Home Page
08.29.2006 (previous | next)
Thats an Obvious Patent, Duh

Computer World New Zealand reports of an "open source victory" over Microsoft on a patent related to XML technology after Microsoft made "changes to its patent" following presentation of prior art uncovered by the New Zealand Open Source Society.

My opinion on the specific patent aside, this is a good development, an example of an open source group using existing policy infrastructure to effect its goals: to unmask obvious patents (and everyone I know dislikes obvious patents). Even more, its an example of a private party's ability to curb concerns on stifled innovation from obvious patents under current patent policies, thereby dispelling the myth that software patents will cause the technology industries to implode unless there are fanatical and unconsidered changes such as eliminating software patents altogether.

The patent will no longer cover the XML file formats that Microsoft is using and therefore anyone is free to interoperate with Microsoft file formats without fear of patent litigation from this particular patent.
The Microsoft patent in question "governs word processing document[s] stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML”. With modifications to the patent, the open source group inis no longer concerned about using the relevant technology. A Computer World reports quotes a representative:
Microsoft made “significant changes” so that the prior art the society uncovered, primarily in the form of word processor Abiword’s handling of XML, would no longer apply.

...(following the amendment) templates stored in binary blocks inside the document were now a required feature to infringe the patent.

The open source group stated that it may pursue similar action in the future to prevent obvious patents from harming "open source and the software industry."

posted by Noel Le @ 1:07 PM | Patents

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(3)


Comments

"...there are fanatical and unconsidered changes such as eliminating software patents altogether."

Not really that fanatical, unless you consider Europe to be comprised of 'fanatics' Recall the Software Patent Directive could not get passed there, and several countries had taken stand on this issue specifically directing their representitives at the EU not to adopt the software patent directive. It will never pass in Europe, IMHO.

The jury is still out on whether software patents are good for innovation, and a number of software companies (e.g., Red Hat, Novell, and to some extent IBM) have come out against the present software patent regime.

Posted by: enigma_foundry at August 29, 2006 1:49 PM

Well, things would be a lot easier to deal with if simply bringing an example of prior art was automatic grounds for revocation of a patent without the right of appeal (except where the patentee can argue it's not prior art). People would lose a lot less sleep if there were less involvement from the courts and a more direct involvement of the patent offices before, during and after the patent being issued.

Posted by: MikeT at August 29, 2006 2:32 PM

Enigma, of course I don't see the EU as comprised of fanatics. But, I do see them as behind on innovation. I hope that fine they slapped on Microsoft gets them through the fiscal year when innovation didn't really turn out. Why would the US take the EU as a model?

MikeT, I belieave the New Zealand Open Source group went through their patent office and that similar action in the US would go through the USPTO. I need to check into this more.

Now, you can't follow the New Zealand group's efforts for every obvious patent. In fact, they they were very strategic in targeting the MIcrosoft patent. Sounds like something that can also be done by open source consortiums and other industry groups.

***"an analysis was performed on many software patents that potentially could have been opposed. The NZOSS chose the Microsoft word processing XML patent because of clear prior art that invalidated it and the potential for the patent to greatly impact on software innovation in New Zealand”.***

Posted by: Noel Le at August 29, 2006 3:12 PM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page