script" - The JavaScript or VBScript interpreter
"is identified from the scripting extension attribute" - Is identified by the "type" attribute as seen in <script type="text/javascript">"
"that is included in the XML format of the file." - Yeah, this analogy uses html, and we're all slowly moving to an xml world.
In summary: We're all moving to xml for many obvious reasons, and Microsoft has patented one of them. We've all been adding multiple scripts to our html files for years, and there have been pain points. One promise of xml is to have more easily parsed data and meta-data due to the ability to define tags and the use of hierarchical tags instead of a fixed list of attributes. Every html file I've ever written falls into this classification where xml is desired, and this includes my javascript code. We've all been doing this for years within html.
What Microsoft has patented is an obvious extension of current industry practices to anyone skilled in the art, and the patent should not have been granted.
Re:not a patent of XML (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not a patent of XML (Score:5, Interesting)
(With that said, I am not a Lawyer).
Re:not a patent of XML (Score:2)
Does this mean I can get a patent for writing scripts in any new language that comes along, or will Microsoft claim that would infringe this patent? In other words, does this patent imply that Microsoft owns the idea of using any new computer language to write scripts, even before those languages are invented? If not, then how on earth can they get a patent for using this particular lan
Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)
this seems more like a patent for embedding a script within XML, which is IMHO fair enough.
Can we say Ant [apache.org] anyone? In a way, Ant is also a script, albeit it's geared towards installation. Or did I miss something?
Re:Prior Art? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not a patent of XML (Score:5, Funny)
W H A T W A S T H A T ? ? ?
Re:not a patent of XML (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting...
I didn't submit story with that headline... (Score:3, Informative)
"Microsoft Patents 'XML Scripting'"
which is 100% factually correct.
why the fsck Cowboy neal changed it to something which was NOT correct is beyond fscking me.
i specifically DIDN"T call it "Microsoft Recieves Patent on XML" or anything else that might resemble that because that is not what happened and i would look like a dumbass.
i just got home from an interview - over beers - so it took a while. And this is what i get home to?
remember this, the nex
Piano Teachers Unite! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Piano Teachers Unite! (Score:2)
You mean Db (Score:2, Flamebait)
E#, however, is F. And Fb is E. Neither of which exist.
Re:You mean Db (Score:5, Informative)
You are violating the intellectual property of J.S.Bach. His lawyers shall contact you anon.
How is your temper? [precisionstrobe.com]
KFG
Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
While the patent does sound a bit dubious, a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself.
Why bother patenting when you have 90% dominance, add your own proprietary standards, and shut everyone else out?
Yes, I realize that it's a file format, or even considered to be a database of sorts. But what good is a standard when most people use something that breaks standards? Does that majority make Microsoft a standard in itself?
Re:Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
And win, because our patent system and judges are both ridiculous.
VIM config files (Score:3, Informative)
They can be written in VIM script, perl, python, and ruby al lin one file.
What about html and php?
Did they really even read the patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of that says they're patenting XML?
Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing scripts written in one or more scripting languages in a single file. The scripts of a computer system are organized into a single file using Extensible Language Markup (XML).
To me, yes I know I'm not a patent lawyer, basically makes it look like they're patenting the process of combining n scripts into a single XML file, whereupon each individual script can still be called/ran/whatever.
Maybe so, still trivial... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe so, still trivial... (Score:5, Interesting)
I already do it! HTML is XML compliant, no? Well, in my HTML documents, I have this tendency to put these little tags, like, <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT"> (some code in *gasp* the JavaScript scripting language...) </SCRIPT>
And though I don't personally use it, I have seen
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBSCRIPT"> (some code in *gasp* the VBScript scripting language...) </SCRIPT>
Isn't that what they just described in this patent? *scratches head*
Re:Maybe so, still trivial... (Score:3, Funny)
This patent only covers putting both of your examples in the same document.
Totally different and nonobvious dude.
