Microsoft patents XML word processing documents
Summary
The patent would appear to cover all usage of XML and XSDs in word processing document, which would effectively leave all other modern word processors - and other software that used their documents - liable to licensing by the company.
Topics
The US patent office has granted a Microsoft patent application, 7,571,169, which "... is directed at providing a word-processing document in a native XML file format that may be understood by an application that understands XML, or to enable another application or service to create a rich document in XML so that the word-processing application can open it as if it was one of its own documents. "
The patent, filed in December 2004 and granted on August 4 2009, specifies that this is done using an XML Schema Document (XSD), which contains more information about the document's formatting, and also covers systems that can open the document without using the original word processing software.
Both XML and XML Schema are long-established open standards, designed to do exactly this, among many other functions.
The patent also specifies that the document can contain formatting information such as line, paragraph and page breaks, font styles and sizes, and other standard components of text documents.
Within the patent, Microsoft has included a list of over a hundred references to books, articles, patents and other software that bear on XML usage in word processing.
On the face of it, the patent would appear to cover all usage of XML and XSDs in word processing document, which would effectively leave all other modern word processors - and other software that used their documents - liable to licensing by the company.
This article was originally posted on ZDNet UK.
Just In
How would this patent relate to Apple's already existing Property List Editor application, a Developer Tool for editing "plist files" written in XML (along with any other XML files that might wander onto a Mac without being a .plist file)?
Nobody can make a word processor now that uses XML and XSD? Good Lord, what if we did that with all of our applications?
There is no level too low for them to stoop.
the state of NJ has already taken that one, along with the taxation of the air.
they have to charge by volume, because they couldn't generate much off of quality.
Sorry... couldn't resist, now back to the subject...
Sorry... couldn't resist, now back to the subject...
Microsoft is the only company that does this.
Who invented the TV? Wasn't RCA, who fought Philo Taylor Farnsworth for the patent and with a 50 million dollar patent suit. Why? Because they thought of it first. However, Philo Farnsworth created the working version for which the patent was issued.
Big corporations will always fight for patents to avoid royalties. It is in their best interest, whether you agree with it or not.
It's the nature of business.
Who invented the TV? Wasn't RCA, who fought Philo Taylor Farnsworth for the patent and with a 50 million dollar patent suit. Why? Because they thought of it first. However, Philo Farnsworth created the working version for which the patent was issued.
Big corporations will always fight for patents to avoid royalties. It is in their best interest, whether you agree with it or not.
It's the nature of business.
...the robber barons of the 1800's said: "It is how capitalism works and how mankind acquires progress..." Nonsense...
The brought onto us the great depression of the 1920's and World War I and II...
In real terms, the U.S. Patent system is broken, and needs fixing.
This as well as other stuff really created the Great Recession... it wasn't housing or NINJAs... that's the story every bank wants to tell you...
The brought onto us the great depression of the 1920's and World War I and II...
In real terms, the U.S. Patent system is broken, and needs fixing.
This as well as other stuff really created the Great Recession... it wasn't housing or NINJAs... that's the story every bank wants to tell you...
In most countries a patent can only be granted if a technology can be shown to b 'not already in the public domain'. To some that is the very definition of 'open'.
XML is an open standard, the purpose of which is to create documents (of all kinds). What Microsoft has done is to patent the use of doing something with a particular tool, akin to patenting the use of a paint brush and paint to paint a house.
There are many word processors that used XML to format documents long before Microsoft made the application. The application should have been denied, however, it has no real meaning as it does not affect the use of XML to format text in document management systems, content management systems or page formatting suites (dtp).
The main problem with your view point is that many people come up with the same idea at the same time. Intellectual Property laws may be intended to protect the entity who comes up with an idea (mainly the company th hard worker works for) but mainly has the affect of ham stringing innovation. They also tie up a lot of resources that are needed in times like now... but thats another discussion.
XML is an open standard, the purpose of which is to create documents (of all kinds). What Microsoft has done is to patent the use of doing something with a particular tool, akin to patenting the use of a paint brush and paint to paint a house.
