Microsoft Receives XML Patent

gsfprez writes "Well, i'm no patent lawyer, but if I'm reading this right, it seems that the basics of XML are being patented by Microsoft. If not the files themselves - at least what most of us would do with XML files. From the abstract: 'Systems, methods and data structures for encompassing scripts written in one or more scripting languages in a single file.' That smacks of what my config files do on my G5 for my G5, if you read it with a biased eye." We noted this was happening earlier, and now it's finally come to pass. While the patent does sound a bit dubious, a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself.

Quick...

Someone go patent .txt files!

Re:Quick...

ASCII makes you use test on both and use addition and subtraction instead of the more computer friendly bit flips.

Really? What's this then?
01100001
01000001

Re:Quick...

You have to admit that the idea to control lowercase and uppercase with a single bit has it's advantages. In one operation you can test both 'a' and 'A'. ASCII makes you use test on both and use addition and subtraction instead of the more computer friendly bit flips.

What makes you think that isn't true for ASCII? In ASCII a-z and A-Z are continuous and in-order with "A" starting at 65 and "a" at 97. That's a separation of 32, which makes them differ by a single bit.

Re:Quick...

Better yet ... someone go patent the idea of a .DLL file. THAT'll throw 'em. Maybe we can cross-license .XML for .DLL, and avoid .XML hell.

Re:why

It looks at first sight like it's about WSF files (Windows Script Files, for the Windows Script Host). Early versions of WSH didn't use XML, just raw script in a text file (.vbs, .js), but from WSH2, WSF files look like the following example [microsoft.com] from the MSDN Library:

[quote]

Since one scripting language may not have all the functionality you need, Windows Script Host allows you to combine multiple languages in a single .wsf file. The following example shows a .wsf file that includes both VBScript and PerlScript code:

<job id="PERLandVBS">
<script language="PerlScript">
sub PerlHello {
my $str = @_[0];
$WScript->Echo($str);
}
</script>

<script language="VBScript">
WScript.Echo "Hello from VBScript"
PerlHello "Hello from PERLScript"
</script>
</job>
[/quote]

Using XML to delimit script fragments in a variety of languages may or may not be particularly original; it seems to me that this is what the patent's about, rather than (shock, horror, page impressions, revenue) the whole of XML per se.

Microsoft has never used a patent offensively

They are typically the target of dubious patent lawsuits, actually.

If anything, I'd imagine that this was more defensive than anything else.

Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively

But...but... its MICROSOFT. And this... this is SLASHDOT.

Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively

I know the parent is a joke, but at the same time it points out something rather sad about this community. It is rather regrettable that justified or not, anything related to certain companies, ideas or processes is mostly automatically shunned and villified just at the mention of it. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with and sometimes outright dislike Microsoft, but I also try to keep an open mind regarding them. They have proved time and time again that they can and will maliciously perform acts to disrupt competitor's business and livelihood.

That said, I just want to say that these kinds of patents are absolutely ridiculous. I am really wondering if there is prior art regarding this sort of thing (XML specifically) that can refute Microsoft's patent claim from 2000.

Anyone have information on that?

I'm waiting for Groklaw to jump in on this one.

Sheeple are the same wherever you go

I have been all over this big wide world and lived in a lot of different places, and majority of people everywhere do, think and say what eveyone else is doing, thinking and saying. This is not to be construed as a bad thing: it puts food on the table. It gives the species the solid base to support the innovators, who do oftentimes get it wrong after all.

We geeks like to think we are different, and for the most part we are more intelligent than the average. We just aren't all as individualistic as we might like to believe. Geeks may be more selective in the herds they choose to follow, but most geeks still choose to follow one herd or another.

Not you, of course, dear Moderator person. You're a true individual. It's those other geeks over there. Sheep, I tell you!

Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively

XML, which is a subset of SGML, was conceived about 1996 and became a W3C standard on Feb. 10, 1998. No one owns the exclusive rights to XML. It is licence-free and platform independant (doesn't sound like M$, does it?) For reasons too off-topic to get into here, suffice to say, there are different schema dialects of XML. The W3C XML Schema Working Group received a dialect submission from M$ in January, 1998, even before XML 1.0 was complete: XML-Data schema language and XDR (the XML Data-Reduced Schema), a subset of the W3C's final recommendation. Needless to say, M$ (and some others) products offer full support for XDR. There are other dialects and schemas of XML as well, such as the well known DTD, XSD, XPath, XLink, XPointer, XSL, SAX, XSLT, etc. and surely others I will offend someone by failing to mention. So to answer your question, M$ cannot patent XML - no way - but they certainly do have prior art to XML-data and XDR. This isn't a big deal because there is no neccessity in using these schema; XML is a great, open-ended language with lots of alternatives - heck, invent your own! Some references: http://www.w3.org/XML/ http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/

Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively

What will they do with all of those patents years from now when they have lost, or are about to lose, their monopoly on the desktop after some powerful new competitor emerges? Introducing Microsoft's newest division, MSSource!

Patent renewals in the United States

I think that a patent can be "renewed" once

"Renewal" on patents is different from "renewal" on pre-1978 copyrights. In the United States, patents last 3.5 years after they are granted; patents whose owners pay periodic maintenance fees [uspto.gov] are renewed to 7.5 years after grant, then 11.5 years after grant, then a maximum of 20 years after filing. Foreign patents may last up to a year longer because a U.S. inventor has one year to file for a foreign patent after having filed in the United States, and other countries' 20-year terms are counted from that.

Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively

That's not the point. All the big companies are safe from each others patent suits because each of them use technology from the others patents portfolio's.

The problem is that if they wanted to, they really could crush all new and small companies like a bug.

I can only really see 3 outcomes:
1. Software Patents become irrelevant and therefore useless (HA!)
2. The big companies keep newcomers out with lawsuits
3. They keep collecting patents but never use them, and small companies live in fear that at any stage they can be crushed.

Its so ridiculous its almost funny.

Re:Microsoft has never used a patent offensively

Oh, what's this [microsoft.com]?

My eyes must be old..

I first read the headline as "Microsoft Receives XML Patent".... oh shit that was the headline.

bait and switch

and they sneak a patent though while we all look for the source code.

What next?

Gee. Next thing you know, someone'll patent the "A method for gas exchange by alternate inductions of overpressure and underpressure", aka "breathing".

unimaginable consequences

Next thing you know, someone'll patent the "A method for gas exchange by alternate inductions of overpressure and underpressure", aka "breathing".

By your definition, it sounds as though the development and innovations that would make farting possible would be impeded, since there would be prior art.

Sue this

<FRUIT>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Banana</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Bananas are yellow, and research
has indicated that they are the favorite food of
monkeys.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-banana.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Orange</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Oranges grow on trees, and are the
main constituent of orange juice.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-orange.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Strawberry</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Strawberries are a popular fruit
in the Summer months.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-strawberry.JPG</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<FRUIT NAME>Tomato</FRUIT NAME>
<FRUIT DESCRIPTION>Tomatoes are a vital constituent
of pizzas and other convenience foods.</FRUIT DESCRIPTION>
<FRUIT IMGSRC>012199-tomato.jpg</FRUIT IMGSRC>
</ITEM>
</FRUIT>

Microsoft to Patent 1s, 0s

In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.

With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.

"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."

http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/humor/1n0_paten t. htm

Re:Microsoft to Patent 1s, 0s

In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.

Give credit where credit is due [theonion.com], coward!

From The Onion

Please properly credit your source. That article is from The Onion, circa 1998 [theonion.com]. The site you reference says it got the article from www.cars.com, which may be true, but it doesn't say exactly where on cars.com so the link could be followed to eventually find the real author.

Re:Prior Art..?

If you read the patent text, you will find it is not a patent on XML itself. It is a patent on the method of encompassing multiple scripts inside an XML file. The scripts can be all written in the same language or different languages.

I think this may be used to change the way ASP works. It will allow you to use C# and javascript in one file and depending on the system configuration, it selects the correct script to run.

Re:Prior Art..?

Microsoft knows better than to try to patent XML itself. That would not stand up even with the U.S. patent office in its current state. Instead, they will patent many aspects and possible uses of XML so there will be no practical method to use XML in a meaningful way without infringing a Microsoft patent.

And look how modest they are

a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself

I feel much better now.

not a patent of XML

this seems more like a patent for embedding a script within XML, which is IMHO fair enough. Read the patent carefully, it is describing using XML in a specific way, not XML itself..

the text of the /. headline is a bit misleading.

proxy

Re:not a patent of XML

Agreed. The patent seems to be about embedding multiple scripts in a single XML file and ways for extracting and executing them appropriately. MS has done this for a while in WSH (Windows Script Host) [microsoft.com]. This is a far cry from "patenting XML".

