But there is also the fact, pointed out in the article, that XML was put through the standardisation process, and the goal of that standardisation process was to come up with an open derivative of HTML that could be used for precisely such a purpose.
To take part in such a standardisation process and then turn around and attempt to patent it, is in violation of the usual patent process. Patents in common law, if I remember correctly, are to reward the development of a unique proprietary product which has been developed behind closed doors - ie, not in the open cut-and-thrust of the standardisation process - by awarding the developers of such a product a legally-enforceable monopoly on its manufacture for a period of time in which the manufacturer has a reasonable chance of recouping the losses involved in its development, and being able to write them down as investment expenses, repaid by the product's sales. It is also to ensure that the processes concerned, the design developments, etc, have a chance to percolate outwards via licenses, etc, until it becomes standard knowledge and the industry concerned develops and improves. (This is information that I got when I enquired about patenting an electronic guitar pickup design in 1992 - I expected it to be common knowledge. Evidentally not.) Microsoft fails that test on several counts - firstly, XML is a standard, not a product, and as such, has _NOT_ been developed behind closed doors, but out in the open. Why should IBM, SUN, etc, be expected to subsidize Microsoft's extravagances? Secondly, patenting something like that goes against the grain. Patents are to ensure that a valuable technological improvement gets disseminated broadly while repaying its developers for developing it and for making it widely available. If something has been developed in a broad standards-making process, then it has already been disseminated broadly, it is hardly a proprietary secret in urgent need of defending against rivals. Thirdly, Microsoft is intending to use this as a rod to beat Linux, OpenOffice.org, etc. This again goes against the grain of patents, which are to reward an inventor for allowing rivals to see and make use of his invention while enforcing his rights on it, not for him to punish rivals. As such it falls under the area of anti-competition laws, misleading advertising, etc. The question of whether or not Microsoft was vaporwaring XML as its _new_ _innovation_, hardly counts - except for the fact that OO.org has been using it for the last two years minimum. While Microsoft is still in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land with its XML vaporware. Wesley Parish On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:42, you wrote: > > sorry when did MS start on xml as a format for office docs? > > before OO I do believe! > > I'm not familiar with patent law (and it's different everywhere), and > I'm not about to disagree with a lawyer about this :) But, just because > they were first to start doing something doesn't mean they can get the > patent by default later on after everyone has done it. In this case, > their own product is the prior art. As an aside, I think that in NZ > prior art is determined from the time of the patent filing, where in the > US you can file a patent up to a year after the invention & still claim > the patent. Am I correct in saying that? > > Cheers > Brad > > > > Wesley Parish > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:32, Brad Beveridge wrote: > > > > If it was only filed last year, surely there is plenty of > > > > prior art > > > > > > in OpenOffice? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Dale Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:42 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: MS at it again .... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > > > > > Just noticed this interest snippet ..... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nzoss.org.nz/portal/modules.php?name=News&file=arti > > > > > cle&sid=284 > > > > > <-- kinda a worry ..... > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Dale. > > > > > > -- > > > Wesley Parish > > > * * * > > > Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish > > > * * * > > > Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" > > > You ask, "What is the most important thing?" > > > Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." > > > I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people." -- Wesley Parish * * * Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish * * * Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
