[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> Last time I checked (maybe 6 months ago), there were
> over 300 patents or patent applications with the word
> XML in the title.
As of today, in the USPTO records (yes, I know that isn't all
there is) there were:
22 patents
128 patent applications
with "XML" in their title fields.
On the other hand there were:
1184 patents
8672 patent applications
with "XML" mentioned anywhere (title, abstract, body, etc.)
> I personally have seen very, very little, that I think is new
> since 1994 or so, so almost every one of those 300 will have
> significant prior art.
Being "new" no longer has the traditional meaning when patents
are concerned. Innovation is no longer a practical requirement for
receiving a patent. Consider, for instance, the Microsoft XUL patent.
The basic concept or "innovation" that they claim has been "obvious"
since at least ALL-IN-1 used a forms based interface for defining
office applications back in the early 80's. Even the MID stuff is way
too recent if you're looking for prior art on the concept. However,
the only thing that distinguishes the Microsoft patent is that *every*
claim requires "HTML". Most of the prior art didn't use HTML to
accomplish what XUL does and so is not relevant. The mere fact that
HTML, or any encoding format like HTML, has the same properties as all
the other encoding formats used similarly in the past, is not
considered relevant by the patent office.
Similar silliness can be found in patent applications like the
those of Worldcom that attempt to patent the use of XML to store log
records for SIP sessions. The mere fact that using tagged storage
formats for all sorts of logging systems has been common for years
doesn't cause pause to the people applying for the *specific* use of
XML to log SIP session records. Or, patent 6,655,593 which claims the
use of XML to send data to a barcode printer! There is no claim that
sending fielded or tagged data to a bar code printer is new -- only
that using XML to do it is new...
Frankly, all these hundreds of patents whose only *new*
feature is that they use XML or HTML or XHTML or whatever to do
things, should be considered junk. Just as you can't patent the mere
substitution of plastic for wood in some application, you shouldn't be
able to patent the mere use of XML or HTML in some well-known
application. The intent of those who defined XML was to support an
entire class of applications. Only if one can show that the specific
use of XML is not anticipated in that class of applications should one
be able to get a claim on a specific use. The current practice is
simply a land-grab. It has nothing to do with originality or
furthering any of the goals specified for patents in the US
constitution.
bob wyman
|