There are many word processors that used XML to format documents long before Microsoft made the application. The application should have been denied, however, it has no real meaning as it does not affect the use of XML to format text in document management systems, content management systems or page formatting suites (dtp).
The main problem with your view point is that many people come up with the same idea at the same time. Intellectual Property laws may be intended to protect the entity who comes up with an idea (mainly the company th hard worker works for) but mainly has the affect of ham stringing innovation. They also tie up a lot of resources that are needed in times like now... but thats another discussion.
fighting anyone who had patented a circut that would stablize any function in a TV. What RCA didn't already have, they would sue the REAL inventor until the patent holder went bankrupt and/or couldn't collect royalties.
you still have to stop all the others that do it as well. Good luck.
Did I say it was right? Nah... just saying that is business as usual.
Did I say it was right? Nah... just saying that is business as usual.
Would gladly trademark the term "Apple", banning any reference to the word that didn't reference their company (heaven forbid either the apple farmers, or the record label that produced the Beatles) if they could get away with it.
Before you get all Anti-MS, look at when the patent was applied for. It may have been approved of 2009, but the application was submitted 2004. For flaws, look instead to the US patent system which has still not caught up with the times!
Before you get all Anti-MS, look at when the patent was applied for. It may have been approved of 2009, but the application was submitted 2004. For flaws, look instead to the US patent system which has still not caught up with the times!
Apple is already owned by the Beatles (Apple Records). Apple computer got their permission to use it as long as Apple Computer didn't get into the music business, thereby competing with Apple Records.
I think they may have over stepped as well.
Even if MS has the patent, it depends on how they use it. They may just want the patent so they can use that type of file and not have to worry about someone else patenting it. If that happened, wouldn't they be the ones that got burnt. This may simply be CYA.
Even if MS has the patent, it depends on how they use it. They may just want the patent so they can use that type of file and not have to worry about someone else patenting it. If that happened, wouldn't they be the ones that got burnt. This may simply be CYA.
iTunes is a distribution platform. The agreement stated that Apple stay out of the music business... i.e. the business of making music. They are free to engage in music distribution.
I don't know much about US patent law, but I'd expect that you do not abuse a patent once you can proof you used the technique before the patent was applied for.
That in mind, I am sure MS wants to make money out of it by sub-licensing and their own products!
That in mind, I am sure MS wants to make money out of it by sub-licensing and their own products!
MS need their own to stop those other clowns screwing their business. Much the same as RIM had to invent some of their own methodology when they were put off air by some weasels a few years back.
They need to patent something purely to be allowed to sell, never mind make extra from Word.
It has zippo to do with 'making money', just getting round an absurd patent against them.
They need to patent something purely to be allowed to sell, never mind make extra from Word.
It has zippo to do with 'making money', just getting round an absurd patent against them.
the WinWord and Excel license fees from MS???
...Apple had to get clearance from the Beatles' company to use the word commercially.
And from Nabisco when they brought out the Newton.
And it's "the record label the Beatles created", not "that produced the Beatles".
And from Nabisco when they brought out the Newton.
And it's "the record label the Beatles created", not "that produced the Beatles".
No doubt they would -- the laws that allow and establish
corporations pretty strongly force managements to maximize
shareholder benefit to the exclusion of any other concerns. So
MS management is just doing what they are chartered to do.
The real culprit here is the U.S. Patent Office which is NOT
chartered to be stupid, but routinely shows abysmal ignorance of
prior art and/or "obviousness" in technical patent approvals.
They are also not chartered to be in thrall to corporations that
are trying to build massive patent portfolios -- their
constituency is supposed to be the American public, but they
seem to have long-ago forgotten that.
Some would say that you can always challenge a bad patent in
court. Yes, if you have the money and time.
Government regulatory bodies always tend to end up captive to
those they are supposed to be regulating. That has happened to
our Patent Office, and we have a broken system.
The solution to that is supposed to be serious Congressional
oversight of regulatory bodies -- something we don't seem to get
from our Congress, it's members are too busy serving lobbyists.
corporations pretty strongly force managements to maximize
shareholder benefit to the exclusion of any other concerns. So
MS management is just doing what they are chartered to do.
