Return to the Press page

LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 4, 2008

Tux3: the other next-generation filesystem

LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2008

LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 20, 2008

Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

[Posted January 26, 2004 by cook]

The LinuxWorld News Desk reports on an interesting patent move by Microsoft. "In what is being interpreted as either a preemptive move against IBM's plan to migrate to Linux on the desktop, a direct challenge to software vendors who want to interoperate with Word through XML, or just a more general confirmation that it is worried about Open Source, Microsoft last week filed - in the European Union and New Zealand though not in the US - for various XML patents."

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 10:13 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Where can we write to inform the patent office(s) involved that this attempt at embrace-and-kill is bogus? I get so weary of greedy dweebs trying to own the world...

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 10:19 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but here's a link to a page from the UK patent office that has a ton of links to many countries' similar agencies:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/links/international.htm

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 22:57 UTC (Mon) by csawtell (subscriber, #986) [Link]

Here is the site of the NZ Intellectual Property Office.

http://www.iponz.govt.nz/pls/web/dbssiten.main

The Office is part of the Ministry for Economic Development, and the ministers are listed here.
http://www.med.govt.nz/ministers.html

The Minister in Charge is one Jim Anderton, his e-mail address is:-
janderton@ministers.govt.nz

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 11:22 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

OK, somebody who knows more please enlighten me--

In what was is OpenOffice.org 1.0 not prior art for this patent? They've got word processing documents using XML as a native format already!

If this patent is granted, it's time to shut down the entire stupid patent office. (Well, OK, it probably *will* be granted, even though it's a stuipd bloody obvious idea (hey, let's use XML for THIS too!) and has been done before, and, OK, it's already time to shut down the patent office.)

I predict that if this is granted lots of punditeseque Wall St. publications start saying that people have to seriously consider the intellectual property ramifications of using StarOffice or OpenOffice. (Just like they all said the same thing about Linux when SCO started making their noise.) And watch for congressmen and other people "defending innovation" stating that Microsoft is being unfairly treated by those open-source wackos that "steal their ideas" by using XML as a save-file format.

This, after all, is what Microsoft is after. They no longer believe that they can compete just by having a better product, so it's time to engage their lackies (i.e. the government) to squelch the competition with FUD (even if the actual legal challenges wouldn't stand up).

-Rob

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 27, 2004 2:53 UTC (Tue) by spengler (guest, #18976) [Link]

The patent covers the storage of text processing files in ONE SINGLE XML File.

OpenOffice uses several XML files zipped together...

A true innovation, indeed.

Andreas

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 27, 2004 6:06 UTC (Tue) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link]

Hasn't AbiWord had a single XML file from the beginning?

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 27, 2004 6:04 UTC (Tue) by 87C751 (guest, #11362) [Link]

They no longer believe that they can compete just by having a better product

Heh. That or they've finally awoken to the realization that they don't have a better product. Actually, "awoken" isn't the right term, since Microsoft has pretty obviously been aware of their lack of product superiority. That's why they try to lock users into their products.

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 11:26 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Wasent XML defined by the WWW consortium,... how could M$ fill any patent for it,... if not for the tortuous and criminal purpose of starting a new FUD and litigation war again, now that SCO could blow up...

oh,... they are a convited criminal entity, so i should figured...
But isnt there a law that prevents criminals from registering patents and copyrights ?

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 11:43 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

The title might more accurately read "Microsoft files for patent on AbiWord".

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 12:12 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

" According to one aspect of the invention," the claim continues, "a word-processor has a native XML file format. The well formed XML file fully represents the word-processor document, and fully supports the word-processor's rich formatting. Accordingly, one of the goals of such a native XML representation is have no feature losses when saving the word-processor documents in XML according to a defined XSD. According to another aspect of the invention... "

WHAT INVENTION ??

Hadn't those methods already been foreseened and defined somehow in the XML language defenition ?;... so it can belong to Abiword as much as M$ or OOffice...

Isn´t M$ acting, instead, deviously by patenting "mechanisms" that were presented and discussed in the consortium that it takes part ?... it wasent the first time...

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 15:27 UTC (Mon) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

XML is only a metalanguage, MS is describing a particular application (word processors) of the metalanguage. In the US, this is normally patentable, but AbiWord is direct prior art; AFAIK it's also the oldest word processor to use XML natively, and to store everything in one file.

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 27, 2004 8:26 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Thanks... for lighten up

the claims

Posted Jan 26, 2004 12:02 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link]

The independent claims (the broadest claims) are as follows. In order to invalidate a claim, you need to find prior art that satisfies every stipulation of that claim. (The "publication date" on the patent is listed as 1/2/2004, but I don't know what the priority date is, i.e. the date prior art has to come before...anyone?)