That being said, the patent is a bit over the line, as compared to say, the light bulb or the washing machine. I mean, come on... You're putting generic stuff (code of different types) into a generic file type (XML) and then executing it. This isn't especially novel or unique, and I'm sure plenty of people (myself included) have been doing this for quite some time.

Re:not a patent of XML

You are right to compare their XML claims to what we all do with HTML.

Let's pick their abstract apart:

"Systems, methods and data structures" - yadda yadda yadda
"for encompassing scripts" - a way of storing a script program
"written in one or more scripting languages" - let's say JavaScript and VBScript
"in a single file." - Such as within an html file

"The scripts of a computer system" - as we said, JavaScript and VBScript
"are organized into a single file " - as we said, an html file
"using Extensible Language Markup (XML)." - Ok, xml instead of html - but don't forget xml and html are both specific subsets of sml. We'll continue with the html analogy

"Each script is delimited by a file element" - Give each script a unique internal name
"and the script's instructions" - The JavaScript or VBScript code
"are delimited by a code element within each file element." - The code tag goes inside the script name tag. This is similar to a <param> tag inside an <object> in html. This is a case where xml is cleaner than html, and one of many reasons the world is moving to xml. But we'll continue with the html analogy for now anyway.

"Other information" - attributes
"such as a name of the script" - in html this might be implemented as <script type="text/javascript" name="somename">. In reality, each JavaScript function has its own name, and a programmer refers to the code by the functions.
"and a functional description of the script may also be included in the file" - same as the last snipit, where you might have script type="text/javascript" description="This is a description">. Typically html programmers just put this into comments and documentation.
"using other XML elements to delimit that information." - As stated above, xml is better because of its ability to create tags. But I'm going to continue dragging the html example along.

"The language in which a particular script is written is also included within the XML format." - Similar to the type attribute in <script type="text/javascript"> or the old language attribute in <script language="javascript">

"When a particular script is executed," - When a user browses to a page with JavaScript, or runs in some other shell
"the file is parsed" - yeah, I hope so
"to create a list of the script names" - similar to function names, albeit with some encapsulation
"or of the functional descriptions of the scripts." - Its always nice to have a more human-readable version, especially if users are going to see program names.

"One or more scripts are selected" - On an html page, some JavaScript scripts may run when the page is loaded, others when a form is validated
"and the code for those scripts is extracted from the file" - read the script into memory into some blob text object
"and executed" - interpreted and run the script
"by the appropriate scripting process." JavaScript is done by a JavaScript interpreter, VBScript by a VBScript interpreter, etc.

"The scripting process that executes a particular script" - The JavaScript or VBScript interpreter
"is identified from the scripting extension attribute" - Is identified by the "type" attribute as seen in <script type="text/javascript">"
"that is included in the XML format of the file." - Yeah, this analogy uses html, and we're all slowly moving to an xml world.

In summary: We're all moving to xml for many obvious reasons, and Microsoft has patented one of them. We've all been adding multiple scripts to our html files for years, and there have been pain points. One promise of xml is to have more easily parsed data and meta-data due to the ability to define tags and the use of hierarchical tags instead of a fixed list of attributes. Every html file I've ever written falls into this classification where xml is desired, and this includes my javascript code. We've all been doing this for years within html.

What Microsoft has patented is an obvious extension of c

Re:not a patent of XML

Wow, you wasted a lot of time analyzing one of the least important parts of a patent. Please remember that abstracts, titles and descriptions from the specification don't carry any legal weight, and are just there to satisfy requirements for the filing of patents. The only part of a patent which matters is the claims.

Re:not a patent of XML

It's patentable in part because XML's not like HTML. HT means hypertext, and since HTML is allegedly object oriented, effectively, the claim is that the objects all have the properties of being parts of (hyper)text. X means Extensible. so if you accept that XML is object oriented, the objects can be almost anything you can shoehorn in there. (I know that OOP is mostly a buzzword when it comes to markup languages, but tell that to the Patent Office). The patent Office's view may well be: Since X can be a lot of things the originators never expected, Microsoft's method can make some of those possible objects in XML actual. That meets the tests for novelty and non-obviousness that are part of Patent claims. Since we don't know just what objects can now be better constructed in XML by using this Microsoft patented method, we can't argue that anyone would easily see the obviousness of an application. Trying to say the same about HTML would be (roughly) like claiming that someone had implemented capitalzation and bold face text, but italics or underlining were not obvious steps from there.
(With that said, I am not a Lawyer).

