Does Microsoft have XML patents?

R

Ramon F Herrera

I read somewhere that Microsoft has hundreds or even more than a
thousand patents which are related to XML.

Can someone confirm/deny this?

-RFH
 
T

Tim Smith

I read somewhere that Microsoft has hundreds or even more than a
thousand patents which are related to XML.

Can someone confirm/deny this?

I'd be rather surprised if anyone here could confirm or deny that you
have read something! :)

But seriously, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "related".
Doing a search at the PTO site for patents that have "Microsoft" in the
assignee name field and XML in the abstract, I come up with 99, but many
of those just happen to specify that they use XML to store something--do
those count as being related to XML?

Anyway, if you want to check those out yourself, and decide which are
related, go here:

<http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html>

then click on "Quick Search", and put Microsoft in term 1, XML in term
2, and change field 1 to assignee name and field 2 to abstract, and you
should get the list I got (well, after you hit "search" :)).

A similar search, but looking for XML in the claims, returns 213
patents. Again, though, a lot comes down to what it means to be related
to XML. There was one there, for instance, that had to do with speech
processing for telephony. In the claims, XML shows up as part of a
dependent claim. Let me digress to explain a little bit about patent
claims. There are two kinds of claims: independent claims and dependent
claims. An independent claim looks like something like this:

5. A method for blah blah blah comprising the steps of yadda yadda
yadda.

It stands alone. A dependent claim looks something like this:

6. The method of claim 5 where the step of yadda is done by a Nun
lathered in baby oil.

A dependent claim narrows down the claim it depends on. (BTW, a
dependent claim can be dependent on an earlier dependent claim, so we
could have a further dependent claim:

7. The method of claim 6 where the Nun is a she-male.

and so on).

That's how XML comes up in this speech processing patent. They have a
claim. Then they narrow it in a dependent claim. Then that dependent
claim is further narrowed in another dependent claim, which involves a
loadable grammar. Then, THAT dependent claim is further narrowed to
"The method of claim 12 wherein the grammar is loaded from an XML file".

I don't think I'd count this patent as being related to XML.

I can't think of any good way to do a search to just get ones that are
actually about XML, although I'd guess that most of those would have XML
mentioned in the abstract, so that list of 99 is probably the place to
start looking.
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

____/ Ramon F Herrera on Monday 24 December 2007 19:13 : \____
I read somewhere that Microsoft has hundreds or even more than a
thousand patents which are related to XML.

Can someone confirm/deny this?

Microsoft will deny this, but it's already confirmed that Microsoft's 'Open'
XML, for example, is a patent trap. See here:

http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/

Mind the bit art the top. I've collected many more examples.


--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | "Black holes are where God is divided by zero"
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 124 total, 1 running, 123 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
 
G

Guest

As was said: Depends on what you mean by "related". There have
certainly been XML-related patents -- I've been involved in several
that IBM has filed, and expect to contribute to others -- but whether
any of them affect any particular XML application depend on the exact
details of that application, just as is true in any other field of
engineering where patents may exist.

Could you be more specific about what question you're really trying to
answer?
 
G

Guest

I should also note that pre-existing patents covering topics in data
processing, networking, et al may be applicable to XML applications,
making the concept of "XML-related" that much fuzzier.

Just for curiosity, I did the above-mentioned quick searches
substituting IBM for Microsoft... I got 137 hits on XML in abstracts,
and 259 hits on claims. I haven't checked in more detail.


BTW, searching the titles is unfortunately often *not* useful. Most
XML-related patents are going to be general data processing techniques
where XML just happens to have been the syntax used in the reference
implementation, and as the boilerplate phrase has it, "an experienced
practitioner will readily see" that the approach could be applied to
other kinds of data.

Note that the converse is also true -- a patent which doesn't
explicitly mention XML may still cover exactly what you want to do.

(I'm firmly of the opinion that any engineer ought to do at least one
full patent search as part of their education.)
 
R

Rick

No more so than ODF.

Yes, more so than ODF. Microsoft has repeatedly gone after competitors
using legal and illegal means to get rid of them. When was the last time
Sun lost an anti-trust action?
 
R

Ramon F Herrera

Could you be more specific about what question you're really trying to
answer?

My concern - and that of all programmers, is that I can write any
conceivable program in C, Java or C++, etc. without fear. (obvious
restrictions notwithstanding).

Should I be fearful when I (or my programs) generate XML code?

-Ramon
 
R

Ramon F Herrera

No more so than ODF.

I beg to differ, Tim. Are you saying that the source code of C# or
Visual J are as open and devoid of the fear factor as that of Java?

I don't have to delve into the relationship (please!) between the
above and my question, do I?

-RFH
 
T

Tim Smith

My concern - and that of all programmers, is that I can write any
conceivable program in C, Java or C++, etc. without fear. (obvious
restrictions notwithstanding).

Should I be fearful when I (or my programs) generate XML code?