KFG
Re:Maybe so, still trivial... (Score:3, Funny)
Trivial, prior art back to the 60's (Score:3, Insightful)
Lisp, python, perl scripts programs would be covered by claims 1 and 2, which do not refer to XML at all. Here's a lisp script for example:
(defun foo()
"description of foo here"
(do something))
Hence Lisp seems to be prior art for claims 1 and 2. The Lisp 1 manual is dated 1963. I don't know if Lisp 1 included the documentation string, but by the 80's when I encountered Lisp the documentation string option was part of the language.
OK, claim 3: encode such a script in XML. wo
Re:Did they really even read the patent? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think they are patenting XML, but they've patented every possibly way of combining multiple scripts into a single file and allowing one or more to be extracted and executed. One of the file formats specifically described is XML.
In other words they've patented using any form of electronic data storage and retrieval mechanism (file, database, etc) for storing scripts. This is complete bullshit. You would be violating this patent by using a loopback mount for /etc/rc.d .
Quick.... (Score:4, Funny)
How big was the bribe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, this patent covers combining "scripts" (as in perl, javascript et.al) that are usually stored in separate files into a single XML file. It doesn't even have to be kosher XML: the patent
says XML "or the like".
This is the kind of patent that you could easily violate without knowing it existed: all you have to do is (1) lump together s
Re:How big was the bribe? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How big was the bribe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tuck your..... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Here we go again another attempt to modify, obfuscate and dominate!
Uh... No? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the patent itself is overly broad is up for debate. However, you can't just quote one line from the abstract and claim that the patent applies to everything in the universe that fits that one line. There is a reason for the body of the patent: to describe the specifics of the invention they are patenting.
Re:Uh... No? (Score:3, Informative)
Given XML, that's so obvious that it's already been done by several different groups, independantly. And MS is the only one that didn't think the idea was too obvious to patent.
It was also common practice. (Not best practice, as good supporting tools aren't yet widely available, but not uncommon, either.)
It also has as prior art:
1) Stored procedures in a database
2) Some FORTH dialects which don't c
Okay is this just me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay is this just me (Score:3)
Not that it should be a valid patent, but... Microsoft isn't exactly stretching the rules here. The rules are clear. And fucked.
next please? (Score:2, Funny)
* Waking up in the morning
* Brushing my teeth (or has someone already got that one?)
* The way I eat my cereal in the morning
(I've got more but I think I've got my idea across)
Hah! (Score:2)
I remember seeing Microsoft's first attempt at an XML parser, in IE5. It was so horribly broken in such trivial ways, they really have a cheek now claiming that XML is their own technology. Its like the makers of the Titanic trying to patent the steamship.
It's not for XML itself (Score:2)
Your G5 is doing this? Maybe configuration parameters like the
U.S. Law Encouraging Software Offshore (Score:2, Interesting)
...mozilla? (Score:2)
In USSR... (Score:5, Funny)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//Soviet//Russia" "Very-Strict.dtd">
<patent owner="Microsoft">
You
</patent >
Nifty Idea Nonetheless (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's what I see happening. You will have an XML file that will have 4 scripts in it that do the same thing, each ina differant language. At this point whatever actually is configured to run these files will look at a setting to decide which scripting language you prefer these things to run with, then it will perform the task at hand based on that language.
I can definately see MS's interest in this, it is along the lines of their
If nothing else it would be nifty, especially if implemented on *nix and other OS's as well. You could write a single script file to make an executable that would run any one of several internal scripts depending on which language was supported.
Anyways, could be way off with my guess, but I still think it could have some nifty uses...
someone should reconsider what a patent means... (Score:3, Interesting)
Patents are meant to be used for companies for ensure that technology they invent does not get stolen by other companies. MS didn't invent XML. If your legal system let's them patent it then it is flawed very badly.
I for one are going to ignore this patent outright. Firstly, I'm sitting in europe, safe from the madness that is US law. Secondly, I have prior art. Thirdly, in Denmark buying the most expensive lawyers doesn't make you win cases.
What's actually being patented (Score:5, Interesting)
From skimming the patent, it looks like they're patenting something vaguely like this:
<versions><version language='perl' interpreter='/usr/bin/perl'>
print("I am a banana!\n");
</version>
<version language='python' interpreter='/usr/bin/python'>
print 'I am a banana!'