Prior Art?

this seems more like a patent for embedding a script within XML, which is IMHO fair enough.

Can we say Ant [apache.org] anyone? In a way, Ant is also a script, albeit it's geared towards installation. Or did I miss something?

Re:not a patent of XML

the text of the /. headline is a bit misleading.

W H A T W A S T H A T ? ? ?

Piano Teachers Unite!

Can piano teachers please patent C# asap?

Re:You mean Db

You are incorrect. E# exists, as does B#, and any singer or violinist can produce them.

You are violating the intellectual property of J.S.Bach. His lawyers shall contact you anon.

How is your temper? [precisionstrobe.com]

KFG

Standards

While the patent does sound a bit dubious, a Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny that they'd be so bold as to patent XML itself.

Why bother patenting when you have 90% dominance, add your own proprietary standards, and shut everyone else out?

Yes, I realize that it's a file format, or even considered to be a database of sorts. But what good is a standard when most people use something that breaks standards? Does that majority make Microsoft a standard in itself?

VIM config files

Wouldn't VIM config files constitute prior art?

They can be written in VIM script, perl, python, and ruby al lin one file.

What about html and php?

Did they really even read the patent?

XML based script automation

What part of that says they're patenting XML?

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).

To me, yes I know I'm not a patent lawyer, basically makes it look like they're patenting the process of combining n scripts into a single XML file, whereupon each individual script can still be called/ran/whatever.

Re:Maybe so, still trivial...

Any competent programmer could come up with a method for doing the same thing in a few hours.

I already do it! HTML is XML compliant, no? Well, in my HTML documents, I have this tendency to put these little tags, like, <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT"> (some code in *gasp* the JavaScript scripting language...) </SCRIPT>

And though I don't personally use it, I have seen
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBSCRIPT"> (some code in *gasp* the VBScript scripting language...) </SCRIPT>

Isn't that what they just described in this patent? *scratches head*

Quick....

someone patent the < symbol. Then Microsoft's patent will be useless.

Re:Isn't this called HTML??????

HTML is a direct subset of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language). XML is derived from SGML.

Uh... No?

I am reading the patent, and I really don't understand how this could even be interpreted as being a patent on the concept of XML. It is a patent on a system that uses XML, as is pretty explicitly stated in the abstract.

Whether the patent itself is overly broad is up for debate. However, you can't just quote one line from the abstract and claim that the patent applies to everything in the universe that fits that one line. There is a reason for the body of the patent: to describe the specifics of the invention they are patenting.

In USSR...

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//Soviet//Russia" "Very-Strict.dtd">
<patent owner="Microsoft">
You
</patent >

Nifty Idea Nonetheless

Ignoring the people that clearly didn't RTFA (MS is not trying to patent XML), whether or not MS gets this patent I think I like the idea that they are looking at. Hadn't seen anyone else wander around with it yet, so I will.

Here's what I see happening. You will have an XML file that will have 4 scripts in it that do the same thing, each ina differant language. At this point whatever actually is configured to run these files will look at a setting to decide which scripting language you prefer these things to run with, then it will perform the task at hand based on that language.
I can definately see MS's interest in this, it is along the lines of their .Net components that operate client-side or server-side based on the capabilities of the client browser. I think this would take that farther by allowing for multiple scripting engines and the same type of functionality with applications rather than just web components.

If nothing else it would be nifty, especially if implemented on *nix and other OS's as well. You could write a single script file to make an executable that would run any one of several internal scripts depending on which language was supported.

Anyways, could be way off with my guess, but I still think it could have some nifty uses...

someone should reconsider what a patent means...

Patents are meant to be used for companies for ensure that technology they invent does not get stolen by other companies. MS didn't invent XML. If your legal system let's them patent it then it is flawed very badly.

I for one are going to ignore this patent outright. Firstly, I'm sitting in europe, safe from the madness that is US law. Secondly, I have prior art. Thirdly, in Denmark buying the most expensive lawyers doesn't make you win cases.

