Aviran Mordo writes "News.com reports that a small software developer plans to seek royalties from companies that use XML, the latest example of patent claims embroiling the tech industry. Charlotte, N.C-based Scientigo owns two patents (No. 5,842,213 and No. 6,393,426) covering the transfer of 'data in neutral forms.' These patents, one of which was applied for in 1997, are infringed upon by the data-formatting standard XML, Scientigo executives assert."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='patents,internet,developers';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Company Claims Patent Over XML Log in/Create an Account | Top | 379 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 379 comments 0: 372 comments 1: 287 comments 2: 184 comments 3: 62 comments 4: 32 comments 5: 24 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 One word - EDIFACT (Score:5, Informative) by pieterh (196118) <pieter...hintjens@@@imatix...com> on Friday October 21, @03:27PM (#13846886) (http://www.imatix.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday August 28, @06:09PM) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+edifac t&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]Significantly older than 1997, and achieved the same goals as XML, though much less elegantly. [ Reply to ThisAntother word perwill... by oliverthered (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:31PM Re:Antother word perwill... (Score:5, Informative) by dgatwood (11270) on Friday October 21, @03:59PM (#13847215) How about structurally-tagged content dating back as far as the late 1960s? A Brief History of the Development of SGML [sgmlsource.com] For that matter, XML is just a specific, more restrictive dialect of SGML. The SGML draft standard was first published in 1985, twelve years prior to this patent. Since XML is a proper subset of prior art that existed prior to the filing of this patent, XML in effect existed prior to the filing of this patent.If this ever goes to court, the company should expect their lawyers to be prosecuted for barratry. [ Reply to This | ParentBarratry by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:04PMRe:Antother word perwill... by Taladar (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:48PM Of Grains of Salt and Barratry (Score:4, Interesting) by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday October 21, @06:38PM (#13848737) (http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @02:48PM) We're always hearing of lawyers who file groundless suits. How often are they prosecuted for barratry? Seems like the barratry officer would be the most popular guy around, except among the lawyers. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Antother word perwill... (Score:4, Informative) by radtea (464814) on Friday October 21, @06:40PM (#13848748) Not only does SGML predate these patents by a long, long time, XML itself was announced at SGML'96. I took a copy of the draft standard home from that meeting. So XML also predates the earliest patent application by on the order of a year. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Antother word perwill... by Minna Kirai (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:47PMRe:Antother word perwill... by sumdumass (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:43PMRe:Antother word perwill... by sedna (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:50PM Re:One word - EDIFACT (Score:5, Informative) by Uruk (4907) on Friday October 21, @04:09PM (#13847305) (http://gokmop.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 10, @08:27AM) I don't see how this guy's got a case anyway. From his patent statement:The present invention simplifies the data modeling process and enables its full dynamic versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information.That seems to seal it - he's disclaiming heirarchical data structures isn't he? Wouldn't it be fair to say that if anything, XML is a hierarchical data structure?<I>    <always>          <thought>                <so></so>          </thought>    </always></I> [ Reply to This | ParentRe:One word - EDIFACT by MadMorf (Score:3) Friday October 21, @05:23PMRe:One word - EDIFACT by Cobralisk (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @12:13AMBut does it matter? by sterno (Score:3) Friday October 21, @05:25PMRe:But does it matter? by nwbvt (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:57PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:One word - EDIFACT by ad0gg (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:45PMRe:One word - EDIFACT by Lehk228 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:17PMRe:One word - EDIFACT by Nataku564 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:35AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Only *neutral* data forms? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:One word - EDIFACT by bcarl314 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:44PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.What about the Patent examiner responsible? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:15PMRe:What about the Patent examiner responsible? by wolenczak (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:51PMRe:What about the Patent examiner responsible? by Jesus 2.0 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:What about the Patent examiner responsible? by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:22PMRe:What about the Patent examiner responsible? by mavenguy (Score:1) Friday October 21, @07:38PMRe:What about the Patent examiner responsible? by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:07PMHow about gaseous molecules in neutral form by queenb**ch (Score:3) Friday October 21, @04:42PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by Valacosa (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:02PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by Maiko (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:16PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:24PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by B747SP (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:53PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by An ominous Cow art (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:47PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by vettemph (Score:3) Friday October 