</version>
</versions>
... in other words, using XML to keep several languages' versions of one script.
I don't really see the point. There are plenty of extremely portable languages, and what happens if the versions in the XML file fall out of synch? If someone edits the perl version but not the python version, you could be in trouble. Writing a non-trivial algorithm that works exactly the same in two completely different languages (if they weren't completely different, you wouldn't need to drag them both around) seems like more work than just using a portable language in the first place. I suppose it could be useful for keeping scripts across incompatible language versions -- you could have one script for $language v1 though v2.5, and one for all later versions.
Still, if I were using XML to make my code portable, I'd use Flare [sourceforge.net] or something very much like it. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think this patent is pretty weird.
... Like Javascript? (Score:5, Informative)
From the summary of the patent:
I'm seeing a conflict of interest with client-side web scripting, particularly Javascript and VBScript. Strangely enough, later on they even reference Javascript:
Looks suspiciously like <script language="Javascript"> to me.
On the other hand, there's a lot of talk about "CDATA" in the patent. From what I grok, the patent is specific about using CDATA elements to encapsulate scripting languages. The listed example makes sure to encapsulate all the executable code within <!CDATA> tags
Patent everything! (Score:3, Informative)
The best analogy I can think of appeared when carbon fiber became popular back in the 1990s and began to be used in all sorts of things. By this reasoning, someone could have patented carbon fiber for all sorts of uses: golf clubs, shovel, axe and hoe handles... the list is long. In each of those cases, no one could market such a product without paying royalties.
Whether Microsoft uses this patent for good or ill, it seems to be yet another illustration that the examiners at the USPTO are blittering idiots.
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books http://www.inklingbooks.com/
What it really is. (Score:5, Informative)
So, you want to run a script, you do tabbed completion, it gives you a list of scripts and a description of each one. You select it and it is pulled out of the XML repository and run.
Useful? I would think that metadata in the FS would be a better way to go about it, but I would love an easy way to browse the scripts on my system. New? I've never seen it before. Obvious? Probably?
On a local system, this is like being able to use winzip to execute scripts inside of the
Patenting XML? Nope, not even close.
The example should make it pretty obvious... Can't include it here, cause slashdot removes the tags.
Jason Pollock
Re:What it really is. (Score:3, Interesting)
Believe it or not, what you might think is a "trivial" example, could be a landmark issue in the coming years (considering the current state of affairs), so please post any info that you have...
Kudos to the author for making this subtle yet EXTREMELY valuable "talking point" public!
We need to stay on our toes, guys - even the smallest details are going to count significantly in the Intellectual Property realm that is the future (and the presen
Open Office? (Score:3, Interesting)
Scott
(An ignorant clueless person when it comes to what the heck XML is.)
Right!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not saying they're lying, but SCO at one time denied any plans to attack Linux... You can't trust anything these corporate weasels say unless they're under oath, and probably not even then. (growl)
Pretty generic (Score:3, Interesting)
1. In a computer system that includes one or more scripts that can be selected for execution by a user, a method for facilitating the identification and selection of the one or more scripts for execution, the method comprising the acts of:
incorporating the one or more scripts into a file, wherein the file is formatted in such a manner as to enable the one or more scripts to be associated with different scripting languages;
presenting a list of scripts to a user for selection, wherein the list includes an identifier for each of the one or more scripts, the identifier comprising a descriptive name and functional description of each corresponding script; and
upon receiving a user selection of a particular identifier that is associated with a script from the list, executing the script that is associated with the particular identifier.
How many of us here haven't written HTML pages that perform that function? Claims are supposed to be read with the broadest possible interpretation and if *any* of prior art applies anywhere within that range the claim should be rejected.
I think the problem is that examiners seem to be listed to publications whereas much of what goes on in the computer world is not published - just used. And you would have to literally be an expert in the field to understand the ramifications of claims.
