[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 5:31 PM -0500 1/24/04, Bob Wyman wrote:
>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.
If word processor is not MS Word-specific, I stand corrected. I would
not claim to be an expert. I was reading word-processor as
Word-specific. If that is indeed the case, I withdraw my opinion. I'm
actually more concerned with XSD than XML, so it is more important,
and, if it is not Word-specific, I agree that it must be stopped. I
hope this gets some traction, and gets clarified soon, not that I
doubt you, but I would like to see many expert opinions on this.
Thanks,
Rex
> > 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
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
|