The real culprit here is the U.S. Patent Office which is NOT
chartered to be stupid, but routinely shows abysmal ignorance of
prior art and/or "obviousness" in technical patent approvals.
They are also not chartered to be in thrall to corporations that
are trying to build massive patent portfolios -- their
constituency is supposed to be the American public, but they
seem to have long-ago forgotten that.
Some would say that you can always challenge a bad patent in
court. Yes, if you have the money and time.
Government regulatory bodies always tend to end up captive to
those they are supposed to be regulating. That has happened to
our Patent Office, and we have a broken system.
The solution to that is supposed to be serious Congressional
oversight of regulatory bodies -- something we don't seem to get
from our Congress, it's members are too busy serving lobbyists.
I have to put blame on them as well. How often have you heard the open source market complain about Microsoft and others in this regard, then sit by and do absolutely nothing to correct the abuses.
Microsoft habitually accuses Linux of violating their patented intellectual property. The Linux community responds by saying they don't but what else do they do? Nothing.
If I was in the leadership of that community, I would organize and get supporters and file a law suite against Microsoft for defamation of character. This would require Microsoft to put up or shut up.
If open source is so honorable in their work, and so good for everyone, why do they not oppose things like this patent and Microsoft's continued claims of them violating patents?
My take is that they are cowards.
Microsoft habitually accuses Linux of violating their patented intellectual property. The Linux community responds by saying they don't but what else do they do? Nothing.
If I was in the leadership of that community, I would organize and get supporters and file a law suite against Microsoft for defamation of character. This would require Microsoft to put up or shut up.
If open source is so honorable in their work, and so good for everyone, why do they not oppose things like this patent and Microsoft's continued claims of them violating patents?
My take is that they are cowards.
So they are cowards for not having the huge amount of money it takes to litigate against MS.
This must be a completely new definition of "coward".
This must be a completely new definition of "coward".
How about you do that? I would prefer the open source community uses thier time and effort making a better product, rather than fighting a loosing battle. how many corporations can MS afford to bankrupt in court? Do you honestly think that a group of individuals not getting paid, are going to use hard earned money to fight them?
All they have to do is find out WHAT pantent has been violated and the community will remove it. Plain and simple. They have done it before, and they can do it again.
Then, as linux progresses and becomes the product that Windows should be (sorry but windows sux, and the only thing they have going for them is the sheer number off applications), then MS will start loosing marketshare. THEN we will see who the real coward is.
All they have to do is find out WHAT pantent has been violated and the community will remove it. Plain and simple. They have done it before, and they can do it again.
Then, as linux progresses and becomes the product that Windows should be (sorry but windows sux, and the only thing they have going for them is the sheer number off applications), then MS will start loosing marketshare. THEN we will see who the real coward is.
Do you think that no one owns the patent on CD-ROM drives? How about Harddrives? DVD drives? SD card readers? The CD itself. DVDs? All these technologies have inventors, and subseqeuntly royalties are paid.
There was a suit a few years ago about a large PC maker failing to pay royalties for the use of CD-ROMs. These royalties generally don't amount to much per unit, but ensures the inventor doesn't create technology without conpensation.
How would you like to build something for a living, and then have everyone in the world copy it and you go broke?
Not saying MS will go broke, or that they invented XML Documents, but that is why the system works the way it does.
That said, the inventor should have patented it first. As far as I know, no patent office issues patents to people unless they apply first, and those who apply first are given priority unless someone else can prove they either invented it first, or have a better way of doing it.
There was a suit a few years ago about a large PC maker failing to pay royalties for the use of CD-ROMs. These royalties generally don't amount to much per unit, but ensures the inventor doesn't create technology without conpensation.
How would you like to build something for a living, and then have everyone in the world copy it and you go broke?
Not saying MS will go broke, or that they invented XML Documents, but that is why the system works the way it does.
That said, the inventor should have patented it first. As far as I know, no patent office issues patents to people unless they apply first, and those who apply first are given priority unless someone else can prove they either invented it first, or have a better way of doing it.
