re: Patent Applications in the RSS space
>…We have always fully acknowledged the innovators and supporters of RSS, like Dave Winer, Nick Bradbury and many others…
I think you misspelled ‘innovators’ - let me help. Did you mean ‘inventors’?
You can get a spellchecker for Firefox here - http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ as that’s a nasty habit to get into, and would be worthwhile correcting real soon…
Sunday, December 24, 2006 6:33 AM by TH
Huh. Interesting comment. COMPLETELY FALSE! But interesting, none-the-less.
Actually, that’s not true… “You can get a spellchecker for Firefox here - http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ ” is true. The rest is false.
How so?
Well, for one thing, to understand RSS means to understand that there are multiple versions of RSS that exist in which were “invented” by LOTS of different people. For example, RSS 1.0 stands for RDF Site Summary version 1.0 (as opposed to RSS “2.0″ which stands for [Really Simple Syndication] or [Rich Site Summary] or [Ripped|Stolen Syndication] format, dependent, of course, on ones own perspective), first developed by Dan Libby while working for Netscape in 1999,
RDF Site Summary (RSS) 1.0
AbstractRDF Site Summary (RSS) is a lightweight multipurpose extensible metadata description and syndication format. RSS is an XML application, conforms to the W3C’s RDF Specification and is extensible via XML-namespace and/or RDF based modularization.
AuthorsThe members of the RSS-DEV Working Group:
Gabe Beged-Dov, JFinity Systems LLC
Dan Brickley, ILRT
Rael Dornfest, O’Reilly & Associates
Ian Davis, Calaba, Ltd.
Leigh Dodds, xmlhack
Jonathan Eisenzopf, Whirlwind Interactive
David Galbraith, Moreover.com
R.V. Guha, guha.com
Ken MacLeod, (Independent)
Eric Miller, Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Aaron Swartz, The Info Network
Eric van der Vlist, Dyomedea
WW:* What, NO DAVE WINER???!!!
M.: Well, for RSS 1.0, no. You see, RSS 1.0 has its roots in RDF (Resource Description Framework) which, of course, is all about describing resources as opposed to subscribing to content (syndication.)
WW:* Oh, so then Dave Winer MUST have invented RDF… which, of course, would make sense. I mean, he IS the father of RSS.
… Isn’t he? :/
M.: Hmm… Are you going to cry if say no? Well, I realize this is like telling you there is no Santa Claus but you’re about that age, and its time to tell you the truth.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But his name isn’t Dave Winer, and instead Ramanathan V. Guha (with help from none other than Tim Bray.) Of course, “RDF” and “RSS” are meant to serve two completely different purposes. And if we focus solely on the syndication of content, this then leads us right back to…
Channel Definition Format (CDF) is an XML standard used in conjunction with Microsoft Active Channel and Smart Offline Favorites technologies. Its use is to define a website’s content and structure. The standard is somewhat similar to the RSS standard introduced by Netscape several years after CDF (ed. emphasis added) was introduced in 1997. The standard and Active Channel were introduced with the launch of Internet Explorer 4.0, while Smart Offline Favorites was introduced with the launch of version 5.0.
M.: In fact, if truth be known, CDF was not only the first effort at developing a standard behind the notion of subscribing to syndicated content, but it was also the very first commercial implementation of XML.
I know, I KNOW (!!!), the very notion that Microsoft was actually clever enough to have invented ANYTHING is a bitter pill to swallow for some of you Anti-Soft Neophytes out there, but it’s none-the-less true. In fact (not that I had ANYTHING to do with its design/development), for a VERY BRIEF (3 weeks) period, I worked for the Microsoft Site Builder Network back in 1996, of which my task was “Do something (cool) with this.”, this referencing CDF. I mention this for one very important reason: I can speak from a direct authoritative standpoint when I state that the notion of subscribing to content on the web via an XML data feed was first introduced in *specification* format by none-other-than the “Eveel Overlord” itself (AKA: Microsoft.)
Believe it!
WW:* Well, we’re not going to, but out of simple morbid curiosity, if what you are suggesting is even remotely true, what *DID* Dave Winer invent?
M.: Well, from his Wikipedia article we learn,
Dave Winer (b. May 2, 1955 in Brooklyn, New York City, USA) is a software developer who created or was a lead contributor to several of the most popular XML dialects and APIs related to web publishing: RSS 2.0, XML-RPC, OPML, and the MetaWeblog API. He is also the author of Scripting News, one of the first weblogs.
WW:* So, in other words, Dave was a contributor to much of what we live and breathe these days here in the land of XML, as well as the world in general.
M.: Yep. As are a lot of people. But none-the-less, Dave has played an important part in developing and testing some of the more widely adopted XML formats in use today. Did he invent RSS? No. But his role was and is an important one, none-the-less.
Hope this helps clarify things a bit!
Microsoft certainly has a place in the pantheon of "RSS" heroes - the problem is that it feels it necessary to use a software patent to do so ... and PLEASE don't come back with the "it's only defensive" line - MS is as ready as any patent troll to misuse the concept of patents for its own commercial benefit.
