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

Re: Another Microsoft XML patent

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
• Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 12:09:56 +1000
• In-reply-to: <42A1D07F.5030002@o...>
• Organization: Zenucom Pty Ltd
• References: <F00F0521BE28134DA357DC1DF7475B9901AAA889@t...> <42A1D07F.5030002@o...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

it's getting close to the time when i start looking for a new 
profession. in the old days you could patent processes, but not ideas. i 
don't see the process here.

my humble kettle for bioling water is covered by a number of patents, 
but none of them stop anyone else from making a kettle. the basics of 
physics can't be patented (ie creating heat), but the method of 
transferring it to something or protecting the user etc can be.

now i just can't see how a) serialisation isn't as fundamental to 
computing and electronics as heat to physics and b) is this really about 
locking everyone else out of using serialisation with xml (ie to protect 
the new office formats) - bit late if it is.

as a simple example, one of the reasons for the binary xml effort is 
performance problems certain groups have in serialising their objects 
into verbose xml. or won't they be allowed to do that anymore without 
paying something to ms?

if there's no other way to get an object on the wire in general - ie it 
has to be serialised to send it somewhere, then i don't see how it can 
be patented. if as i said this is about xml as a serialisation format, 
then what the hell, i'll just give in and invent a new one, or maybe use 
asn.1.

so back to the tower of babel. is this microsoft playing god and seeing 
us mere mortals build our tower of babel has decided to tear it down so 
that we all get splintered back into our different languages and formats 
again?

now i know that in this group there are many, many individuals and 
companies with patentable technology, but lack a) the financial and b) 
the time resource to secure it (myself very much included). a the same 
time we see organisations like microsoft patenting things that have been 
our bread and butter for years (decades sometimes) and personally i find 
it depressing and discouraging.

rick

Bob Foster wrote:

> Noted without comment:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=microsoft.ASNM.&s2=xml.ABST.&OS=AN/microsoft+AND+ABST/xml&RS=AN/microsoft+AND+ABST/xml 
>
>
> Bob Foster
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
> !DSPAM:42a1d1be170345010920587!
>

begin:vcard
fn:Rick  Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick 
email;internet:rjm@z...
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• References:
  • schema-aware XML parser (java heap error)
    • From: Farid.Mahini@L...
  • Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• 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