21, @06:24PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by jZnat (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:10PMRe:How about gaseous molecules in neutral form by OrangeTide (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:33PMRe:One word - EDIFACT by micromuncher (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:55PMRe:One word - EDIFACT by Pxtl (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:39PMRe:One word - EDIFACT by dilettante (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:20PMRe:Two words by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:52PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Patenting Patents (Score:5, Funny) by bldp (912036) on Friday October 21, @03:27PM (#13846889) Somebody should patent the patent process. Quite possibly the only way to screw it up more. [ Reply to This Re:Patenting Patents (Score:5, Funny) by psst (777711) on Friday October 21, @03:33PM (#13846960) (http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~miftakhu/) I have seen this comment posted in every article related to patent abuse. In fact, I am thinking of patenting the idea of patenting the patent process, just so it never comes up on slashdot again. Of course, at some point someone would take it even further and patent patenting my idea, and the someone else ... blah blah blah ... I think you get the idea =) [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Patenting Patents (Score:5, Funny) by bldp (912036) on Friday October 21, @03:44PM (#13847063) We'll just create Godwin's rule of Patent threads.As an online discussion about patents grows longer, the probability someone saying "I'll just patent the patent process" approaches 1. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Patenting Patents (Score:5, Funny) by rpresser (610529) <[rpresser] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday October 21, @03:59PM (#13847211) (http://rpresser.blogspot.com/) What a Nazi-like thing to say! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Patenting Patents by The Monster (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:16PMRe:Patenting Patents by Omnieiunium (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @12:21AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Patenting Patents by shawn(at)fsu (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:31PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Patenting Patents by trip23 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:38PMRe:Patenting Patents by thuh Freak (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:53PMRe:Patenting Patents by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:29PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Patenting Patents by pyrote (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:45PMRe:Patenting Patents by dolphinling (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:49PMRe:Patenting Patents by QuasiDon (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:20PMRe:Patenting Patents by jZnat (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:13PMYou must have missed the original joke by hackwrench (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:39PM No wonder you guys are so crazy about patents (Score:4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, @03:27PM (#13846892) if only i could patent the first post, but another anonymous coward would probably claim prior art. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. SGML? (Score:5, Informative) by slavemowgli (585321) on Friday October 21, @03:27PM (#13846897) (http://venganza.org/) But XML is essentially just a stricter version of SGML, which was developed in the 1960s already. Certainly that is prior art? [ Reply to ThisRe:SGML? by julesh (Score:3) Friday October 21, @03:33PM Re:SGML? (Score:5, Informative) by gstoddart (321705) on Friday October 21, @03:57PM (#13847194) (http://slashdot.org/) While technologically XML is a descendent of SGML, it's used for a substantially different goal: SGML is intended for markup of documents, XML is intended for rendering non-document structured data in a way that allows it to be processed independently of its data type.Close. XML is not 'intended for rendering non-document structured data'.XML allows you to create structured data, be they documents, data interchange, paramet lists, or recipes. XML made some of the schema definitions less ambiguous and more rigid -- SGML had all sorts of things that made parsing difficult. XML didn't say that you can't use XML to store documents and must use it for data. They just said "we'll simplify the rules so that things like yacc can parse the grammar". That's all.XML is completely purpose agnostic. So, actually, was SGML. SGML was primarily used to make structured data, but there was never an expectation that the SGML files were "document" vs "data". Though the original uses of GML/SGML may have been for marking up documents, that wasn't required.I was using SGML for structured data interchange about 10 or 11 years ago. In the same way, I'm free to use XML for either data, documents, or anything else. The DocBook DTD was around in the SGML days, and is still in use now -- it defines documents.As these patents are very clearly about data, not documents, I don't think SGML is a valid antecedent.Not really. The stuff in a document is data to the program that runs it. It is a perfectly valid (and well established) usage of SGML to contain what you're calling data -- config filed, parameters, etc. SGML was being used for data back in the day. Much like XML can be used to represent a 'document', or to hold 'data' -- XML-RPC or the ArborText editors are both uses of XML as an interchange format.An instance of an XML file (ie. an XML document) is either data, document, or whatever it is intended to be.It is completely false ot say that XML and SGML are differentiated by what the purpose of the contents of the file is. And it is completely valid to say the long history of GML/SGML/XML are so much before these patents it's not funny. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:SGML? by gstoddart (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:SGML? by LWATCDR (Score:3) Friday October 21, @04:01PMRe:SGML? by jacksonj04 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:08PMRe:SGML? by Dwonis (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:10PMRe:SGML? by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:33PMRe:SGML? by dgatwood (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:06PMRe:SGML? by drakaan (Score:3) Friday October 21, @04:19PMRe:SGML? by larry bagina (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:37PMRe:SGML? by frisket (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:23PMRe:SGML? by jc42 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:03AMRe:SGML? by slavemowgli (Score:3) Friday October 21, @03:37PM Re:SGML? (Score:5, Funny) by afd8856 (700296) on Friday October 21, @03:50PM (#13847131) On slashdot, only the anonymous coward reads the article. Us, cowboys, will head straight to the arena for a quick round of trolling and fighting. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:SGML? by SuppleMonkey (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:10PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:SGML? by putko (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:52PMI note that you have used a "zero" character. by Bozdune (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:37PMRe:SGML? by dgatwood (Score:3) Friday October 21, @04:02PMRe:SGML? by jeanicinq (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:40PMRe:SGML? by imbaczek (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:20PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Ahh, but I recently patented "Data" by Isca (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:28PMNeutral? by hesiod (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:28PMRe:Neutral? by glug101 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:58PMRe:Neutral? by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:02PMUmm...Prior Art? by Mad-Mage1 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:28PMRe:Umm...Prior Art? by hitchhikerjim (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:45PMRe:Umm...Prior Art? by CodeHog (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:56PMRe:Umm...Prior Art? by shmlco (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:29PMRe:Umm...Prior Art? by CodeHog (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:48PMYears you say? by msimm (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Can you get more generic? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:28PMRe:Can you get more generic? by Onan (Score:3) Friday October 21, @03:37PMRe:Generic is in the definitions by Ropati (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:10PMRe:Can you get more generic? by PortHaven (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:00PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Maybe, I'm just a cock-eyed optimist but... by badbrownie (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:46PM Looooosers. (Score:5, Informative) by Godeke (32895) * on Friday October 21, @03:29PM (#13846919) According to this:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/ webmaster-2002/materials/savory/slides/img18.html [ukoln.ac.uk]the XML draft specification was prepared in November 1996. Good luck with that January 28, 1997 filing date.As the article points out, XML is an outgrowth of SGML, which goes way before these filings. Yet somehow both patents manage to recognize neither SGML nor XML as prior art. Patent trolls indeed, I'm looking forward to the crunching sound their company makes when it is crushed. XML is too entrenched for the big players to ignore these losers. [ Reply to ThisRe:Looooosers. by Yartrebo (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:35PMRe:Looooosers. by Tankko (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:42PM Re:Looooosers. (Score:5, Informative) by 1ucius (697592) on Friday October 21, @03:51PM (#13847135) Incorrect, fortunately. You can't patent something you didn't invent (i.e., independently conceive). 35 USC 102(f). Moreover, even assuming your hypothetical patentee did independently invent the same thing, they would need to prove they conceived that invention before the publication date of the draft specification or magazine. 35 USC 102(a). They may also need to prove they conceived the invention before the author of the publication. 35 USC 102(e) and 102(g). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Looooosers. by Rac3r5 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:32PMRe:Looooosers. by SpaceLifeForm (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:03PMRe:Looooosers. by Rac3r5 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:13PMRe:Looooosers. by tedmg09130913 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:22PMRe:Looooosers. by s!mon (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:16PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Looooosers. by kfg (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:53PMPatented delimited ASCII? by rewt66 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:07PMRe:Looooosers. by giblfiz (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:11PMRe:Looooosers. by Chris Burke (Score:3) Friday October 21, @04:29PMRe:Looooosers. by Godeke (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:31PM Re:Looooosers. (Score:5, Funny) by failure-man (870605) <failureman@NOSpAm.gmail.com> on Friday October 21, @04:48PM (#13847705) They're heds had already asploded. Its to late. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Looooosers. by mpsmps (Score:3) Friday October 21, @05:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold. XML predates this patent filing (Score:5, Interesting) by jesup (8690) * <jesup AT comcast DOT net> on Friday October 21, @03:29PM (#13846921) (http://randell.jesup.org/) From http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s3.paoli.html [xml.com]:"Microsoft cofounded the XML working group at the W3C in July 96 and actively participated in the definition of the standard."This was used in IE4.00 for their Channel Definition File (used to schedule "Pull" of channels, an idea that's largely died). I was implementing CDF files at Scala in '96/97. The patent was filed in '97. [ Reply to ThisRe:XML predates this patent filing by divisionbyzero (Score:3) Friday October 21, @04:22PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Patent protections by totallygeek (Score:3) Friday October 21, @03:29PM Re:Patent protections (Score:4, Informative) by k3s (920880) on Friday October 21, @03:55PM (#13847172) (http://www.lifesabirch.net/resume) Royalties would be what is accomplished. The LZW [dogma.net] algorithm that was patented and people had to pay royalities.With all the other posts describing prior art, I don't think this claim will hold up. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Patent protections by johansalk (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:55PMRSS... by illumina+us (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:29PM I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful) by SimReg (99053) on Friday October 21, @03:29PM (#13846925) (http://www.simreg.net/) Do these companies just forget they have a patent on some technology/feature and then 8 years later when their patent is included in a standard and a huge part of the community they say "Hey, didn't we patent that 8 years ago?"There really needs to be some reform that states a company has 90 days, 1 year, or some short fixed period of time to bring a suit against a product, starting from the time it hits the market and is available to the public, the industry, or something.The idea that you can silently sit on patents waiting for the world to embrace an obvious idea is an abuse of the system. [ Reply to ThisRe:I don't get it... by just_another_sean (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:43PM Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful) by BeJil (569374) on Friday October 21, @04:36PM (#13847588) Close, Lemelson had to do with something called "prosecution laches," and dealt with a patent strategy of keeping a patent from even issueing until the underlying technology becomes widespread. This practice is less problematic now than when Lemelson was originally filed due to changes in the length of a patent term (now a patent term is 20 years from the date of filing, when Lemelson was filed a patent term was 17 years from the date of issue).However, the broader concept of "laches" is relevant. In property law in general, "laches" is the doctrine that requires that a property owner must actively guard their property rights or they will lose them. For example (and this is a simplified example that is not 100% technically accurate), if your neighbor builds a fence that slops over onto your property and you do not make them remove it, after a long enough time period has passed your neighbors will legally own the property encompassed by the fence.The problem is that the application of laches in the IP realm is still an undeveloped concept and the courts have not adequately set out guidelines for determining when a patent holder has forfeited her rights. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:I don't get it... by jzeejunk (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:47PMRe:I don't get it... by ginotech (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:51PM Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative) by Krach42 (227798) on Friday October 21, @03:58PM (#13847197) (http://starport.dnsalias.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 24, @01:43AM) Trademark isn't the same thing as patent law at all. Because Trademark really *is* use it or lose it.That's why McDonalds sues everyone who uses a "McSomething", because to protect their brandname, and trademarks, they have to.If you can show that a company knew about your possible use of their trademark and did nothing against it in a reasonable amount of time, then they lost out, and you can use it.At this point, if you made Google at Timbuktu, and Google didn't do anything about it, then later you grow big enough to cause Google concern, they've already lost out, because the damage to your business Google at Timbuktu of losing what is now your brandname also, would be unfair, just because Google decided to wait to do something about it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:I don't get it... by waynemcdougall (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:47PMRe:I don't get it... by Krach42 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:29PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:I don't get it... by Manitcor (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:58PMtrademarks by falconwolf (Score:2) Friday October 21, @07:28PMRe:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 21, @03:47PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.One word for you: by CompSci101 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:30PM Invalid Claim (Score:5, Informative) by robbyjo (315601) on Friday October 21, @03:30PM (#13846929) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday October 24, @05:10AM) From the patent abstract: The present invention simplifies the data modeling process and enables its full dynamic versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information.XML is hierarchical data structure. Hence, his claim isn't valid. [ Reply to This Re:Invalid Claim (Score:4, Insightful) by RexRhino (769423) on Friday October 21, @03:46PM (#13847077) Yes!Now all you need is two years and $5,000,000 for the legal fees to prove it in court! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Invalid Claim by BalkanBoy (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:10PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Invalid Claim by defaria (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:22PMRe:Invalid Claim by Lehk228 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:12PMRe:Invalid Claim by tedmg09130913 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:25PMRe:Invalid Claim by Qzukk (Score:3) Friday October 21, @03:59PMRe:Invalid Claim by Waffle Iron (Score:1) Friday October 21, @04:26PMRe:Invalid Claim by julesh (Score:2) Friday October 21, @04:55PMRe:Invalid Claim by Waffle Iron (Score:1) Friday October 21, @05:03PMRe:Invalid Claim by julesh (Score:2) Friday October 21, @06:48PMRe:Invalid Claim by vrmlguy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @05:09PMRe:Invalid Claim by I Like Pudding (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:20PMRe:Invalid Claim by m0rph3us0 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:47PMRe:Invalid Claim by doj8 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @03:47PM Re:Invalid Claim (Score:5, Funny) by sootman (158191) on Friday October 21, @03:57PM (#13847192) (Last Journal: Saturday February 26, @12:40AM) Sounds more like they've patented unorganized dataDude, I've totally got prior art there. :-) [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Invalid Claim by GIL_Dude (Score:1) Friday October 21, @06:21PM