[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Another Microsoft XML patent

• To: 'Alan Gutierrez' <alan-xml-dev@e...>
• Subject: RE: Another Microsoft XML patent
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:53:55 -0500
• Cc: "'M. David Peterson'" <m.david.x2x2x@g...>, Michael Kay <mike@s...>, Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>, xml-dev@l...

That's a good point.  The patent examiner should have 
access to research and commentary.  I believe precedents 
can be found for that.  OTOHIANAL.

The patent process is a service.  One of the reasons for 
the proliferation of bad patents was a change that made 
them responsible for being self-supporting.  As a self-
supporting service, they should thrive on quality as 
well as quantity.  If the use of the online resources 
makes them able to process patents faster, they can 
do better business faster and cheaper.

An ontologically associative and extensible system 
should work nicely.

len


From: Alan Gutierrez [mailto:alan-xml-dev@e...]


    It seems a pity that third parties cannot be consulted, when you
    imagine that you are the third party they would consult.
   
    To make research available to the USPTO as a passive resource
    might be something that is acceptable legally, but then wouldn't
    we be setting up a battle between PR departments, politicizing
    the patent approval process?

    Wouldn't a software monlith aruge effectively along the lines
    of:

    We spend x billion a year on research and development. How can
    you tell us that our application approval pivots on the consesus
    of a newsgroup.

• Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft Patents Serializing Objects To XML And Sending Them Over A Network
• Next by Date: RE: Microsoft Patents Serializing Objects To XML And Se nding Them Over A Network
• Previous by thread: RE: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Next by thread: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread