Indeed Groklaw in general for a better perspective on legal issues vis a vis software patents and the like.
If you want a biased freetard POV, yes.
What's really funny is she ignores the probable impact on ODF. As i said on the other thread, MS probably doesn't care that much to lose if it kills ODF in the US.
iWork is safe (I think). Apple uses the OpenDocument code (sans Sun MicroSystems) or similar to read these files... Albiet not 100% correctly (you'll probably never notice).
I'm only assuming it's the OD reader because NeoOffice and OpenOffice open this particular Word doc the exact same way. MS Word on PC or Mac open it correctly. It's a quad table embedded Table... That's a table inside a table inside a table.... Wierd, neat, different, I wouldn't do it that way...
Reading the patent I would say this one may have legs. First, it is a specific implementation method for document/formatting separation. Second, the priority data - 1994 - is early enough that I couldn't dispute it as being original at the time.
The patent is quite well written and reasonable to read.
Can you imagine if Office is pulled rom the shelves? It seems a fairly remote possibility, but just consider that for a moment, and the resulting fallout.
Can you imagine if Office is pulled rom the shelves? It seems a fairly remote possibility, but just consider that for a moment, and the resulting fallout.
I use OpenOffice.org at home, anyway. It's cheaper. Businesses might be hit hard, though. Unless they're still running XP Pro and Office 2003 like mine.
Anyone who would portray groklaw as a "biased freetard" has no credibility at all and isn't worth listening to.
Sane people can disagree, but this kind of moniker is on the same level as calling Obama a "socialist." It paints you as an exaggerator at best, and more likely someone with a very big bias of their own.
Holy crap it's that East Texas court again. Isn't there some sort of special fence that could be built around that damned town? Really tall, enclosed over the top, and air-tight? It wouldn't have to stay up long. Just long enough for the people inside to use up all the air.
On a more serious note, what I'd like to see from someone is some sort of statistic on how often these kinds of rulings are overturned in higher courts. As loony as this East Texas court is, I bet most of their rulings are overturned. At least I hope that's the case.
Reading the patent I would say this one may have legs. First, it is a specific implementation method for document/formatting separation. Second, the priority data - 1994 - is early enough that I couldn't dispute it as being original at the time.
The patent is quite well written and reasonable to read.
I wonder why this was not apparent at the time the xml was developed. I didn't read the full patent but everything reads like a xml with a stylesheet - content and presentation. If I've missed some nuance perhaps this could be pointed out?
What's really funny is she ignores the probable impact on ODF. As i said on the other thread, MS probably doesn't care that much to lose if it kills ODF in the US.
This won't 'kill' anything. This is about money, not killing a given format/approach. MS makes tons of money from using this patent. If it continues to go against them they will be forced to license the patent for $$$.
The body controlling ODF would also then have to consider a license. The $$ for that license need not be (nor would likely be) the same cost as MS as the controlling body doesn't make (much) money from the invention. This would be up to i4i. They could decide to release it under GPLx or other license as well. Lots of choices which don't kill anything.
I wonder why this was not apparent at the time the xml was developed. I didn't read the full patent but everything reads like a xml with a stylesheet - content and presentation. If I've missed some nuance perhaps this could be pointed out?
XML is just a standard or tool without method or application (a hammer not a house) which can be used to implement the methods of this patent. As such I can't see XML itself as a violation.
Obviously the Mac version is included in the ruling due to having the functionality at issue. I wouldn't worry about it going off the market anytime soon. The ruling does not apply to resellers and resellers are very well stocked.
What's really funny is she ignores the probable impact on ODF. As i said on the other thread, MS probably doesn't care that much to lose if it kills ODF in the US.
Any POV genuinely held by an intelligent individual or well informed group of individuals is worthy of consideration. Any POV that is not biased is to say the least most extraordinary.
You paid how much to post on this board? And your opinion/comment is worth how much? Freetard? - methinks that describes you more than PJ.
MS would love to kill ODF, MS would love to kill any other agreed standard. Why - because it would help them with their de facto 'Office' et al standards.
Reading the patent I would say this one may have legs. First, it is a specific implementation method for document/formatting separation. Second, the priority data - 1994 - is early enough that I couldn't dispute it as being original at the time.
The patent is quite well written and reasonable to read.
SGML dates back to '86 as a standard, and XML is a subset of SGML. Since SGML is used for publishing, I find it hard to believe that it did not have sufficient functionality to warrant the innovation as "obvious".
If this one is upheld, it will also impact OpenOffice.org and just about any project that writes files to XML.
I wonder why this was not apparent at the time the xml was developed. I didn't read the full patent but everything reads like a xml with a stylesheet - content and presentation. If I've missed some nuance perhaps this could be pointed out?
Skimming the patent, it seems remarkably different from XML. In fact the patent refers to SGML as prior art, and points out this differentiation.
In XML, the content is marked-up inline, identifying the type of content bracketed in tags. The tags may rely on external style sheets or processing to determine how the contained content should appear, but the tag itself is inline to identify what content it applies to.
This seems pretty typical in my knowledge and the prior art mentioned in the patent.
With i4i's patent, the document content data is basically a stream of plain text, with no markup for formatting information at all. A separate data set contains all formatting information. (chars 0 through 23 are the "Title", with defined formatting, etc).
Any software historians aware of prior art on this approach?
Without digging into the details of Office's XML format, it seems they do something similar - Some nodes contain the raw text, while other nodes contain formatting information with indexes to the text. The fact that it is implemented using XML seems immaterial, and typical uses of XML/HTML do not infringe.
It will be interesting to see how this goes forward.
Maybe it is just me, but why would somebody tell you what the announcement at an event will be when the event's purpose is to make that disclosure? Doing so would seemingly negate the need for the event, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Microsoft's Mac software development house responsible for Office for Mac (which includes Word), had previously scheduled a conference call with members of the press for Thursday afternoon. Prior to scheduling the event, Mac BU did not reveal what the announcement would be.
Comments
.
May I suggest:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...90812144154814
Indeed Groklaw in general for a better perspective on legal issues vis a vis software patents and the like.
If you want a biased freetard POV, yes.
What's really funny is she ignores the probable impact on ODF. As i said on the other thread, MS probably doesn't care that much to lose if it kills ODF in the US.
iWork is safe (I think). Apple uses the OpenDocument code (sans Sun MicroSystems) or similar to read these files... Albiet not 100% correctly (you'll probably never notice).
I'm only assuming it's the OD reader because NeoOffice and OpenOffice open this particular Word doc the exact same way. MS Word on PC or Mac open it correctly. It's a quad table embedded Table... That's a table inside a table inside a table.... Wierd, neat, different, I wouldn't do it that way...
Reading the patent I would say this one may have legs. First, it is a specific implementation method for document/formatting separation. Second, the priority data - 1994 - is early enough that I couldn't dispute it as being original at the time.
The patent is quite well written and reasonable to read.
Can you imagine if Office is pulled rom the shelves? It seems a fairly remote possibility, but just consider that for a moment, and the resulting fallout.
Can you imagine if Office is pulled rom the shelves? It seems a fairly remote possibility, but just consider that for a moment, and the resulting fallout.
I use OpenOffice.org at home, anyway. It's cheaper. Businesses might be hit hard, though. Unless they're still running XP Pro and Office 2003 like mine.
... BTW, Greed DOES pay actually, and handsomely. I too would like to believe it doesn't, and that we live in a fair world, but that's not the case.
Just to be picky ...
Greed only pays in the SHORT term. It's an established fact that in the LONG term greed *doesn't* pay.
Greed is a individual strategy for the short term only. That's why they call it "greed" in the first place (one of the deadly sins etc.).
If you want a biased freetard POV, yes. ...
Anyone who would portray groklaw as a "biased freetard" has no credibility at all and isn't worth listening to.
Sane people can disagree, but this kind of moniker is on the same level as calling Obama a "socialist." It paints you as an exaggerator at best, and more likely someone with a very big bias of their own.
On a more serious note, what I'd like to see from someone is some sort of statistic on how often these kinds of rulings are overturned in higher courts. As loony as this East Texas court is, I bet most of their rulings are overturned. At least I hope that's the case.
Reading the patent I would say this one may have legs. First, it is a specific implementation method for document/formatting separation. Second, the priority data - 1994 - is early enough that I couldn't dispute it as being original at the time.