A computer-readable medium having computer-executable components, comprising:
- a first component for reading a word-processor document stored as a single XML file;
- a second component that utilizes an XSD for interpreting the word-processor document, and
- a third component for performing an action on the word-processor document.
A method for handling a word-processing document, comprising:
- parsing the document, wherein the document is contained within a single XML file and includes all of the instructions necessary to display the document according to how a word-processor would display the document;
- and interpreting the document according to an XSD.
A system for creating, interpreting, and modifying a word-processor document stored as as single WPML file, comprising:
- a WPML file;
- a validation engine configured to validate the WPML file; and
- a word processor configured to read a WPML file created in accordance with a schema.
A computer-readable medium having a schema encoded thereon, for a word-processor markup language, the schema comprising:
- a properties element;
- a styles element;
- a body element, wherein the body element comprises:
  - a paragraph element;
  - a text run element including text that is the text content of a word-processor document and is defined by a single tag; and
  - a table element.

What was the first date OpenOffice.org described its XML usage? Does it satisfy the other elements of the claims, e.g. XSD usage?

the claims

Posted Jan 26, 2004 12:45 UTC (Mon) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link]

Hmmm, as far as I can tell OO.o does not represent prior art to the first patent. You could argue computer executable code (macros, spreadsheets) but not in the fairly precise format they're discussing.

the claims - koffice

Posted Jan 26, 2004 13:03 UTC (Mon) by RogerL (subscriber, #4046) [Link]

This is not to far off, and it is documented usage.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/vnd.kde.kword

* active content
* DTD
* 2002-08-20

the claims

Posted Jan 26, 2004 16:22 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

OpenOffice stores documents as a zip file of multiple XML files. That
makes it slightly outside the scope of this patent in some areas. It's
also a better design, and fits a better interaction pattern than MS Word
uses.

It seems to me that this patent doesn't cause problems for existing
applications (obviously), and can be worked around trivially for MS
compatibility by using a DTD reverse-engineered from a document.

the claims

Posted Jan 26, 2004 20:48 UTC (Mon) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

Sounds like a good reason to ignore XML Schema and use RELAX-NG.

(not that we need any more reasons to do so ...)

the claims

Posted Jan 27, 2004 14:14 UTC (Tue) by j_heald (guest, #15398) [Link]

I don't know what the priority date is, i.e. the date prior art has to come before...anyone?

According to overview page for the European application, EP1376387, the priority number is given as US20020187060 20020628 -- my guess is that that is a US patent application, filed 28 June 2002.

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 13:29 UTC (Mon) by NCunningham (subscriber, #6457) [Link]

Note, too, that XML is not the only thing they're filing patents for.

http://www.iponz.govt.nz/pls/web/DBSIPLST.List_Control?p_access_no=e59f498defbefa25b86e573fb6fb6db7

(Or just search for Microsoft in the party field)

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 14:13 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Ah, yes...:

#525857: Markup language and object model for vector graphics
#529765: Native WI-FI architecture for 802.11 networks
#525095: Extensible object previewer in a shell browser
#525483: System and method for associating properties with objects

(These are just the ones that caught my eye...there are others.) Sounds like they're aiming to try to own SVG's space as well as XML-in-WP and others...

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 17:15 UTC (Mon) by NCunningham (subscriber, #6457) [Link]

Just received this:
-----------------------
Good afternoon Nigel,

Thank you for your enquiry to the Intellectual Property information service
regarding an objection.

The objection process for a patent is a formal process and is filed when a
patent is published. Interested parties have Three months from publication
of the complete Specification to oppose the granting of the application.
The opposing party needs to file a formal objection form and the objection
fee and post this to the Patent Office. The Notice of Opposition form is a
form 15 which is available on our website under Information
Library/Patents/forms and fees. The fee is $300.00 for overseas opponents
and $337.50 (inc Gst)for New Zealand Opponents.

Please refer to page 7 of the Patent protection guide attached which
explains the Patent Opposition process which can be found under the
Information library on our website under the folder Patents/Beginners
Guide/Patent protection Guide.

However please note that this patent is only under Examination-it is only
published once it has been accepted and at this moment of time it has not
been accepted it is still under the examination process between the Patent
office and the client themselves .If and when it is accepted the Patent is
then published in the IPONZ JOURNAL on our website for three
months to allow the filing of Formal Objections.

At this stage we may suggest you keep monitoring the status of this patent
every month to see if does get Accepted and then Published-then you can if
you so wish file a formal objection. Formal objections cannot be filed by
e-mail.

I hope this information is helpful. If however you find that you need
further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office via
info@iponz.govt.nz or telephone on 0508 447 669.

Regards
Joy Lawson
Contact Centre Advisor
Companies Office-Christchurch

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Cunningham [mailto:ncunningham@clear.net.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2004 08:42
To: info@iponz.govt.nz
Subject: How to learn more about a patent application?

Hi.

I'm wanting to find out more about a patent application lodged by
Microsoft, number 525484, with a view to opposing it being granted.
(Actually, all the patents they are trying to take out look invalid, but
I'll just concentrate on this one). I'm wondering, too, whether there
are fees associated with opposing a patent. The downloadable form PAT15
talks about a fee, but the FeeSchedule.pdf document doesn't list one.

Regards,

Nigel
--
Nigel Cunningham
495 St Georges Road South, Hastings 4201, New Zealand

Evolution (n): A hypothetical process whereby infinitely improbable events
occur
with alarming frequency, order arises from chaos, and no one is given
credit.

