Patent holder plans shakedown of XML users. So, that's everybody, right?

Patent holder plans shakedown of XML users. So, that's everybody, right?

Summary: News.com's Martin Lamonica reports that a small company called Scientigo is claiming that its patents on "data in neutral forms" applies to XML and that it will use the patents to extract royalties from companies that use it.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Patents
3
News.com's Martin Lamonica reports that a small company called Scientigo is claiming that its patents on "data in neutral forms" applies to XML and that it will use the patents to extract royalties from companies that use it. According to the report, Scientigo CEO Doyal Bryant said he'd be seeking to monetize the patents by partnering with a firm that specializes in intellectual property licensing.  Bryant claims to have spoken with large software companies like Oracle and Microsoft and says he'll be looking to collect from Web sites like Amazon.com.   While Bryant didn't literally declare ownership of the Internet, he might as well have.  So much of it today already depends on XML with more to come (particularly with Web 2.0 in the works).  

Topic: Patents

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

3 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Prior art

    Read the claims -- he's basically claiming all forms of tagged data. Among other things that includes Smalltalk and later object-oriented programming languages, Ada, SGML, and quite a few tape-archive formats dating back to the 60s.
    Yagotta B. Kidding
    • Collection will be too hard

      If that's the case, I don't see how he can enforce it. This makes a good case for not sitting on your patent property. If you are going to monetize it, you better do it as soon as the software starts being used. I don't see how they will be able to collect a dime.
      sipps
    • Overly broad claims

      Are no guarantee of revokation. There's always the possibility that re-examination could simply result in narrowing of the claims. Of course that should, IMHO, invalidate the non-obviousness, but PTO just fails to step up to the plate on that one.
      IT_User