It depends on what the XML does or is used for. I don't think that
there are any patents covering XML per se, and if there are, I think
they would have had to have been made available under a reasonable
license as part of XML standardization.

But if you were, say, working on preparation of a software configuration
using an XML type programming language, you might have to worry about
Sun's patent on "Preparation of a software configuration using an XML
type programming language", (Patent number 7,263,699), one of the ~70
patents of Sun that mention XML in the claims. (As was mentioned
before, that's not necessarily a good way to find XML patents, but it
gives a place to start).

If you were writing a program to generate XML documents from a
relational database using XPath data model, then "Generating one or more
XML documents from a relational database using XPath data model" (Patent
number 7,174,327), assigned to IBM, might be of concern.

Personally, I don't worry too much about this when writing code. If any
of those companies were to go after a small outfit over one of these
patents, they'd get a lot of bad publicity, and I don't think they way
that. Microsoft would also feel constrained by their desire to not draw
more attention from antitrust regulators.
 
T

Tim Smith

I beg to differ, Tim. Are you saying that the source code of C# or
Visual J are as open and devoid of the fear factor as that of Java?

No. I'm saying that Sun has patents that cover ODF, Microsoft has
patents that cover OOXML. Both of them have made those patents
available reasonably (but not in a way that makes the formats "open" by
the standards usually used for things to be "open") for those who want
to implement those formats, respectively. Roy decided to use your
initial question as an opportunity to post part of his stock list of
anti-OOXML FUD.
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

____/ Stefan Ram on Tuesday 25 December 2007 04:23 : \____
It was Microsoft Corporation issuing a patent-submission for
»Word-processing document stored in a single XML file«:

http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP1376387&QPN=EP1376387

You're replying to a Microsoft agent/apologist. S/he won't tell you that IBM
has conceded all intents to ever sue (a promise was made to Free software
projects at the least) and Sun hasn't as history of what it /itself/
called 'patent terrorism' (referring to Microsoft).

--
~~ Best of wishes

..oÊʇ sÉ buıɥʇ ɥɔns ou s,ÇɹÇɥʇ 'ɹÇpuÇq 'ʎɹɹoÊ Ê‡,uop :ʎɹɟ
..oÊʇ É ÊÉs ı ʇɥbnoɥʇ ı puÉ ...ÇɹÇÉ¥ÊʎɹÇÊŒÇ soɹÇz puÉ sÇuo .ɯÉÇɹp 1nÉŸÊÉ uÉ
ʇÉÉ¥Ê 'É¥É¥É¥É :ɹÇpuÇq
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

____/ Rick on Tuesday 25 December 2007 04:16 : \____
Yes, more so than ODF. Microsoft has repeatedly gone after competitors
using legal and illegal means to get rid of them. When was the last time
Sun lost an anti-trust action?

"…this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that such a
large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims? The
pedigree of the specification is certainly no reason for hope, Microsoft has
been the target of third party patent claims for some time now including some
high profile losses in patent suits. The fact that the specification has been
developed behind closed doors and on a fast track means that there has been no
adequate opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of third party patent claims
against the specifications. The sheer size of the document suggests there will
be at least a couple hiding in there somewhere."

http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/

About half a dozen nations have already voiced their concerns (explicitly, also
in text) about OOXML patents.

--
~~ Best of wishes

http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1510068k total, 329704k used, 1180364k free, 126440k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
 
R

Rick

No. I'm saying that Sun has patents that cover ODF, Microsoft has
patents that cover OOXML. Both of them have made those patents
available reasonably (but not in a way that makes the formats "open" by
the standards usually used for things to be "open") for those who want
to implement those formats, respectively. Roy decided to use your
initial question as an opportunity to post part of his stock list of
anti-OOXML FUD.

Sun has been show in courts to have illegally maintained monopoly power
on 2 continents. Sun also hasn't used every dirty, underhanded trick in
the book in order to stifle competition, either.
 
L

Linonut

* (e-mail address removed) fired off this tart reply:
(I'm firmly of the opinion that any engineer ought to do at least one
full patent search as part of their education.)

That might kill his desire for an engineering career!
 
T

Tim Smith

"…this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that such a
large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims? The

There isn't--same as with ODF, which is why Sun's license includes this:

This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Sun's
issued patents cover an OpenDocument Implementation or are
enforceable, or (ii) that an OpenDocument Implementation would not
infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third
party.

Roy continues picking for his anti-OOXML FUD things that are flaws in
both ODF and OOXML. Why not pick things that are flaws in OOXML but are
fine in ODF?
 
J

Joseph Kesselman

Should I be fearful when I (or my programs) generate XML code?

1) XML isn't code, it's a data markup convention.

2) MS has no ownership in XML itself.

3) MS (or someone else) might have patents applicable to specific uses
of XML, to the same extent that they might have patents applicable to
that applciation if its data was kept in some other representation.

In other words, XML shouldn't make you any more fearful than anything
else does. Or any less; your C/Java/C++ code might also infringe
someone's patent.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top