What's actually being patented

From skimming the patent, it looks like they're patenting something vaguely like this:

<versions>
<version language='perl' interpreter='/usr/bin/perl'>
print("I am a banana!\n");
</version>
<version language='python' interpreter='/usr/bin/python'>
print 'I am a banana!'
</version>
</versions>

... in other words, using XML to keep several languages' versions of one script.

I don't really see the point. There are plenty of extremely portable languages, and what happens if the versions in the XML file fall out of synch? If someone edits the perl version but not the python version, you could be in trouble. Writing a non-trivial algorithm that works exactly the same in two completely different languages (if they weren't completely different, you wouldn't need to drag them both around) seems like more work than just using a portable language in the first place. I suppose it could be useful for keeping scripts across incompatible language versions -- you could have one script for $language v1 though v2.5, and one for all later versions.

Still, if I were using XML to make my code portable, I'd use Flare [sourceforge.net] or something very much like it. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think this patent is pretty weird.

... Like Javascript?

If I'm reading this correctly, the patent isn't about XML itself, but rather using XML as a container for various types of high level scripts.

From the summary of the patent:

The present invention incorporates the scripts of a computer system into a single file using Extensible Markup Language (XML) or another suitable format.

I'm seeing a conflict of interest with client-side web scripting, particularly Javascript and VBScript. Strangely enough, later on they even reference Javascript:

Within the <file> element, the "extension" attribute is used to indicate the language in which the script was written. For example, if the script was written in JavaScript, then the extension attribute in the file element would read "<file extension="js">".

Looks suspiciously like <script language="Javascript"> to me.

On the other hand, there's a lot of talk about "CDATA" in the patent. From what I grok, the patent is specific about using CDATA elements to encapsulate scripting languages. The listed example makes sure to encapsulate all the executable code within <!CDATA> tags .. can anyone clarify whether or not this means that a document must use the CDATA convention in order to be covered by this patent?

Re:Source code

Here's one [demon.co.uk] that runs in: ANSI COBOL, ISO Pascal, ANSI Fortran, ANSI C (lint free), Postscript, Shell script, 8086 machine language.

Re:A Quick Cluestick for the Clueless.

Actually, that's only partially true.

Usually, claims are made like so:
1) A device to clean shit.
2) A device of claim 1, which further Disinfects;
3) A device of claim 1, which further Deodorizes;
4) A device of claim 1, which both Disinfects and Deodorizes;
5) A device of claim 4, which further Polishes to a high gloss
6) A device to clean piss.
7) A device of claim 6, which further cleans vomit. ...
(usually limited to 20 or so claims)

So, if you make a shit cleaner, you infringe under claim 1.

If you make a disinfecting shit cleaner, you infringe under claim 2 - claim 1 wouldn't cover it alone, since it's an improvement to claim 1.

etc.

IANAL, but I have helped to write a patent application (which was accepted). I also have had the distinct displeasure of reading patents to try to find infringement.

Re:A Quick Cluestick for the Clueless.

Every one of the claims must be implemented for a system to be covered by the patent.

Well, no. Claims may be independent, or they may be dependent. Implementation of a single independent claim is enough. Dependent claims include other claims by reference, and are more narrow in scope. The purpose of dependent claims is to give (more narrow) coverage in the broader independent claim is found to be unsustainable by the examiner or in court.

If a competitor constructs a system that implements all but one of the claims, it is not an infringement.


In this patent implementation of any of 1, 9, 19 OR 22 would be enough to trigger infringement.

Additonal claims do NOT narrow a patent's coverage. What does narrow coverage is the inclusion of various requirements in the claims themselves.

The list of claims and supporting information defines the coverage of the patent precisely.

Ever hear of the 'doctrine of equivalents'???

Patent everything!

I read much of the patent. They seemed to be patenting something that's been around for years. Word Perfect had scripting for its documents circa 1987. All this does is apply the same idea to XML documents. It should have been dismissed for both prior art and obviousness. It this can be patented, then virtually everything new can be patented.

The best analogy I can think of appeared when carbon fiber became popular back in the 1990s and began to be used in all sorts of things. By this reasoning, someone could have patented carbon fiber for all sorts of uses: golf clubs, shovel, axe and hoe handles... the list is long. In each of those cases, no one could market such a product without paying royalties.

