Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Small company makes big claims on XML patents (ZDNet)
ZDNet reports that a small company called Scientigo is claiming to have patented XML. "Scientigo intends to 'monetize' this intellectual property, Scientigo CEO Doyal Bryant said this week.... 'We're not interested in having us against the world. We're just looking for ways to leverage an asset; we have pretty concrete proof that makes us feel comfortable saying it is an asset,' Bryant said." The patents in question are 5,842,213 and 6,393,426.
(Log in to post comments)
Good luck! Posted Oct 22, 2005 18:29 UTC (Sat) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] Their claims are dated 1997, the XML WG has numerous publications from 1996.
Good luck! Posted Oct 22, 2005 18:49 UTC (Sat) by jwb (subscriber, #15467) [Link] Nevermind the SGML working group.
Good luck! Posted Oct 22, 2005 21:51 UTC (Sat) by hp (subscriber, #5220) [Link] As I understand it, finding prior art before the filing date is not always good enough; the best prior art is 1 year before the filing (in the US people have 1 year to file from invention date). You also need to find the oldest patent that a given patent is a continuation of, i.e. their second patent is a continuation of the first so shares the priority date of the first.
The net is, to get the date prior art must come before, you find the "root" patent (go back through the "continuation of" chain) and then subtract 1 year from the filing date. (Subtracting 1 year gives the earliest possible priority date, the "real" priority date depends on how quickly they filed.)
I am not a lawyer though, obviously ;-)
DoS Threat? Opportunity? Posted Oct 22, 2005 18:58 UTC (Sat) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256) [Link] Classic submarine patent surfacing off the starboard stern.
This sounds like that old British Telecom patent from about a decade ago --- on the "hyperlink." It will probably go about as far.
However, as a FUD force it's notable that this is being announced on the heels of the Massachusetts adoption of an XML OpenDocument format as a Commonwealth standard, ensconced in their laws. There's a widespread belief that other governments will follow suit (other states and sovereignties).
This company has been in talks with 47 companies and I can bet that Microsoft will seriously consider paying them off as a strategic manuever to bolster the (apparent) legitimacy of this patent. It serves their FUD agenda and it might provide Scientigo with enough operating capitol to prevail in court against some far more poorly funded initial targets.
So this is another opportunity for Microsoft and probably a couple of other companies to attack free software by proxy. It should be obvious that these threats will continue to surface and that some companies will back them and others will crumple.
However, there is a slim possibility that a large enough consortium of other companies and government agencies will see this as the opportunity to finally fix patent law. Very slim. But it's possible.
JimD
DoS Threat? Opportunity? Posted Oct 24, 2005 8:22 UTC (Mon) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] If you ask, this patent action is only proof that XML is gaining/has gained grounds. Yes, just like hyperlink, SGML & ASN.1, it become ubiquitous in computing.
Since XML is subset of SGML, this guys will enjoy only modest amount of FUD, before their patents gets invalidated.
Data + meta-data representation models were all densly covered in CS about 20-25 years ago. ASN.1 & SGML two presentations known and widely deployed.
(That was only obstacle to wider deployment of SGML in its time. As soon as we got the power - people tried to use SGML and failed - but for different reason. SGML is too complecated - when you have no redundant processing power, you have to be precise and specific. And SGML is very precise and specific. So people went on and thrown bunch of stuff out of SGML, thrown in new bits derived from HTML/CSS, and named the result XML. And that what we have now. No inventions - mere evolution.)
But I'm afaraid lawyers sponsored execs will have hard time getting that much of technicalities.
