[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bob Wyman scripsit:
> There has been a rash of patents applied for and granted
> recently whose only differentiation from the prior art is that the
> call for encoding data using HTML, XHTML or XML. In many cases, the
> "process" being patented is exactly like others that have been long in
> use, the only difference is the encoding format. The Microsoft
> patent[2] that Tim Bray pointed to in his note falls largely in this
> class. If you substitute "ASN.1" for the occurrences of XML and/or XSD
> in this patent, you'll see that prior art extends back to 1982 or so
> -- especially since, "ASN.1 is an XML schema language." [1] Thus,
> using ASN.1, rather than XSD, I could produce a system which is
> effectively identical to that in the Microsoft patent application by
> simply translating the XSD into ASN.1. Would this mean that I could
> get a patent on such a system? Or, if I translated the schema to
> RelaxNG or Schematron that I could get additional patents? Based on
> current patent office practice, it seems like the answer is "Yes."
> However, this is clearly wrong.
There's no reason you couldn't get a patent on this very argument:
it's sufficiently "novel and useful" to pass muster, apparently.
--
"By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall jcowan@reutershealth.com
have neither the Ring nor me!" --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
|
