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
 At 5:31 PM -0500 1/24/04, Bob Wyman wrote: >Rex Brooks wrote: >> these patent applications (conducted in Europe and New >> Zealand) apply only to MS Office's (Word's) handling of XML > The only way you could read this application as being >limited to MS Office is if you buy into the argument that >Word is the only word-processor left. The claims don't speak >of "Word" they speak of "word-processing" files. Thus, if >Open Office, Apple, or anyone else wanted to have a word- >processor with an XML file format defined in XSD, then they >would violate the sought-for patent even if their XSD was >completely different from the one used by Word. And, what >will happen once these vaguely defined "word-processor" files >start flowing through mail systems or get inserted into Atom >entries... We're going to find it very easy to stumble over >this patent in hundreds of different domains -- not just >Word. If word processor is not MS Word-specific, I stand corrected. I would not claim to be an expert. I was reading word-processor as Word-specific. If that is indeed the case, I withdraw my opinion. I'm actually more concerned with XSD than XML, so it is more important, and, if it is not Word-specific, I agree that it must be stopped. I hope this gets some traction, and gets clarified soon, not that I doubt you, but I would like to see many expert opinions on this. Thanks, Rex > > I don't necessarily see any great reason to get in a swivet >> about it. > There are many reasons why a "swivet" is totally >appropriate here. First, the specific domain of word- >processing based on files whose schema is defined in XSD >would become Microsoft proprietary space if this patent >issues. Given the move to XML that we're seeing (and >hopefully encouraging) and given the move to using schemas >(which should also be encouraged...), this is a very serious >land-grab that could block many, many innovations in the >future. Of course, it could also signify the death of XSD. If >Microsoft patents the use of XSD in such a broad domain, it >might just force us all to move to RelaxNG or ASN.1 for >defining XML schemas instead. XSD would then become, for all >intents and purposes, a Microsoft *proprietary* schema >language and the rest of us would use other schema languages >or work without one. (Note: I realize that there are many >would would consider such a move to be a "good thing." >However, we should do it because we think it is the >technically correct thing to do, not just because we're >avoiding a patent...) Of course, if, as threatened in an >earlier message, *I* patent "word-processing" with XML and >RelaxNG, then you'll all be forced to use ASN.1 since it is >the only patent-free alternative with established prior- >art! :-) (Note: The ASN.1 vendors watching this thread just >decided to raise their prices since demand will soon >increase...) > >>ensure that XML doesn't become a de facto MS property. > The issue in the application isn't the use of XML. It is >the use of XML *with* XSD. Thus, it is "XML with XSD" that is >at risk of becoming Microsoft proprietary -- not XML itself. > > General note: Please understand that nothing in this >message should, in any way, be read as "anti-Microsoft." I >would have the same comments no matter who had filed this >patent application and my comments should apply to the many >hundreds of other patents and application that have claims >that mention HTML, XHTML, XML, etc. If someone other than >Microsoft had filed this patent, I would do anything I could >to help Microsoft defeat this patent if they asked for help >(but they wouldn't...). The issue here is that this is an >application for a patent based on substitution of >equivelants. i.e. XSD rather than ASN.1 or something else. It >is critical that this type of patent not be granted since it >poses a significant threat to the entire community of XML >users. By permitting this type of substitution, the principle >of "prior art" is basically discarded since a claim's >dependency on a substitute will be used to exclude *any* >prior art -- no matter how old, how obvious, or how well >known. "Yes, it's been done before, however, it's never been >done with XSD... Thus, it is patentable." This is wrong and >must stop. > > bob wyman -- Rex Brooks GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com Email: rexb@s... Tel: 510-849-2309 Fax: By Request 
|
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
|
|||||||||