This patent is not JUST for XML... (Score:4, Insightful)
"While the schema or format of the file used to encompass the scripts of a computer system is described herein in terms of XML, it is understood that other file schemas or formats, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) or the like or any combination thereof may be used as described herein. "
PS. How the fsck is this considered an "invention"
Sounds to me that this patent covers scripting in ANY markup language. I wonder if that little thing called the world wide web with all its scripting in a markup language format (javascript in a html document) would be considered prior art.
Business as Usual (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a failure of the system. The system is working fine. It's the system itself that's the problem. Software patents are like nuclear weapons. Nobody likes their existence. Everyone has to have them.
form/function (Score:3, Insightful)
Prior Art Ubiquitously. Makes my living. (Score:4, Informative)
There is no chance that this patent can stand. I make my tax euros exactly that way. I published [coverpages.org] first implementations of that mechanism around '93 (using SGML of course, there was no XML; LaTeX, Lout, roff and other scripts where mixed). I'm even doing this to implement distributed operating system [askemos.org]. I'm using that to proof intrusion resistance, incorruptibility and non-deniability.
Some looser has wasted some $ for patent fees.
Slashdot should be funded by the government. (Score:3)
The Patent office is obviously overwhelmed, underfunded, and in danger of becoming obsolete due to excessive rubber-stamping.
If you think about it, Slashdot is the most efficient and lowcost patent buster. It's an aggregator of ridiculous and clearly unenforceable patents where the issue is analyzed from every conceivable angle. The government should consider funding Slashdot for this service, as they are throwing our tax-money away by using the Patent Office who fail to provide it.
= 9J =
Re:Prior Art..? (Score:5, Informative)
I think this may be used to change the way ASP works. It will allow you to use C# and javascript in one file and depending on the system configuration, it selects the correct script to run.
Re:Prior Art..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior Art..? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are being a little too hasty in your outlook for the future. The W3C set the standard of XML, Microsoft cannot patent XML itself, it may patent some specific uses for it but there should be enough prior art to stop them from going too far.
Alternately you could get Bill G, George W and a mad Palestinian in a room to have some fun.
Re:What the Patent Is (Score:2, Funny)
wow *puts hands on face in suprise)
Re:Isn't this called HTML?????? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Source code (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A Quick Cluestick for the Clueless. (Score:5, Informative)
Usually, claims are made like so:
1) A device to clean shit.
2) A device of claim 1, which further Disinfects;
3) A device of claim 1, which further Deodorizes;
4) A device of claim 1, which both Disinfects and Deodorizes;
5) A device of claim 4, which further Polishes to a high gloss
6) A device to clean piss.
7) A device of claim 6, which further cleans vomit.
(usually limited to 20 or so claims)
So, if you make a shit cleaner, you infringe under claim 1.
If you make a disinfecting shit cleaner, you infringe under claim 2 - claim 1 wouldn't cover it alone, since it's an improvement to claim 1.
etc.
IANAL, but I have helped to write a patent application (which was accepted). I also have had the distinct displeasure of reading patents to try to find infringement.
Re:A Quick Cluestick for the Clueless. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, no. Claims may be independent, or they may be dependent. Implementation of a single independent claim is enough. Dependent claims include other claims by reference, and are more narrow in scope. The purpose of dependent claims is to give (more narrow) coverage in the broader independent claim is found to be unsustainable by the examiner or in court.
If a competitor constructs a system that implements all but one of the claims, it is not an infringement.
In this patent implementation of any of 1, 9, 19 OR 22 would be enough to trigger infringement.
Additonal claims do NOT narrow a patent's coverage. What does narrow coverage is the inclusion of various requirements in the claims themselves.
The list of claims and supporting information defines the coverage of the patent precisely.
Ever hear of the 'doctrine of equivalents'???
Re:Claims, dependent (Score:3, Informative)
Eh, inventor here. The fellow that makes his employers rich.
If an independent claim is not allowable, all claims depending on it are rejected as well; however, it is best to additionally reject each dependent claims on some other grounds tied specifically to the matter of said dependent claims.
The list of claims in the original application is basically a wish list, and when the examiner rejects you in the first go-around you just narrow the claims to get around his objections. I