It's not fair to compares CD and DVDS with this. XML and XSD are simply virtual ways of organizing data.. It's like Microsoft was patenting the idea of organizing books on a shelf alphabetically. More than that XML and XSD have always been open standards,so their uses should be too of course.
This is as if someone was giving away shovels, but there's a catch: you can use it for anything at all, except digging, cause this is a patented idea, you have to pay who had the "brilliant" idea of using a shovel to dig, because of course this is so hard to come up with and totally unprecedented.
This is so crazy and outrageous.. It's unbelievable that someone granted them this patent. It's really f***ed up.
This is as if someone was giving away shovels, but there's a catch: you can use it for anything at all, except digging, cause this is a patented idea, you have to pay who had the "brilliant" idea of using a shovel to dig, because of course this is so hard to come up with and totally unprecedented.
This is so crazy and outrageous.. It's unbelievable that someone granted them this patent. It's really f***ed up.
doesn't make it less of an IP.
It's like Microsoft was patenting the idea of organizing books on a shelf alphabetically.
You can patent an idea. It only has to show that it is plausable. The original patents for teh TV were based on idea, and it wasn't until Filo Farnsworth proved a better way that those patents were appealed and then granted to Farnsworth.
Anyone can appeal MS's patents if they have suffecient proof they did it first as well.
None of this means the system is broke. It works as intended.
It's like Microsoft was patenting the idea of organizing books on a shelf alphabetically.
You can patent an idea. It only has to show that it is plausable. The original patents for teh TV were based on idea, and it wasn't until Filo Farnsworth proved a better way that those patents were appealed and then granted to Farnsworth.
Anyone can appeal MS's patents if they have suffecient proof they did it first as well.
None of this means the system is broke. It works as intended.
filing briefs and appeals, and that takes tons of money. Lawyers don't do litigation for free.
And the ral kicker is that MS has lawyers that do nothing but litigating patents, even if they are wrong.
You can't collect roylties if MS files an injunction against you even if you already have a patent license. You might win, but you'll be broke and can't afford to enforce your rights.
And the ral kicker is that MS has lawyers that do nothing but litigating patents, even if they are wrong.
You can't collect roylties if MS files an injunction against you even if you already have a patent license. You might win, but you'll be broke and can't afford to enforce your rights.
The only factor that has changed is some of the companies are now way bigger. Life isn't always fair.
What people are bring up are two areas of patents called prior art and judicial knowledge. Either of these can get the patent invalidated and can be addressed either during the comment period of the application or in court after the patent has been awarded. (note that it doesn't necessarily need to be the drawn out mess of the old Apple vs. MS case).
The other thing people should do is examine the actual patent. It will have a series of specific claims that combine to make the patent for that application. When you file a patent, one of the things you must provide is a preferred embodiment. The more developed and judicial the knowledge, the more specific and detailed that preferred embodiment must generally be. So it may well be that we're talking specifics to MS's specific use for their applications rather than a concept patent.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but I do have several patents to my name, as well as having had to do research on many others.
The other thing people should do is examine the actual patent. It will have a series of specific claims that combine to make the patent for that application. When you file a patent, one of the things you must provide is a preferred embodiment. The more developed and judicial the knowledge, the more specific and detailed that preferred embodiment must generally be. So it may well be that we're talking specifics to MS's specific use for their applications rather than a concept patent.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but I do have several patents to my name, as well as having had to do research on many others.
A rational answer.
Very informative.
Very informative.
Remember the ATT vs Microsoft suit in the recent past? Microsoft licensed an ATT patent. They then moved it off shore and got the Supreme Court to agree that US patents are enforceable only in the US and therefore their use off shore was exempt from the licensing issues. With most manufacturing occurring off shore, including software, I wonder if they will be registering this one globally.
They can not do that.
Software "patents" are recognized in the US and a couple of other countries.
All the rest of the world do not have such a fault in their patent systems.
Shouldn't that tell somthing about the stupidity of software "patents" ?
Software "patents" are recognized in the US and a couple of other countries.
All the rest of the world do not have such a fault in their patent systems.
Shouldn't that tell somthing about the stupidity of software "patents" ?
