[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rex Brooks wrote:
> these patent applications (conducted in Europe and New
> Zealand) apply only to MS Office's (Word's) handling of XML
The only way you could read this application as being
limited to MS Office is if you buy into the argument that
Word is the only word-processor left. The claims don't speak
of "Word" they speak of "word-processing" files. Thus, if
Open Office, Apple, or anyone else wanted to have a word-
processor with an XML file format defined in XSD, then they
would violate the sought-for patent even if their XSD was
completely different from the one used by Word. And, what
will happen once these vaguely defined "word-processor" files
start flowing through mail systems or get inserted into Atom
entries... We're going to find it very easy to stumble over
this patent in hundreds of different domains -- not just
Word.
> I don't necessarily see any great reason to get in a swivet
> about it.
There are many reasons why a "swivet" is totally
appropriate here. First, the specific domain of word-
processing based on files whose schema is defined in XSD
would become Microsoft proprietary space if this patent
issues. Given the move to XML that we're seeing (and
hopefully encouraging) and given the move to using schemas
(which should also be encouraged...), this is a very serious
land-grab that could block many, many innovations in the
future. Of course, it could also signify the death of XSD. If
Microsoft patents the use of XSD in such a broad domain, it
might just force us all to move to RelaxNG or ASN.1 for
defining XML schemas instead. XSD would then become, for all
intents and purposes, a Microsoft *proprietary* schema
language and the rest of us would use other schema languages
or work without one. (Note: I realize that there are many
would would consider such a move to be a "good thing."
However, we should do it because we think it is the
technically correct thing to do, not just because we're
avoiding a patent...) Of course, if, as threatened in an
earlier message, *I* patent "word-processing" with XML and
RelaxNG, then you'll all be forced to use ASN.1 since it is
the only patent-free alternative with established prior-
art! :-) (Note: The ASN.1 vendors watching this thread just
decided to raise their prices since demand will soon
increase...)
>ensure that XML doesn't become a de facto MS property.
The issue in the application isn't the use of XML. It is
the use of XML *with* XSD. Thus, it is "XML with XSD" that is
at risk of becoming Microsoft proprietary -- not XML itself.
General note: Please understand that nothing in this
message should, in any way, be read as "anti-Microsoft." I
would have the same comments no matter who had filed this
patent application and my comments should apply to the many
hundreds of other patents and application that have claims
that mention HTML, XHTML, XML, etc. If someone other than
Microsoft had filed this patent, I would do anything I could
to help Microsoft defeat this patent if they asked for help
(but they wouldn't...). The issue here is that this is an
application for a patent based on substitution of
equivelants. i.e. XSD rather than ASN.1 or something else. It
is critical that this type of patent not be granted since it
poses a significant threat to the entire community of XML
users. By permitting this type of substitution, the principle
of "prior art" is basically discarded since a claim's
dependency on a substitute will be used to exclude *any*
prior art -- no matter how old, how obvious, or how well
known. "Yes, it's been done before, however, it's never been
done with XSD... Thus, it is patentable." This is wrong and
must stop.
bob wyman
|