Whether Microsoft uses this patent for good or ill, it seems to be yet another illustration that the examiners at the USPTO are blittering idiots.

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books http://www.inklingbooks.com/

What it really is.

It's an extension of WinFS (or I assume that's what it's for?). Basically, it's a way to associate meta data with a script without having filesystem support for it.

So, you want to run a script, you do tabbed completion, it gives you a list of scripts and a description of each one. You select it and it is pulled out of the XML repository and run.

Useful? I would think that metadata in the FS would be a better way to go about it, but I would love an easy way to browse the scripts on my system. New? I've never seen it before. Obvious? Probably?

On a local system, this is like being able to use winzip to execute scripts inside of the .zip file, complete with descriptions.

Patenting XML? Nope, not even close.

The example should make it pretty obvious... Can't include it here, cause slashdot removes the tags. :)

Jason Pollock

Open Office?

What does this mean for Openoffice.org?

Scott
(An ignorant clueless person when it comes to what the heck XML is.)

Right!!!!

Microsoft spokesman was quick to deny...

Not saying they're lying, but SCO at one time denied any plans to attack Linux... You can't trust anything these corporate weasels say unless they're under oath, and probably not even then. (growl)

Pretty generic

The first claim reads:

1. In a computer system that includes one or more scripts that can be selected for execution by a user, a method for facilitating the identification and selection of the one or more scripts for execution, the method comprising the acts of:

incorporating the one or more scripts into a file, wherein the file is formatted in such a manner as to enable the one or more scripts to be associated with different scripting languages;

presenting a list of scripts to a user for selection, wherein the list includes an identifier for each of the one or more scripts, the identifier comprising a descriptive name and functional description of each corresponding script; and

upon receiving a user selection of a particular identifier that is associated with a script from the list, executing the script that is associated with the particular identifier.

How many of us here haven't written HTML pages that perform that function? Claims are supposed to be read with the broadest possible interpretation and if *any* of prior art applies anywhere within that range the claim should be rejected.

I think the problem is that examiners seem to be listed to publications whereas much of what goes on in the computer world is not published - just used. And you would have to literally be an expert in the field to understand the ramifications of claims.

This patent is not JUST for XML...

From the patent:

"While the schema or format of the file used to encompass the scripts of a computer system is described herein in terms of XML, it is understood that other file schemas or formats, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) or the like or any combination thereof may be used as described herein. "

PS. How the fsck is this considered an "invention"

Sounds to me that this patent covers scripting in ANY markup language. I wonder if that little thing called the world wide web with all its scripting in a markup language format (javascript in a html document) would be considered prior art.

Business as Usual

This is typical software industry fare. Every major software company has hundreds of lame software patents, with the purpose of using them only if someone else brings a stupid suit. IBM dropped four patent infringement claims on SCO when SCO started that mess. They could probably find four patents in their database for any company in the industry.

This isn't a failure of the system. The system is working fine. It's the system itself that's the problem. Software patents are like nuclear weapons. Nobody likes their existence. Everyone has to have them.

form/function

How did patents come to cover the "use" of an invention, and not the invented device? With the post-Reagan PTO, the patent protects the title of the patent, and the rest of the work is just a prop. How is anyone supposed to build a better mousetrap, when "device to trap mice" is patented?

Prior Art Ubiquitously. Makes my living.

There is no chance that this patent can stand. I make my tax euros exactly that way. I published [coverpages.org] first implementations of that mechanism around '93 (using SGML of course, there was no XML; LaTeX, Lout, roff and other scripts where mixed). I'm even doing this to implement distributed operating system [askemos.org]. I'm using that to proof intrusion resistance, incorruptibility and non-deniability.

Some looser has wasted some $ for patent fees.

Slashdot should be funded by the government.

One of the main goals of the Patent Office is not to issue patents for things unpatentable. This is done by research and discovery of prior art or conflicting patents. They are clearly no longer able to provide this function.

The Patent office is obviously overwhelmed, underfunded, and in danger of becoming obsolete due to excessive rubber-stamping.

If you think about it, Slashdot is the most efficient and lowcost patent buster. It's an aggregator of ridiculous and clearly unenforceable patents where the issue is analyzed from every conceivable angle. The government should consider funding Slashdot for this service, as they are throwing our tax-money away by using the Patent Office who fail to provide it.

= 9J =