I agree with you, insane.
Now, what about the open specification promise?
Now, what about the open specification promise?
prior art.
Besides: XML is designed to do just this.
Besides: XML is designed to do just this.
The US patent office will rubber stamp almost anything. They are so swamped with paperwork that they can not possibly give a proper review of all applications. The entire patent system is the problem and companies are taking advantage of this. I'm not saying that what they are doing is illegal, they are in their right to do so. I am questioning if this is the right (moral) thing to do since these works are a collaborative effort by the community and making that work yours (Patenting) is the same as taking money out of the collection basket in church, yes it can be done, but it is highly frowned upon.
I just think the PTO isn't sophisticated enough to understand what is really going on.
it is open source that doesn't operate the way standard businesses did when the patent office was created.
Had the collective formed an orginazation and applied for the patent before Microsoft, they would have likely gotten it. This has been done before, and they have only themselves to blame for leaving it out in the open.
Until the US becomes a socialist state, capitalism will continue to dictate business practice. Unless you want the government to own everything, and have to work for nothing, you might not want to oppose it too much.
Just saying.
Had the collective formed an orginazation and applied for the patent before Microsoft, they would have likely gotten it. This has been done before, and they have only themselves to blame for leaving it out in the open.
Until the US becomes a socialist state, capitalism will continue to dictate business practice. Unless you want the government to own everything, and have to work for nothing, you might not want to oppose it too much.
Just saying.
The differences between our original patent system and the current one are extreme and profound. The original intent of the patent system was to protect individual inventors. Today it frequently does just the opposite, protecting large corporations from creative startups.
Might I suggest reading "The Patent Office Pony: A History of the Early Patent Office"? Many of the modern day abuses of the patent system were not possible under the original.
Might I suggest reading "The Patent Office Pony: A History of the Early Patent Office"? Many of the modern day abuses of the patent system were not possible under the original.
1999: OpenOffice.org 1.0, based on StarOffice's source code, is published, using a documented XML-based file format for:
- its spreadsheet module,
- its presentation module,
- its drawing module,
- and, oh, yes, its word processing module.
This file format was later on used as a basis to write the Open Document Format.
So, there is prior art: in 1999, a documented, working implementation of a word processor file format based on XML 1.0 is out. This one was made by Sun Microsystem for both UNIX and Win32 environments.
In 2009, the US patent office delivers a patent to Microsoft for a file format description that not only has prior art, but also covers ISO and ECMA standards that are published and implemented.
This patent, except if it also says that you can store waffles in an XML file, is void.
And it cost money to file, process and acknowledge that silly thing. If this is Capitalism at its best, I'll take Communism any day: at least they weren't proud of being inefficient.
- its spreadsheet module,
- its presentation module,
- its drawing module,
- and, oh, yes, its word processing module.
This file format was later on used as a basis to write the Open Document Format.
So, there is prior art: in 1999, a documented, working implementation of a word processor file format based on XML 1.0 is out. This one was made by Sun Microsystem for both UNIX and Win32 environments.
In 2009, the US patent office delivers a patent to Microsoft for a file format description that not only has prior art, but also covers ISO and ECMA standards that are published and implemented.
This patent, except if it also says that you can store waffles in an XML file, is void.
And it cost money to file, process and acknowledge that silly thing. If this is Capitalism at its best, I'll take Communism any day: at least they weren't proud of being inefficient.
I think you need to read more about what capitalism and communism is.
I've read many of your comments. From the looks of it, you have no idea what socialism/communism really is.
You think both are just some form of dictatorship which, if you've actually read the book that started it all, you'd know is far from the truth. It's actually about as far from the truth as you can get.
As for Capitalism, what we have in the US right now is also a form of Dictatorship, though it's milder than others around the world.
Don't think I'm right? Go to Best Buy and get a computer running Linux.
You think both are just some form of dictatorship which, if you've actually read the book that started it all, you'd know is far from the truth. It's actually about as far from the truth as you can get.
As for Capitalism, what we have in the US right now is also a form of Dictatorship, though it's milder than others around the world.
