[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
and unibase (my database) has had a similar facility, also since the
early 80's. though obviously earlier than xml,, the fact is that it can
store multiple scripts in a single file, each to be run by it's own
specified interpreter, etc
but then the #! of the unix exec call is probably the real precursor of
all these ideas, and the file system simply a place to store the
scripts.
if microsoft keeps this up i'll have to pay them a licence fee each year
just to practice as a computer scientist/software engineer/programmer.
maybe i'll go back to music......
rick
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 11:14, Bob Wyman wrote:
> The first set of claims re: multiple scripts in a single file
> would be invalidated by at least ALL-IN-1, the office automation
> system that I worked on in the 80's. We held scripts in multiple
> languages in the "named data" of our "form" files. The "descriptive
> names" for scripts were typically their names on our menus and the
> "functional description" would be the "help" texts associated with the
> functions. All were held in a single file.
> It is possible that the kids at Microsoft thought they were
> doing something new. They weren't. ALL-IN-1 dealt with the problem of
> multiple scripting languages back in the 80's since, as one of the
> first "integration" products, it needed to be able to control the
> operation of a very wide variety of tools, each of which had its own
> command and scripting languages. The simple fact that ALL-IN-1 ran on
> minicomputers, not PC's, is not relevant. (Note: Many other examples
> of prior-art can be found. For instance, TECO or Emacs macro packages
> that held scripts that would be run in sub-proceses. Often, these were
> implemented in such a way that the scripts' "name" and help text or
> "functional descriptions" were bound to the scripts...)
> The claims that depend on XML should be invalidated since they
> are simply substitutes of equivelants. Under the "Doctrine of
> Equivalents" one can infringe a patent even when the claims are not
> literally infringed. Such infringement arises when the differences
> between two methods are nominal. However, the doctrine should work in
> reverse. Thus, you should not be able to patent a method when prior
> art exists which would be held to violate a patent on your method
> under the doctrine of equivalents. To hold otherwise allows one to
> patent the application of a method which has already entered into the
> public domain.
> This patent, like so many others, is junk.
>
> bob wyman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:12 PM
> To: 'XML DEV'
> Subject: [xml-dev] US Patent 6,687,897
>
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3312091
>
> Details at
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/
> netahtml/search-
> adv.htm&r=9&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=Microsoft.ASNM.&OS=AN/
> Microsoft&RS=AN/Microsoft
>
> "
> Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing scripts written
>
> in one or more scripting languages in a single file. The scripts of a
>
> computer system are organized into a single file using Extensible
> Language Markup (XML). Each script is delimited by a file element and
>
> the script's instructions are delimited by a code element within each
>
> file element. Other information, such as a name of the script and a
> functional description of the script may also be included in the file
>
> using other XML elements to delimit that information. The language in
>
> which a particular script is written is also included within the XML
>
> format. When a particular script is executed, the file is parsed to
> create a list of the script names or of the functional descriptions
> of
> the scripts. One or more scripts are selected and the code for those
>
> scripts is extracted from the file and executed by the appropriate
> scripting process. The scripting process that executes a particular
> script is identified from the scripting extension attribute that is
> included in the XML format of the file."
>
> At very first glance, it appears to be another case of "wrapping
> common
> practice in XML tags makes it patentable". Of course, there could be
>
> subtleties here that are more innovative than are apparent at first
> glance, but needless to say it's hard to have any faith that the USPTO
>
> would be able to tell the difference.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
|
