I'll link to the Slashdot discussion that happened yesterday. There are a lot of excellent point and I won't attempt at bringing up them all. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/2322209/Microsoft-Patents-XML-Word-Processing-Documents
Bottom line is that there is quite a few examples of prior art in this case. Once again, the USPTO failed to understand technology and awarded a useless patent. Unfortunately, it will cost other companies a lot in legal defense in order to prove that there is/was prior art. --Ryan On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark Fortner wrote: > > I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine that ODF predates Microsofts > > attempts at XML-ifying Office and would therefore be considered prior > > art. The only way the patent would stand up in court would be if the > > scope only covered Microsoft Office (as opposed to anything > > Office-like) or if the judge was technologically clueless. > > > How many USPTO officials and judges are not clueless when it comes to > software technology? > > It wouldn't seem that there could be a whole lot of them given the > current state of affairs. > > -- > Jess Holle > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