Small company makes big claims on XML patents (ZDNet) Posted Oct 22, 2005 21:10 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] 5,842,213"" 1. Field of Invention
The present invention relates to a method of modeling, storing and transferring information in a neutral form in a computer. The present invention reduces the complexity and effort presently involved in the modeling and storage of information while creating a storage format which enables complete parallel processing of data. Furthermore it enables not only direct integration of different models and their stored data without remodeling or reloading but dynamic evolution of those models and their data after their implementation. and effort presently involved in the modeling and storage of information while creating a storage format which enables complete parallel processing of data. Furthermore it enables not only direct integration of different models and their stored data without remodeling or reloading but dynamic evolution of those models and their data after their implementation. ""
Bahhh...
*The present invention reduces the complexity and effort*...That is more like a salesman hipe statement then an ivention.
*creating a storage format which enables complete parallel processing of data*... they didin't surely invented complete paralell processing of data, and if they ivented another database format!... well "we" are pretty fine with SQL thank you.
*dynamic evolution of those models and their data after their implementation.* they didn't surely invented either dynamic evolution of 'stored´ data.
"" 2. Description of Prior Art
... Despite exponentially rising demand and all of the effort that has been expended during the past several decades to develop and apply methods for data modeling storage and transfer, the bulk of organized information is still handled outside of databases. ""
the bulk!!??... never the less, here is the statement that they didn't ivented the method, since there is the admitance that in similar methods *some* of the data was already handled inside the databases. So any similar method that lives a very tiny portion of data outside of database, *at least* dosen't fall in the scope of this patent.
conclusion: this 5,842,213 description is pretty ambiguous, like a toy story to tell children at winter by the fire. Prior art might surprise them or not, but the point is they dind't invented XML neither databases.
The present invention relates to a method of modeling, storing and transferring information in a neutral form in a computer. The present invention reduces the complexity and effort presently involved in the modeling and storage of information while creating a storage format which enables complete parallel processing of data. Furthermore it enables not only direct integration of different models and their stored data without remodeling or reloading but dynamic evolution of those models and their data after some earlier implementation. ""
Pretty much the same as above. It is so ambiguous and try to be so emcompassing that soon they will be after every database vendor, if they changed "of different models" in "it enables not only direct integration of different models and their stored data without remodeling or reloading" to **ALL MODELS**. Then he have to be thankfull for Scientigo, which there is a resonable doubt that there was ever a scientist in it, for inventing not only storage but also humanity on which they are allowed to prey now by this patents!!
""2. Description of Prior Art
""Whether they employed data models or not; prior art techniques have, so far as is known been unable to achieve any practical success in data transfer without a user being intimately familiar with both the structure and the definitions of the data involved, and also with the particular application programs and interface languages employed for its storage. The result has been an inherent complexity in data modeling storage and transfer, putting data organization and access beyond the reach of many potential information workers who generate and seek to exchange, interpret and use their data. ""
Please i need help, i can't figure it out!... They didn't know if prior methods employed "what" data models, yet they apply a patent!??... oh man this stinks so very much, worst than any city local sewer.
Conclusion: What did those guys invented really ?. A method of integration of XML with *THEIR OWN* database model and format ??...
Am almost absolutly certain that they didn't invent applying XML with or to databases(any), and so, why would anyone need their database model and format ?
(If there is a Ma$ter behind or not i dont know, but there is an incredible stench of greased little greedy fingers wanting to attack XML document formats)
Small company makes big claims on XML patents (ZDNet) Posted Oct 22, 2005 21:34 UTC (Sat) by eyal (subscriber, #949) [Link] The lawyers of that company should be celebrating. This looks very much like another SCO. Lots of money to the lawyers and after a few years of legal farting the company will have nothing.
Eyal.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 22, 2005 23:41 UTC (Sat) by Zarathustra (guest, #26443) [Link] "The essence of XML is this: the problem it solves is not hard, and it does not solve the problem well." -- Phil Wadler
If a file format is so complex that it can be patented, then something is seriously wrong with it and you should be using something simpler.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 23, 2005 0:46 UTC (Sun) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] Um, given the current US patent regime, the fact that a patent exists is no evidence of complexity (or originality or inobviousness). A sufficiently creative person could probaby get a US patent for plain text.