<<<http://www.govt.nz>>> - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services.

CAUTION: This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. All content is to be treated as confidential unless otherwise specified, and is not to be forwarded to third parties without the prior permission of the author. To do so may breach the New Zealand Privacy Act 1993. If you have received this e-mail message in error please delete it and notify me. Thank you.

look out for the legalese in the .sig!

Posted Jan 26, 2004 21:25 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

You *did* get "prior written consent" to forward this message to a third party, didn't you?

look out for the legalese in the .sig!

Posted Jan 27, 2004 14:45 UTC (Tue) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

You *did* get "prior written consent" to forward this message to a third party, didn't you?

While I would ordinarily agree that one should do that, I think it's reasonable to forward email messages that one receives from a government office or agency when such messages don't affect any third party's privacy.

The legalese in the .sig is only boilerplate stating that the message MAY contain confidential information, not stating that it DOES. That almost certainly gets attached to every email the office sends out.

Nothing in the message appears to be the slightest bit confidential.

look out for the legalese in the .sig!

Posted Jan 27, 2004 23:33 UTC (Tue) by NCunningham (subscriber, #6457) [Link]

That was my understanding too. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

look out for the legalese in the .sig!

Posted Jan 29, 2004 4:33 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Such sigs are just stupid. I'm sorry, but someone who voluntarily sends me an email doesn't get to uniliterally decide what I can do to that email, or the information in it.

It's something completely different if I *agreed* to do or not do certain things with it, otherwise they don't have a leg to stand on.

An agreement needs two parties, both entering into it voluntarily to be valid. Such a sig has neither. A completely different thing is that you migth freely *chose* not to distribute something when the sender asks you not to, purely out of courtesy.

Microsoft Files for XML Patents (LinuxWorld News Desk)

Posted Jan 26, 2004 23:08 UTC (Mon) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

There are also lots of other XML-related patent applications by the same (or mostly same) inventors pending at U.S. patent office. To see some, go to the "advanced" patent application search at http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html and enter the query

IN/"Jones Brian" AND IN/"Sawicki, Marcin"

XML as native MS Word format... *now* we know the catch!

Posted Jan 26, 2004 15:11 UTC (Mon) by jae (guest, #2369) [Link]

Now it´s becoming clear why Microsoft was willing to jump from
a fully closed .doc format to an "open" format (don´t know if they´ve
done it already, all I know is the rumors I´d heard about it)

An "open" standard is no problem if you *own* it anyway.

Australia too...

Posted Jan 26, 2004 17:36 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

They have applied for this patent in Australia too:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/patsearch/search_section.jsp?sectionCode=DTL&keyNo=2003204397&name=MICROSOFT&title=XML&lastLoaded=26/Jan/2004%2022:00

All of their patent applications related to XML can be found here:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/patsearch/search_page.jsp?sectionCode=SRC&keyNo=&name=MICROSOFT&title=xml&pubFmDay=+&pubFmMonth=+&pubFmYear=+&pubToDay=+&pubToMonth=+&pubToYear=+&filFmDay=+&filFmMonth=+&filFmYear=+&filToDay=+&filToMonth=+&filToYear=+&ipcSubClass=&ipcGroup=&ipcSubGroup=&msg=Advanced+IPC+Mark+search+criteria%3A&ipcAdv=

E-mail assist@ipaustralia.gov.au if you want to find out how to oppose a patent, but my bet is that it's going to be similar to NZ. BTW, there is heaps of other patent applications from MS. It seems like the worst free software nightmare is happening...

Does anyone know of any legal funds we can use to oppose those things?

Australia too...

Posted Jan 26, 2004 18:12 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

If you can, please e-mail your local W3C office and tell them about the behaviour of one of their members. In essence, while XML was created to enhance interoperability, one of the W3C members is actively participating in the process of making it less interoperable. I'm sure other members will have a few things to say to them...

Australia too...

Posted Jan 27, 2004 6:11 UTC (Tue) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link]

Please don't put such long URLs in a comment here, it makes the whole page and all of the comments several screens wide and very difficult to read. You can post a comment in HTML form and embed the URLs in links instead.

Australia too...

Posted Jan 27, 2004 16:26 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

ACK. Sorry :-(

[OT] Page broken and unreadable and unrecommendable :(

Posted Feb 11, 2004 8:57 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

I wanted to this article and the accompanying comments to a patent attorney who I am discussing the need to protect Open Source from "patent attacks" as it is an example of the community's thought process on the subject, but because of the long links breaking the usability of the page so completely I can't bring myself to do it. This page is truly unreadable.

"open" standards

Posted Jan 26, 2004 18:27 UTC (Mon) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link]

I think from this point we need to use the phrase open, unencumbered standards - it's obvious they're trying to do with the word open just as they do with standards themselves

"open" standards

Posted Jan 28, 2004 2:52 UTC (Wed) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link]

You mean unencumbered like in: This library is not GPL, use it instead of QT?

;-P
henrik