Comments on: Small company makes big claims on XML patents

Scientigo is close to signing a deal with an IP-licensing firm to try to "monetize" patents it says are infringed by XML.

[Bill Dautrive]

Patents have no place in software

Copyright is all that is needed to protect your software.

Books can not be patented, and for the same reasons software should not be either. I have yet to see a legitimate software patent.

[Musmanno]

ROFL. Copyright provides virtually no software protection

if you don't want to protection software with IP, that's fine. Make your case. Don't pretend copyright protects it, though. It provides virtually no protection at all.

[Bill Dautrive]

Patents have no place in software

Copyright is all that is needed to protect your software.

Books can not be patented, and for the same reasons software should not be either. I have yet to see a legitimate software patent.

[Musmanno]

ROFL. Copyright provides virtually no software protection

if you don't want to protection software with IP, that's fine. Make your case. Don't pretend copyright protects it, though. It provides virtually no protection at all.

[thomcarl]

Shoot the lawyers.

who needs or wants lawyers.

[vladperl]

and saved lives

make a list :)

[nicmart]

I do

A country with no lawyers is a country with no freedom.

I don't want members of the bar, or any other profession, to have
political power.

[thomcarl]

Shoot the lawyers.

who needs or wants lawyers.

[vladperl]

and saved lives

make a list :)

[nicmart]

I do

A country with no lawyers is a country with no freedom.

I don't want members of the bar, or any other profession, to have
political power.

[computerjunkie]

libertarian?

Some libertarian free market extremists are opposed to all patents and they are "balanced" by the "patent everything under the Sun" extremists (who currently have the upper hand).

Most libertarians that I know believe that the Constitution of the United States is a very good document and should actually be applied and followed. That said, the Constitution provides for patents. Your libertarian accusation is unfounded.

Neiher accusation nor unfounded.

Firstly, my use of the word "extremist" was not an accusation (in either direction), merely a description of position. I have indeed used the word as an accusation, but only in discussions with the patent scope expansion extremists - because they frequently not only argue there case fallaciously, but even studiously ignore contradictory empirical evidence. Secondly, my "accusation" is not unfounded anyway: I was not referring to casual, self-described libertarians or even "most" libertarians, but to real libertarian economists and philosophers:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

Note that a position does not have to be unreasonable to be extreme and that "some" means one or more, not "most".

[nicmart]

Constitution vs principle

As a general rule, libertarians believe -- like Jefferson and most
founders -- in natural rights. That is, that rights are obtained at
birth, not given by governments. Libertarians generally do not
believe that the constitution is more than a superficial sheath of
protection for those rights, and one which has been effectively
shredded.

For this libertarian the constitution is "a very good document"
when it protects freedom, and a very bad document when it
undermines freedom, as in the cases of eminent domain and the
Eighteenth Amendment.

This libertarian agrees with Sheldon Richman that patent laws
are an infringement on freedom. They may be constitutional, as
slavery was, but they are a bad thing if what you value is liberty.
They are a good thing if you value government economic
intervention, lawsuits, and blackmail.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0307q.asp

[computerjunkie]

libertarian?

Some libertarian free market extremists are opposed to all patents and they are "balanced" by the "patent everything under the Sun" extremists (who currently have the upper hand).

Most libertarians that I know believe that the Constitution of the United States is a very good document and should actually be applied and followed. That said, the Constitution provides for patents. Your libertarian accusation is unfounded.

Neiher accusation nor unfounded.

Firstly, my use of the word "extremist" was not an accusation (in either direction), merely a description of position. I have indeed used the word as an accusation, but only in discussions with the patent scope expansion extremists - because they frequently not only argue there case fallaciously, but even studiously ignore contradictory empirical evidence. Secondly, my "accusation" is not unfounded anyway: I was not referring to casual, self-described libertarians or even "most" libertarians, but to real libertarian economists and philosophers:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

Note that a position does not have to be unreasonable to be extreme and that "some" means one or more, not "most".

[nicmart]

Constitution vs principle

As a general rule, libertarians believe -- like Jefferson and most
founders -- in natural rights. That is, that rights are obtained at
birth, not given by governments. Libertarians generally do not
believe that the constitution is more than a superficial sheath of
protection for those rights, and one which has been effectively
shredded.

For this libertarian the constitution is "a very good document"
when it protects freedom, and a very bad document when it
undermines freedom, as in the cases of eminent domain and the
Eighteenth Amendment.

This libertarian agrees with Sheldon Richman that patent laws
are an infringement on freedom. They may be constitutional, as
slavery was, but they are a bad thing if what you value is liberty.
They are a good thing if you value government economic
intervention, lawsuits, and blackmail.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0307q.asp

[OneHop]

Rules for patents on software should be made.

I have no problem with someone wanting to protect their product. I do however have a problem of someone making a patent, then just sitting on it waiting for someone to develop it then calling it yours. That would be like me having a patent on a person farting. All I have to do is wait for it to happen, then I can scream law suit. You farted. I own the rights to your fart. Either pay me or put it back.

[nicmart]

So, invent some rules

Don't just sit there, come up with a rule that would prevent this
from happening. Dare to dream the impossible.

[OneHop]

Rules for patents on software should be made.

I have no problem with someone wanting to protect their product. I do however have a problem of someone making a patent, then just sitting on it waiting for someone to develop it then calling it yours. That would be like me having a patent on a person farting. All I have to do is wait for it to happen, then I can scream law suit. You farted. I own the rights to your fart. Either pay me or put it back.

[nicmart]

So, invent some rules

Don't just sit there, come up with a rule that would prevent this
from happening. Dare to dream the impossible.

[wakizaki]

No to Software Patents

Software patents has damaging effects on human innovation and competition. That's why the EU Software Patent Law was rejected.