XML may be overhyped, I'll freely grant, but it is not particularly complex.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 23, 2005 8:25 UTC (Sun) by Zarathustra (guest, #26443) [Link] Have you looked at an (standard!) XML parser recently?
Then look at an S-Expressions parser and compare.
I'm no fan of S-Expressions, but if you really need it, it gives you all XML has but without the mess.
99% of the time a key:value format will be all you need.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 23, 2005 10:55 UTC (Sun) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] Here's some source code and doc about s-expressions.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 23, 2005 10:57 UTC (Sun) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] Oh, and here's source code and doc about length-prefixed, human-readable strings: DJ Bernstein's netstrings. Ron Rivest's s-expressions are s-expressions containing netstrings.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 23, 2005 17:09 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Wow, XML almost looks nice in comparison to this horror.Seriously, though: I think XML started well, but it was possessed by creeping featuritis right about the time of XML schemas. Without the accursed namespaces, a parser can be lean and mean.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 23, 2005 20:12 UTC (Sun) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] The horror would be much less horrible if it wasn't in "canonical" mode. "canonical" mode seems to be optimized for cheap parsing, while "transport" mode is optimized for offending the smallest number of possible transports. The "advanced" mode looks like something a human would want to read or write.
A nice feature (which isn't supported by either S-expressions or XML AFAIK) is the ability to choose what the string delimiters are. MIME (--nextPartfoo242af23), Perl (<<'FOOBAR123124151231'), and PostgreSQL ($foo@AE@V@ET!%$) use this technique. All one has to do is generate a random delimeter string of sufficient length, then nobody has to worry about premeasuring strings of arbitrary length or about quoting and unquoting properly.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 23, 2005 23:19 UTC (Sun) by Zarathustra (guest, #26443) [Link] The Perl quoting style you mention is the bourne shell quoting style ;)And really, quoting is not that hard if you do it right, like rc(that is one of it's great advantages over sh which has rather messy quoting): Strings can be delimited by ', if so, a ' character inside the string is represented by ''. Eg., "it's easy" becomes 'it''s easy'. And you don't need any other escaping or quoting than that, which is very easy to parse and generate.
One more reason not to use XML Posted Oct 24, 2005 9:32 UTC (Mon) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] Seems you never really parsed that.It is one hell to parse that. And it is one hell to convert. Pascal used that for quoting single quote - and it was nightmare. C's backslash is magnitude more managable.
Beauty of XML in its uniformity. XML files are XML. Stylesheets are XML. Schemas are XML too.
Anyway, the true beauty starts when you convert from XML to s-exprs to ASN.1 to XML back. I got several apps where XML<->ASN.1 conversion performed constantly and it just works. Putting file into database/flash? - ASN.1/TLV. Wanna read it on screen? - XML, here you go. Two python scripts do all the silly job.
Do not forget. XML is not the best format - it is the best compromise of all formats. I personally prefer ASN.1/TLVs - and xxd is my best friend. Other people who has to read the files all day prefer XML since we can add syntax sugar to it.
What's new here? - both are possible at the same time.
One more fly in the quoting ointment Posted Oct 24, 2005 14:00 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] [A] ' character inside the string is represented by ''. Eg., "it's easy" becomes 'it''s easy'. And you don't need any other escaping or quoting I'm not understanding something here. Using this quoting style, She said "it's easy". becomes 'She said "it"s easy".'. Run that through the de-quoting algorithm. There's simply no way to delimit random text without being able to escape the delimiter somehow. Even MIME's mechanism has a greater than zero chance of failure. (Admittedly, it's something like 10**-1000000000 [that's a billion*] or less.) As a HW engineer colleague says: The question isn't ``Does it work?'', but rather ``Can it fail?''. *Or a thousand million, for my British readers :-)
One more fly in the quoting ointment Posted Oct 24, 2005 18:18 UTC (Mon) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] Beware evil fonts. "It''s easy" != 'It"s easy'. One is a string of length 10, with two ticks, the other a string of length 9, with one quote. They look obviously different in my mail client when I got the LWN comment notification, but they look exactly the same in my browser window.
MIME's mechanism has a >0 chance of failure, but if implemented correctly it has a much lower chance of failure than the chance of randomly guessing someone's GPG session key (defeating privacy) and finding an SHA1 collision (defeating authentication). Undetected CRC errors or rotting RAM bits are many orders of magnitude more likely to mangle the message.
If you absolutely must avoid failure, a MIME encoder can always hide the delimiter string using quoted-printable encoding (I've seen some encoders transform 'From ' into '=46rom ' at the beginning of some paragraphs to avoid another infamous email delimiter string), or read the entire string in advance and search for a delimiter that doesn't appear within it.
choosing the right tool for the job Posted Oct 24, 2005 10:59 UTC (Mon) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] That sample you linked to shows that netstrings and s-expressions are not optimized for humanreadability, but instead they hit a "sweet spot" with nearly optimal portability, simplicity, efficiency, etc., while also having decent readability for those occasions where you need to read through a protocol dump or a crypto certificate to debug it.
If you are looking for a format for your config file, I suggest YAML or a basic "key=value\n"
If you are looking for a format for humans to read and edit to add markup to some text, then by
Some people appear to think (and I used to think) that by choosing a well-suited format instead
One tool to rule them all Posted Oct 24, 2005 14:15 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] netstrings and s-expressions are not optimized for human readability, but instead they hit a "sweet spot" with nearly optimal portability, simplicity, efficiency, etc. while also having decent readability for those occasions where you need to read through a protocol dump or a crypto certificate to debug it.If that is the sweet spot, I don't want to taste bitterness. I know I can quickly spot the trouble in an XML file and repair it, probably with the help of tools or just a simple text editor. With netstrings and s-expressions it looks like I can go mad while trying to decipher it, but maybe for an experienced user it's easy. If you are looking for a format for your config file, I suggest YAML or a basic "key=value\n" format.Key-value pairs quickly become hellish when you try to represent hierarchical data. Don't know about YAML. If you are looking for a format for some "heavy lifting" data such as a database backend or performance-intensive data storage/transport, then I suggest your own custom binary format or (if you are careful) ASN.1.Thanks, but if I wanted to use binary formats I would not be looking at XML, YAML or anything else. It's a different use case. If you are looking for a format for a wire protocol or a lightweight data format (such as for certificates) then I suggest Rivest's s-expressions.I would suggest simple XML without namespaces or schemas. The verbosity of XML has advantages: the added redundancy can help repair corrupted files. In fact, I'm not sure that I've actually personally experienced a case where XML would have been the best choice.I would revert your statement: XML is not optimal for any of the mentioned tasks, but IMHO it is near the "sweet spot" you mentioned earlier for some of them. It is reasonably apt for configuration files, user data and even transport. For performance-intensive tasks it is not so good, but may be acceptable if you can compress it or spare the bandwidth. interop and data migration is not actually improved much if at all when both sides were using XML in the first place.I agree with this part. In fact SOAP is the Simple Protocol From Hell, and all subsequent extensions and protocols have been invented to make people hate XML and computing in general. Likewise with programming languages written in XML. Keep it as a format for data storage, and you will generally be fine.
What if... Posted Nov 3, 2005 17:48 UTC (Thu) by guest01 (guest, #25274) [Link] ...everyone claiming patent infringement who subsequently lost said claim in court were fined some large amount?
Maybe that would help stem the tide of such claims from anyone who thinks they came up with valid patents for ideas like "storing data in a computer", "application plugins", or "sending email from a wireless device" in the last 5 years.
I can't help envision, Dilbert style, every PHB who *just* learns about some new buzzword the other day believe they invented it themselves within the last couple years.
|
|||||||||||