Lists Home |
Date Index |
Oops. I left out the word 'application'. I agree about SIR. Whether or
not it was a 'defensive' application, I don't see anything novel and unique
about StAX and its implementations. Also, I am dismayed that at least some
of the people who helped design StAX haven't been informed of the existence
of this patent application.
Aside from the patent, I can't help but notice some sloppiness in the API
like inconsistent method names which is, thankfully, just annoying rather
than encouraging mistakes like scrambled of parameter order does.
getNamespaceURI() // returns URI
getAttributeNamespace() // returns URI
setDefaultNamespace() // accepts URI
writeDefaultNamespace() // accepts URI
writeNamespace() // accepts prefix and URI
Now I wish I had reviewed StAX in more detail before it was finalized.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: 'Don Park'; 'Xml-Dev'
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] StAX XMLStreamWriter Oddities
> Don Park wrote:
> >Also, I noticed that there is a patent filed on StAX by the StAX spec
> It's not a patent, just a patent application. These days, it
> is becoming fairly common practice to file applications on just about
> everything you do even if only to give your lawyers a chance to file
> continuations or modifications, etc. in the future. Nonetheless, it is
> useful to see who files these applications. It certainly tells you a
> lot about their willingness to be open with their technology...
> If this was a "defensive" application, intended to block
> others from filing patents and thus keeping the technology open, then
> it would be more appropriate to file for a "Statutory Invention
> Record," or SIR, which is like a patent but explicitly waives rights
> over the invention.
> bob wyman