Don't think I'm right? Go to Best Buy and get a computer running Linux.
I know what Marx wrote, and I know how leaders have practiced it. Hitler did not like Marxism, and choose to implement his own ideal of nationalist/socialism. But if no one practices Marxist socialism, then socialism then evolves to how it is practiced.
Are there socialst countries that do better than others? Yes. Does that make them automaticaly better then Capitalist countries? No. Can you mix the two? Yes.
As for Capitalism, what we have in the US right now is also a form of Dictatorship, though it's milder than others around the world.
The president doesn't have that much influence, despite what he wishes. And he is now finding that out.
Don't think I'm right? Go to Best Buy and get a computer running Linux.
The Best Buy's here don't carry Linux systems anymore because to many people brought them back. And sales were dismal at best. Not sure what your point was with that.
Are there socialst countries that do better than others? Yes. Does that make them automaticaly better then Capitalist countries? No. Can you mix the two? Yes.
As for Capitalism, what we have in the US right now is also a form of Dictatorship, though it's milder than others around the world.
The president doesn't have that much influence, despite what he wishes. And he is now finding that out.
Don't think I'm right? Go to Best Buy and get a computer running Linux.
The Best Buy's here don't carry Linux systems anymore because to many people brought them back. And sales were dismal at best. Not sure what your point was with that.
You simply do not understand patent law, either as it was originally
conceived, or now. Patents don't simply default to the first person who
applies. If prior art existed, but no one applied for a patent, that does
not allow for another party to patent. Prior art invalidates future patents.
The existence of prior art in the form of Open Source XML formate
invalidates ANY MS patent attempt here. No "collective" needs to come
together to apply for a patent. Prior art trumps any MS patent claim.
Period.
Just saying.
conceived, or now. Patents don't simply default to the first person who
applies. If prior art existed, but no one applied for a patent, that does
not allow for another party to patent. Prior art invalidates future patents.
The existence of prior art in the form of Open Source XML formate
invalidates ANY MS patent attempt here. No "collective" needs to come
together to apply for a patent. Prior art trumps any MS patent claim.
Period.
Just saying.
So why didn't anyone show prior art?
Maybe because the methods that MS patented differ from the prior art you speak of.
There are always more then one way to skin a patent.
Maybe because the methods that MS patented differ from the prior art you speak of.
There are always more then one way to skin a patent.
Again, you CLEARLY don't understand US (or international) patent law.
It is not the responsibility of third parties to show prior art. This would
be absurd, as it would require everyone to constantly monitor the patent
application base to see if ANYONE EVER submitted something they were
already doing.
The job for submitting prior art falls first on the applicant, in this case
Microsoft, and then, if the patent is granted, the petitioner wishing to
have that patent invalidated.
Trust me, MS will NEVER secure ANY licenses for this patent, as it is
completely bogus.
It is not the responsibility of third parties to show prior art. This would
be absurd, as it would require everyone to constantly monitor the patent
application base to see if ANYONE EVER submitted something they were
already doing.
The job for submitting prior art falls first on the applicant, in this case
Microsoft, and then, if the patent is granted, the petitioner wishing to
have that patent invalidated.
Trust me, MS will NEVER secure ANY licenses for this patent, as it is
completely bogus.
And I love making you chase the conversation.
I frankly don't care either way... have a nice day.
I frankly don't care either way... have a nice day.
Do you REALLY mean to say that without "software patents" the US will be a socialistic country ?
You do not seem to have much faith in the US !
You do not seem to have much faith in the US !
I have plenty of faith in the US. Did I say for anyone to hold their breath while waiting for it to happen? Nope.
Well, considering that they're all attorneys and do not need to know anything about technology.
What do you expect?
What do you expect?
Now we know why Microsoft has adopted ISO-29600 file formats: they're the only ones who can legally use them! All of the others can now be shut down by injunction.
Under the opinion of the Supreme Court in KSR, the examiner inappropriately allowed the claims (using a lack of motivation or suggestion in the prior art). Microsoft will win on appeal. If you want real patent advice go to www.masonpatents.com.
James Mason
James Mason
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