The patent is quite well written and reasonable to read.
Indeed, the patent predates xml itself http://www.w3.org/XML/hist2002
sgml predates this patent but is not an implementation of itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...arkup_Language
I wonder why this was not apparent at the time the xml was developed. I didn't read the full patent but everything reads like a xml with a stylesheet - content and presentation. If I've missed some nuance perhaps this could be pointed out?
and this will affect Apple as well because the patent in question is a very broad and BS XML patent
You think this patent is BS? Have you seen the patent Microsoft just received with XML for documents?
Both should be thrown out.
If you want a biased freetard POV, yes.
What's really funny is she ignores the probable impact on ODF. As i said on the other thread, MS probably doesn't care that much to lose if it kills ODF in the US.
This won't 'kill' anything. This is about money, not killing a given format/approach. MS makes tons of money from using this patent. If it continues to go against them they will be forced to license the patent for $$$.
The body controlling ODF would also then have to consider a license. The $$ for that license need not be (nor would likely be) the same cost as MS as the controlling body doesn't make (much) money from the invention. This would be up to i4i. They could decide to release it under GPLx or other license as well. Lots of choices which don't kill anything.
Indeed, the patent predates xml itself http://www.w3.org/XML/hist2002
sgml predates this patent but is not an implementation of itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...arkup_Language
I wonder why this was not apparent at the time the xml was developed. I didn't read the full patent but everything reads like a xml with a stylesheet - content and presentation. If I've missed some nuance perhaps this could be pointed out?
XML is just a standard or tool without method or application (a hammer not a house) which can be used to implement the methods of this patent. As such I can't see XML itself as a violation.
Chances are, they'll find a way out of this before they have to remove product from the shelves.
Yep there goes 1/2 the stock off the shelves of their new store.
If you want a biased freetard POV, yes.
What's really funny is she ignores the probable impact on ODF. As i said on the other thread, MS probably doesn't care that much to lose if it kills ODF in the US.
Any POV genuinely held by an intelligent individual or well informed group of individuals is worthy of consideration. Any POV that is not biased is to say the least most extraordinary.
You paid how much to post on this board? And your opinion/comment is worth how much? Freetard? - methinks that describes you more than PJ.
MS would love to kill ODF, MS would love to kill any other agreed standard. Why - because it would help them with their de facto 'Office' et al standards.
.
.
Reading the patent I would say this one may have legs. First, it is a specific implementation method for document/formatting separation. Second, the priority data - 1994 - is early enough that I couldn't dispute it as being original at the time.
The patent is quite well written and reasonable to read.
SGML dates back to '86 as a standard, and XML is a subset of SGML. Since SGML is used for publishing, I find it hard to believe that it did not have sufficient functionality to warrant the innovation as "obvious".
If this one is upheld, it will also impact OpenOffice.org and just about any project that writes files to XML.
Good thing I use Nisus Writer Pro I guess.
I wonder why this was not apparent at the time the xml was developed. I didn't read the full patent but everything reads like a xml with a stylesheet - content and presentation. If I've missed some nuance perhaps this could be pointed out?
Skimming the patent, it seems remarkably different from XML. In fact the patent refers to SGML as prior art, and points out this differentiation.
In XML, the content is marked-up inline, identifying the type of content bracketed in tags. The tags may rely on external style sheets or processing to determine how the contained content should appear, but the tag itself is inline to identify what content it applies to.
This seems pretty typical in my knowledge and the prior art mentioned in the patent.
With i4i's patent, the document content data is basically a stream of plain text, with no markup for formatting information at all. A separate data set contains all formatting information. (chars 0 through 23 are the "Title", with defined formatting, etc).
Any software historians aware of prior art on this approach?
Without digging into the details of Office's XML format, it seems they do something similar - Some nodes contain the raw text, while other nodes contain formatting information with indexes to the text. The fact that it is implemented using XML seems immaterial, and typical uses of XML/HTML do not infringe.
It will be interesting to see how this goes forward.
Microsoft's Mac software development house responsible for Office for Mac (which includes Word), had previously scheduled a conference call with members of the press for Thursday afternoon. Prior to scheduling the event, Mac BU did not reveal what the announcement would be.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]