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

Re: Another Microsoft XML patent

• To: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Subject: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>
• Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:42:30 -0700
• Cc: "M. David Peterson" <m.david.x2x2x@g...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c05060520384f51f92a@m...>
• References: <F00F0521BE28134DA357DC1DF7475B9901AAA889@t...> <42A1D07F.5030002@o...> <42A28844.9080100@j...> <f8da4eba05060422484202ae08@m...> <e3a5cb2c05060520384f51f92a@m...>
• Reply-to: lists@j...
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

> If the patent in question is indeed bogus,
> look to the USPTO's incompetence, not some evil plotting, for the
> source of the problem.

Yes, that is what I am looking at. There can be no other possible 
answer. Apparently they look in cookbooks and old sock piles for prior 
art on software patents. Maybe someone should nudge them and point 
toward Google.

Step 1: Take the title of the patent and copy it.
Step 2: Paste it into the Google search bar.
Step 3: Click the I'm feeling lucky button.
Step 4: Print.
Step 5: Send to patent applicant with denial letter.

Hmmm, that process definitely looks patentable.

Jeff Rafter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...>

• References:
  • schema-aware XML parser (java heap error)
    • From: Farid.Mahini@L...
  • Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Jeff Rafter <lists@j...>
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: "M. David Peterson" <m.david.x2x2x@g...>
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Next by Date: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Previous by thread: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Next by thread: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread