Microsoft patents CSS? 100
ewhac writes "In the current issue of The Bulletin (an email newsletter, pricey subscription required), it is reported that, in mid-January, Microsoft was awarded patent #5860073 on, "The use of style sheets in an electronic publishing system." The Seybold article casts doubt on the validity of the patent, citing prior art back to the 1960's, and on the competence of the US Patent and Trademark Office for awarding it. The article also calls Microsoft's motives into question for failing to mention this patent application to the World Wide Web Consortium, with whom it has been working for some time to develop a style sheet standard. Thomas Reardon, director of standards at Microsoft, claims that it will offer a "free and reciprocal" license to anyone wishing to use the technology, adding, "These are the most liberal licensing terms out there." (It would seem Reardon is not aware of the GPL.)
"
specifics... (Score:1)
Quick! Somebody patent a pixel! Then we can charge Microsoft for using all those pixels on our screens.
If you think THIS microsoft patent is fucked up... (Score:1)
http://www.patents.i bm.com/details?pn=US05815793__&language=en [ibm.com]
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Copyright on "Where do you want to go today?" (Score:1)
But I can't claim authorship of this question. Hackers, drovers, and rickshaw pullers have been asking it since the dawn of civilization.
In the interest of fairness, limo drivers (who work primarily by reservation) will probably need to reclaim the "Where do you want to go tommorow?" question from a certain Finnish gentleman.
And then we'll go to work on the words "Hack" and "Hacker," which are also ours, and are regularly misused by nerdish Gates wannabes.
Well, maybe we'll let the Linux and OS people skate this time. But you guys better tip *real good* next time you ride with one of us REAL hackers...
--Robin Miller
Stupid on the part of the US. (Score:1)
If the US govt makes it harder to to do business by enacting these silly rules, then companies will have to operate outside the US. This is not good for US business. I think when I write my letter of protest I'll have to point that out. (While they won't listen to arguments about fairness, they might listen to arguments about losing money.
Impeach the USPTO (Score:1)
The people who run the US Patent and Tradmark Office are comlete and utter DOLTS. This is just another example of it.
Is the domain USPTOSucks.com domain taken?
What's the difference? (Score:1)
All that this seems to add is multiple layers of style sheet. And even that could be down with Style Sheets refered to in the Mail Merge file!
I've only read the extract, but I cannot imagine the rest of the patent request is more compelling in terms of uniqueness.
Christ Almighty (Score:1)
Patent office (Score:1)
A previous post mentions the idea of having industry specific patent groups. That sounds workable. Maybe we need to start putting more people onto the research of patents and charge companies money if they try to patent something with obvious prior art. Maybe patents could be done away with completely. Maybe we could...
This point is, the USPO is working hard and I'm trying to understand everything they have to keep track of but I'm also in favor of changing a system that obviously isn't working very well. I hope I don't sound like I'm whining. The fact is, I'm pretty frustrated.
-Derek
P.S. Hey, I just had a thought. The blame also rests with microsoft. Who can really say that MS didn't try to pull a sneaky one here? Is there any way the wwwc can pressure them to release the patent?
Hmmmm. enough rambling....
No big deal. (Score:1)
On another note, don't pay too much attention to Reardon. He's one of those kids who got high SAT scores and now believes himself to be smarter than everyone else based on the value of his stock options. Most of his coworkers think he's an asshole, and he's probably proud of it. Last time I was at his house, he and his 'friends' were trying to impress each other with their knowledge of wine, measured by the amount one could afford to spend on a bottle. Pathetic.
What's the difference? (Score:1)
What's the difference between this Word thing from TeX manuscript files, circa 1960
Um... While I agree that TeX predates the 1990 Word mentioned in the previous post, no way in hell is it anywhere near that old. Try mid 1980's.
Does anyone know anything _about_ Style sheets? (Score:1)
I would think that the actual logic-flow of the formatting code woould be relatively unimportant as it is akin to the "chicken before the egg" paradox: since all style sheets are meant to be applied to arbitrary content, you have two possible orders of operation... either preformat an empty region and then fill it with fetched content, or fetch the content and recursively apply style sheet rules to it. I cannot imagine that either of these is unique enough to patent.
DONT blame Microsoft! - blame yourselves (Score:1)
As I read the responses I am fairly certain that most of us here do not consciously support such abuses of the law... and it certainly seems that plenty also have solutions in mind, or at least a clear idea of the problem.
Please enlighten us as to the incentive I, or anyone here, has provided for Microsoft to own what should rightfully be in the public domain.
smells like comodity.... (Score:1)
there's no doubt about commercialising open standards here
Lie, "Cascading HTML style sheets--a proposal", http://www.w3.org/People/howcome/p/cascade.html, 10 Oct., 1994.
Gifford, "Polychannel systems for mass digital communication", Comm. of ACM, v.33, n. 2, p. 141(11), Feb. 1990.
Jackson, "The Published Word", PC User, n. 137, p. 32(4), Jul. 18, 1990.
Journalist User's Guide: Your Personalized Newspaper for Compuserve®, PED Software Corp., pp. 1-111, Jan. 1994.
Huser et al., "The Individualized Electronic Newspaper: An Application Challenging Hypertext Technology", GMD Report No. GMD-664, Jul. 1992.
Sterahn et al., "Positioning HTML Elements with Cascading Style Sheets", http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-positioning, Jan. 31, 1997.
Lie et al., "Cascading Style Sheets, level 1", http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/REC-CSS1, Dec. 17, 1996.
Hughes, "Thinking about style sheets", http:www.w3.org/Style/mail/kh-2-May-95.html, May 2, 1995.
Duncan, Rey, "Power Programming: An HTML Primer, " PC Magazine, Jun. 13, 1995, pp. 261-270.
Microsoft ®Word, "About Styles" Chp. 9, pp. 178-183 and Document Templates Chp. 10, pp. 205-224, User's Guide, 1993-1994, Microsoft Corporation.
CSS v. OSS (Score:1)
Anyone else out there do a double-take on the article title? For a second there, I thought the article was saying that Microsoft had patented the concept of Closed Source Software. That would be ironic.
Wonder if I can do that?..... :)
petition (Score:1)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Bastards. (Score:1)
I have this vision (Score:1)
One More Thing... (Score:2)
The Bulletin article also calls on Microsoft to turn the patent over to the W3C, and relinquish all claims to the "technology."
Clearly, more than just us geeks are getting sick to the teeth of bogus patents.
Schwab
What to do about it... (Score:1)
In particular, push it to Senators who've been very "pro-internet", particularly "pro-internet-shopping", since many of the patents have been "I know own the complete rights to on-line shopping" or "I own the digital 'Shopping Cart'".
My first suggestion would be Senator Leahy [senate.gov] from Vermont. His bills (some passed into law) have already acknowledged his interest into protecting online rights (from a copyright standpoint). He should be the easiest to convince that the Patent system now is doing the exact opposite of promoting true development on the web.
Obviously, this should wait until after the Clinton fiasco is finally out of "public thought" and Congress is ready to do something approaching "real work" again.
Oh well. Thank god no one uses CSS (Score:1)
.
...and thanks for all the fish. (Score:2)
Of course... I see now. Let's work with an open standards body, let them do the bulk of the work in hashing out the details, we'll let everyone else start using it, then we'll implement it and patent it and drink champaign to toast all that good will effort making us money now. Oh yeah, and we won't charge them that much to use the tech they've given us.
Jeeeeesus! "The Seybold article casts doubt on the... competence of the US Patent and Trademark Office for awarding it."
No kidding! Seeing more and more stories like this popping up everyday, such as the possibility to create an entire business model around patenting and litigating against commonly used open technology...
Is there anyway someone can sue this bunch of gov't numbskulls to either give it up, or if we can't get rid of patents like that, at least get their acts together? Wouldn't it be smarter to have industry-specific patent awarding groups rather than a monolithic gov't body??
wrong (Score:1)
Re: Oh well. Thank god no one uses CSS (Score:1)
Dammit, every time I start to think, "Well, maybe they're not so evil, after all," the Rats in Redmond pull another move like this...
~~MICRO$OFT $UX~~
Yeah, go ahead and say it. It feels good, and the company in question seems dead-set on proving that it's true.
Zontar
(somewhere in tenn.)
Patents + Micro$oft = /. flamefest (Score:2)
Want more fscking patents? (Score:1)
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn10=US04827
"De-commoditizing protocols", round one (Score:1)
If we (MS) can't keep the protocol closed or the API proprietary, fine; we'll just patent the whole dang concept.
Sheesh.
Jay (=
What about troff and TeX? (Score:1)
I also don't see the differences between the prior art and Microsoft's claim. I'm glad I turned down that Patent Office job 10 years ago. Patent law is basically a fancy way of defining the difference between a glass being half full of water or half empty.
Patents are a profit center (Score:1)
billion in income off of their patent licensing.
It's a big money maker for large companies. Other
companies, such as Xerox, are starting to get sue
happy over patent infringement.