[wakizaki]

No to Software Patents

Software patents has damaging effects on human innovation and competition. That's why the EU Software Patent Law was rejected.

true inventor of XML

someone should point Scientigo to the following:

http://www.sgmlsource.com/

where they can read that Charles F. Goldfarb invented (while working for IBM):

- GML in the late '60s, and
- SGML in the '70s, which is a superset of HTML and XML.

I think we don't have anything to worry about. :-)

[fireball74]

Agreed....

XML is a subset of SGML, but XML was introduced in '96 to simplify things. It, it's self, is prior art to both said patents. You can't lay claim over what was invented before your patent was even filed. I think this will be thrown out and their patents either reduced in scope or desolved all together.

If they were smart, they'd sit down and shutup, or risk losing their patents. But since when are people, especially lawyers and patent groups smart when it comes to money? :)

true inventor of XML

someone should point Scientigo to the following:

http://www.sgmlsource.com/

where they can read that Charles F. Goldfarb invented (while working for IBM):

- GML in the late '60s, and
- SGML in the '70s, which is a superset of HTML and XML.

I think we don't have anything to worry about. :-)

[fireball74]

Agreed....

XML is a subset of SGML, but XML was introduced in '96 to simplify things. It, it's self, is prior art to both said patents. You can't lay claim over what was invented before your patent was even filed. I think this will be thrown out and their patents either reduced in scope or desolved all together.

If they were smart, they'd sit down and shutup, or risk losing their patents. But since when are people, especially lawyers and patent groups smart when it comes to money? :)

[wiley14]

Patent claims could apply to lots of things...

I read the claims in both patents. Couldn't the claims in both apply to lots of things? I mean, they are pretty generic principles.

I don't understand what this company is out to do - make money or destroy themselves (as I don't think they understand the backlash they are going to get nor are they going to get very far in the courtroom). And who exactly are they going to sue in court? Millions of companies and people use XML. Who's going to pay for our "sins" in this suit?

[Musmanno]

As for who they could sue

it could any one or more companies or individuals using XML, if that's what they were trying to enforce their claims over.

This of course assumes they have enforceable claims. If the patents are so broad as to be unenforceable, or if the claims are anticipated, the company might just be trying to leverage the patents to get into some kind of licensing deal (which probably won't be easy to do in this case) rather than risk the patents all together by going to court over it.

[wiley14]

Patent claims could apply to lots of things...

I read the claims in both patents. Couldn't the claims in both apply to lots of things? I mean, they are pretty generic principles.

I don't understand what this company is out to do - make money or destroy themselves (as I don't think they understand the backlash they are going to get nor are they going to get very far in the courtroom). And who exactly are they going to sue in court? Millions of companies and people use XML. Who's going to pay for our "sins" in this suit?

[Musmanno]

As for who they could sue

it could any one or more companies or individuals using XML, if that's what they were trying to enforce their claims over.

This of course assumes they have enforceable claims. If the patents are so broad as to be unenforceable, or if the claims are anticipated, the company might just be trying to leverage the patents to get into some kind of licensing deal (which probably won't be easy to do in this case) rather than risk the patents all together by going to court over it.

[reneara]

XML, it's not just a good idea... it's the law.

And for what its worth (ok, not much) in 1993 I was deposed as
an expert, giving testimony and entering an affidavit in US
District Court to the effect that document development using
SGML-based descriptive markup was as efficient as it was
possible to be. Entered on behalf of the plantiff, who prevailed.

See: Renear, Allen H. (1993). "Workstation Computing ? With
Special Reference to 'Content-Oriented' Text Processing in Legal
Research and Analysis". Expert opinion regarding Ginaitt v.
Haronian, et al., C.A. 92-0385P; filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island; March 23, 1993.

-- allen

[reneara]

XML, it's not just a good idea... it's the law.

And for what its worth (ok, not much) in 1993 I was deposed as
an expert, giving testimony and entering an affidavit in US
District Court to the effect that document development using
SGML-based descriptive markup was as efficient as it was
possible to be. Entered on behalf of the plantiff, who prevailed.

See: Renear, Allen H. (1993). "Workstation Computing ? With
Special Reference to 'Content-Oriented' Text Processing in Legal
Research and Analysis". Expert opinion regarding Ginaitt v.
Haronian, et al., C.A. 92-0385P; filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island; March 23, 1993.

-- allen

Say no to Patents, yes to Copyrights

Patents NEVER help anyone, except the money-grubbing companies that make them. They slow down the industry and the econamy in general.

Sure, without patents, maybe mom+pop companies won't strike it rich, but (1) then they won't be mom+pop companies any more, and (2) a bigger company will be able to produce the product BETTER, which means the consumer (you and I) will have BETTER QUALITY. Competition between name brands and large companies will obviously keep quality up and prices down. PATENTS PROHIBIT TRUE CAPITALISM AND DRIVE PRICES UP.

The global market as a whole will move forward by leaps and bounds once patents are abolished and money-hungry idiots stop worrying about their own selfish *****

Say no to Patents, yes to Copyrights

Patents NEVER help anyone, except the money-grubbing companies that make them. They slow down the industry and the econamy in general.

Sure, without patents, maybe mom+pop companies won't strike it rich, but (1) then they won't be mom+pop companies any more, and (2) a bigger company will be able to produce the product BETTER, which means the consumer (you and I) will have BETTER QUALITY. Competition between name brands and large companies will obviously keep quality up and prices down. PATENTS PROHIBIT TRUE CAPITALISM AND DRIVE PRICES UP.

The global market as a whole will move forward by leaps and bounds once patents are abolished and money-hungry idiots stop worrying about their own selfish *****