RSS
Wait, Editing An XML Document Is Patented And Worth $98 Per Application?
from the say-what-now? dept
A bunch of folks sent in variations on the story about Microsoft losing a patent infringement lawsuit to the tune of $200 million to a small Toronto firm (the ruling also came right on the heals of another ruling against Microsoft in a patent case, for $388 million). Since both rulings will certainly be appealed, it seemed a bit early to pay too much attention, but Joe Mullin has dug into the details of the $200 million ruling, and it's fairly startling. The patent in question is for separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document, which the company, named i4i argues, covers basic XML editing. It's quite troubling that doing something as simple as adding an XML editor should infringe on a patent, but what's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used. An XML editor. $98. And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?
I have an idea...
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
I’m looking for research...
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
It's Funny
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yes but Notepad probably wouldn't be applicable.
This seems to be about an XML file with an abstraction layer above it... where you change the content but not the XML document itself (Eg, like most word processors, (x)HTML editors, etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
AJAX
How about an addon for firefox called firebug where you can edit any part of the page? I notice that you can edit the content of the page without editing the architecture
Im pretty sure any reasonable patent office wouldnt have granted this patent, as the purpose of xml is to separate content from display.
Shouldnt people ruling on tech have some foundation in understanding technology?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
XML file updated
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What next !!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Prior Art goes back to the 60's
The patent was filed in 1994, prior art seems to include NROFF format files which goes back at least to the earliest days of Unix (used in man pages among other things).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
XML editing
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Karma
However, I don't want to see them lose. This patent describes the publication process since the invention of the printing press. The writer did not compose the document by arranging letters on the press. They wrote the content, and someone else laid it out on the press. Same with any newspaper or book or any other published document since publication began. Simply transferring this concept to a digital format should not be considered original enough to warrant a patent. Thank goodness the patent will expire in two years, but until then, Adobe, Lotus, Sun, and every other creator of a desktop publishing application better watch out.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
$200 Million Dollars
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Huamn Brain
Yes but Notepad probably wouldn't be applicable.
This seems to be about an XML file with an abstraction layer above it... where you change the content but not the XML document itself (Eg, like most word processors, (x)HTML editors, etc."
Human brain is a self-programming computer rittled with abstraction layers and can infringe on this patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Conspiracy Theory
It's like they don't want to win, because they could easily do it with prior art. The concept of separating presentation from content has been described since SGML. Really weird...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
wait..
Now this might seem a bit technical, but upon reading the patent it seems that the only thing that was really patented was the way XML metadata is mapped and read into the program through abstraction layers in the program itself..
All this means is that in the future, software companies are going to have to develop more diverse means of compiling the XML data.
What it does NOT mean, is that every text editor and XML editor out there owes $98. It's just that Microsoft used the same methods for reading and compiling XML in their software as i4i had been doing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wait..
What it does NOT mean, is that every text editor and XML editor out there owes $98. It's just that Microsoft used the same methods for reading and compiling XML in their software as i4i had been doing."
Saying it doesn't make it any more sane. Obvious stuff is obvious. The fact that you can do it in a slightly less obvious manner is a problem, not a solution.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Notepad is forbidden
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
another reason software patents are absurd
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wait..
In other words, the XML file was deserialised into memory, modified, then written back out to XML.
ie. exactly what every program that uses XML does.
See the problem?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting company name
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Typical
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Oh boy this is a bogus patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
getting it wrong
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It is not XML
A) This is standard xml formatting.
B) CODES{{xml:position-span:8:20}}CONTENT{{This is standard xml formatting}}
B is what the patent does. A is XML. Two separate things.
Not that this should ever have been patented in the first place, but...it looks like they found a MicroSoft product that uses this technique.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
i4i sleeps with the patent whore
http://www.i4i.com/collateral/05-26-09-Release-Jury_orders_Microsoft_to_pay_i4i.pdf
"Mi chael Cannata, director of i4i LP and advisor to the Northwater Intellectual Property F und"
That leads us to:
http://www.northwatercapital.com/intellectual_property.html
"Intellectual property (IP) is the fundamental asset of innovation and entrepreneurship in the 21st century - with the potential to generate new wealth opportunities for investors."
"The fund is managed by a team with expertise in IP assessment, valuation, management, and enforcement."
Translated:
A group of assholes that goes around trying to find IP's that can be considered "violated" so they can sick their lawyers on to sue companies for profit.
In other words the "Jerkwater Patent whore Fund".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What's this all aboot?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
LATex and its derivatives are precursors to XML and its counterparts such as JQuery, CSS and other methods used to enhance documents.
As an interesting side note, Congress just passed legislation whereby government documents have to be written with sufficient clarity that a non-specialist can understand them. Goodbye convoluted patent claims filled with technobabling jibberish.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment