Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Microsoft files for XML patents, says C|Net
 And in fact, recent cases came out pretty much like that. The defendant claimed the litigant's technology was substantially different because of name changes and the judge saw right through it. The main defense against patent wars is to getchaSome and barter. Sad but so. Unfortunately, 80/20 philosophies aggravate the problem because we end up leaving so much room for "innovative and patentable approaches". So in effect, by standardizing ahead of deployment, by simplifying and then using our publicity machines to claim new and different instead of 'pretty good but improved', by leaving a lot of need to know bits unsaid to ensure the technology will be a winner, we dug a hole and climbed into it. Now it is filling with water and the tallest guy lives. len From: jcowan@r... [mailto:jcowan@r...] Bob Wyman scripsit: > 2. We must stop defining extension mechanisms to ensure that > the use of any extension clearly prevents the extender from claiming > that an extended format is an instance of the named base format. (In > this way, if someone adds proprietary extensions to XML, HTML, etc. > then we would be able to say: "It is *not* HTML. Thus, the patent > doesn't apply." This isn't going to work. As Abraham Lincoln told us, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one (and so a dog has only four legs even if you call its tail a leg). Judges aren't computers, and aren't going to be fooled by this simple-minded trick: if two things are substantially similar, a change of name won't get you out from under the scope of the patent. IANAL, TINLA. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
