[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: US Patent 6,687,897
and unibase (my database) has had a similar facility, also since the early 80's. though obviously earlier than xml,, the fact is that it can store multiple scripts in a single file, each to be run by it's own specified interpreter, etc but then the #! of the unix exec call is probably the real precursor of all these ideas, and the file system simply a place to store the scripts. if microsoft keeps this up i'll have to pay them a licence fee each year just to practice as a computer scientist/software engineer/programmer. maybe i'll go back to music...... rick On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:14, Bob Wyman wrote: > The first set of claims re: multiple scripts in a single file > would be invalidated by at least ALL-IN-1, the office automation > system that I worked on in the 80's. We held scripts in multiple > languages in the "named data" of our "form" files. The "descriptive > names" for scripts were typically their names on our menus and the > "functional description" would be the "help" texts associated with the > functions. All were held in a single file. > It is possible that the kids at Microsoft thought they were > doing something new. They weren't. ALL-IN-1 dealt with the problem of > multiple scripting languages back in the 80's since, as one of the > first "integration" products, it needed to be able to control the > operation of a very wide variety of tools, each of which had its own > command and scripting languages. The simple fact that ALL-IN-1 ran on > minicomputers, not PC's, is not relevant. (Note: Many other examples > of prior-art can be found. For instance, TECO or Emacs macro packages > that held scripts that would be run in sub-proceses. Often, these were > implemented in such a way that the scripts' "name" and help text or > "functional descriptions" were bound to the scripts...) > The claims that depend on XML should be invalidated since they > are simply substitutes of equivelants. Under the "Doctrine of > Equivalents" one can infringe a patent even when the claims are not > literally infringed. Such infringement arises when the differences > between two methods are nominal. However, the doctrine should work in > reverse. Thus, you should not be able to patent a method when prior > art exists which would be held to violate a patent on your method > under the doctrine of equivalents. To hold otherwise allows one to > patent the application of a method which has already entered into the > public domain. > This patent, like so many others, is junk. > > bob wyman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@x...] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:12 PM > To: 'XML DEV' > Subject: US Patent 6,687,897 > > > http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3312091 > > Details at > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/ > netahtml/search- > adv.htm&r=9&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=Microsoft.ASNM.&OS=AN/ > Microsoft&RS=AN/Microsoft > > " > 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). Each script is delimited by a file element and > > the script's instructions are delimited by a code element within each > > file element. Other information, such as a name of the script and a > functional description of the script may also be included in the file > > using other XML elements to delimit that information. The language in > > which a particular script is written is also included within the XML > > format. When a particular script is executed, the file is parsed to > create a list of the script names or of the functional descriptions > of > the scripts. One or more scripts are selected and the code for those > > scripts is extracted from the file and executed by the appropriate > scripting process. The scripting process that executes a particular > script is identified from the scripting extension attribute that is > included in the XML format of the file." > > At very first glance, it appears to be another case of "wrapping > common > practice in XML tags makes it patentable". Of course, there could be > > subtleties here that are more innovative than are apparent at first > glance, but needless to say it's hard to have any faith that the USPTO > > would be able to tell the difference. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> > >
|
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
|