Isn't there anything we can do? (Score:1)
I know, I know, I'm singing to the choir on this one. It's just that within such a large group of people with so many large "movements" (OSI, Linux, GNU, etc.) that we should be able to get organized and fight this somehow. These abuses are only going to get worse before they get better.
I would take this project on myself except I am so poorly organized when it comes to these types of things. I can barely keep my own coding projects moving along at a decent pace... but I would definitely find some time to get involved if someone else were to organize it.
There must be something we can do,
-Paul
Pray for an angel... (Score:1)
Most liberal license... (Score:1)
Or of the BSD-style license, which is the most liberal license.
This is out of hand!!!! (Score:1)
Who's got site space? I'm willing to donate time and effort to do this. We all saw this happen to the lzw compressor (Published in Dr. Dobbs before patented). What about Mozilla? Will they get a price break too? And how about anybody designing any sort of XML design tools?
I somtimes wonder whether RMS is right about GPL - but when I see crap like this it just eeks into my blood like fire. Those bloody greedy barf chunks are going to eventually patent everything. Software patents aren't wrong IFF they are REAL?! But this is just wrong.
Too much prior work goes unchecked by the USPTO and they need a wake up call. 5000 slashdot readers might wake them up. These people make the money and then we get burdened(by higher costs in HW and SW) with licensing. They obviously only care about previous PATENT claims, and probably never look into actual prior work - if they had then they would have seen the 1000+ pages of info on w3c which M$ had absolutly nothing to do with.
Let the war begin. Let the signatures start!
re: wrong (Score:1)
Patent office (Score:2)
Brian
ahh the uspto (Score:1)
They aslo have about
They want patents to only spend 18 mo or less in the office so someone trying to met there DAM! quotas issues the patent and said let them fight it out in court, cause he could not find art on this.
I think patent applications need to be made open and available to the public for people who know about the technology to have a look at too, as these are really the people that know the tech....
article on this at wired news (Score:1)
http://www.wired.com/new s/news/technology/story/17741.html [wired.com]
PS: This very well may be a stupid question, but what's to keep MSFT from getting a patent on HTML or some variation thereof? If they can patent an open standard like CSS ...
And what about getting a patent on other open standards ... like internet protocols?
Possible? Or am I way off base here?
=moJ
- - - - - -
Member in Good Standing,
The tip of the iceberg... (Score:2)
If you really want to be outraged, you should go to IBM's patent search [ibm.com], set the search word to Microsoft, and the collection to U.S. Inventors & Companies. You'll get almost 800. You'll get 20 for just the last three months.
(Sorry, I tried a URL-encoded request, but they make it much more difficult than it has to be, probably for this very reason.)
Is the concept of Linux patented? (Score:1)
Isn't there anything we can do? (Score:1)
Have the PTO put up a Web site. The examiners abstract the application and post the summary and complete application. The public gets 6 months to submit ( via Web form or e-mail ) examples of prior art, objections and such. The examiners then review the comments and see if anyone has valid prior art or other reasons not to grant the patent. If they don't have time to research each application, let interested parties do the research for them.
They'll still have to weed out flames and garbage, but that's got to be faster to do than researching the subject.
I remember using those in 1992 (Score:1)
So this is new technology? This is worth patenting? MS probably wants me to think so, but I'm not brain dead. I just wish the patent office would quit awarding patents for concepts, since thats not what patents are for!
Don't Like the Patent & Trademark Office? (Score:1)
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu
Patent bonus plan... (Score:1)
Come on .... (Score:1)
Who said M$ is not innovative (Score:1)
Another example of business getting out of hand (Score:1)
Muhuhahahahaha
Dissenter
Walking with huge balls. (Score:1)
Dissenter
"reciprocal" license = leverage ? (Score:1)
Put simply, they've been getting bit for the outcome of their 'embrace and extend' lifestyle.. and some of the biting has been in the form of license enforcement, etc. Perhaps CSS is an equal weapon that the boys in Redmond can fight with--an eye for an eye, a free license agreement for a free license agreement..
(just a thought.. but does anybody care enought about CSS to let their hand show? I suppose we'll find out)
CSS is a core technology in MS Office 2000 (Score:1)
This licence is undoubtedly done to block other editors who would use the CSS outside web browsers. CSS will replace HTML language and thus Microsoft will be able to dictate towards where language CSS will go owing to the fact that Office is really the standard. In the long run, Microsoft will control the basic language of the Web. See from here all propaganda: "We invented the language of the Web" and all the mercantism which will be followed from there.
Liberal licensing terms (Score:1)
"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow!"
Patents and business models (Score:1)
"Super Cruise Bracket" (Score:1)