@Ric,
>> Microsoft certainly has a place in the pantheon of "RSS" heroes -
I'm not of the belief that anyone is an "RSS Hero" -- RSS, in of itself, doesn't promote the sense of anyone, or anything being dubbed a hero.
That said, they do deserve credit for developing the first commercial XML web feed syndication format, as opposed to being called theives and liars, which for all intents and purposes is what a majority of the comments on the subject boil down to. Whether the TechnoNeophytes of the world are willing to do the research, or are willing to believe that the results of such research would show that RSS (in its "2.0" format) is directly influenced by CDF, is beside the point, which is pretty simple --
- XML syndication (hell, XML for that matter!) hit the streets in 1996/97 under the banner of Channel Definition Format. Netscape found ways to take the concept of describing content, making it MUCH more specific, calling the result RDF -- the two formats serve VERY different purposes, so one would be hard pressed to suggest that RDF is a derivative work of CDF, so please don't take this to mean I believe that it is.
Since that time we have seen a constant bastardization of CDF and RDF (not necessarily a bad thing, btw... just stating facts of derivative works.) RSS 1.0 (which for those wondering, *IS NOT* the follow-up to RSS 0.93 -- that would be RSS "2.0". Confused? Yeah, we all are to some extent ;)) does a nice job of creating a clean, simple, and straight forward syndication format that borrows from both CDF and RDF. Did it go far enough? No. Though its a *TON* better than the attempt to one up (literally!) the efforts behind RSS 1.0 with RSS 2.0 which is just a buggy, horrific, bastardization of a bastardization of a bastardization (in that order! ;))
Enter Atom.
If you want to know the truth, the real (in my own opinion) "Hero's of RSS" are the folks behind the creation of the Atom Syndication Format and the Atom Publishing Protocol. But that doesn't take away from the fact that MSFT created the first XML syndication format, and instead adds to the fact that the idea in and of itself was and is a good one -- and it started with MSFT/CDF and ended with IETF/Atom. Actually, ended is probably the wrong word. Innovation hasn't ended. The need for a well designed, patent free -- (at least I *think* Atom is patent free, and if its not, no doubt there is a general understanding that the IP, in and of itself, is in the "public domain", or something to that effect.) --, bug free, and built through experience XML syndication format, has.
>> the problem is that it feels it necessary to use a software patent to do so ... and PLEASE don't come back with the "it's only defensive" line -
Why? What if it *IS* its only defense.
From a representative of the Horses mouth [Don Dodge @ http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/12/patent_lunacy_d.html < yes, I realize you (Ric) already know this; I read your follow-up comment.],
Microsoft reportedly has filed two patents covering certain aspects of RSS, Really Simple Syndication. Dave Winer is outraged. Nick Bradbury sagely says "Not so fast". I don't have the inside scoop on this yet, but here is what I think is happening. Microsoft is protecting itself against patent trolls.
Relax. I believe Microsoft has no intention of enforcing this patent against anyone, and no intention of collecting royalties on it. Microsoft is not pretending that they invented RSS...just protecting itself against potential patent infringement lawsuits from "shell companies" and "patent trolls" who do nothing but sue big companies. Sad to say this is the current state of the patent system.
>> MS is as ready as any patent troll to misuse the concept of patents for its own commercial benefit.
This, of course, is your opinion. I don't personally know of any evidence that suggests this to be realistic possibility (e.g. They did it to so-and-so), and to be quite honest, MSFT can make a TON more money spending their time writing and selling -- you know -- software, than they could waiting for a "Sucka' Fish" to snag the line via obscure patent filings.
That said, historical precedence REALLY DOES matter. And at this moment in time, I am of the belief that historical precedence is in MSFTs favor. Am I wrong?
Not wrong, Dave. Just not 'proven'. A patent is a graph of essential claims pinned to specific provable (say witnessed, notarized, filing dates, etc) by documentation. A good friend of mine was the patent reviewer for EOLAS. He wasn't that sanguine about the outcome but if you read the review, under the policies by which the PTO operates and given the documents filed for his review, he ruled correctly. He told me one hot August night across a barbeque pit, "You software geniuses really should come to understand the power of dates on your documents..." He is a good guy and a heckuva fine musician. He was notorious for not suffering fools gladly, though, for a guy who's nickname was "Saint".
I keep expecting the kids here to grow up and understand that the web is a business; not a 'we have sets and costumes in the barn, let's put on a show' Andy Hardy comedy.
But the entertainment value of this stuff is enormous because of the naivete of the horrified pundits. We've seen the same plotline so many times now that's like going to see "Black Christmas" expecting it to be a real horror film.
@len,
Firstly, sorry for the late response! @ a Family reunion, and have limited connectivity to the net at the moment.
Secondly,
>> I keep expecting the kids here to grow up and understand that the web is a business; not a 'we have sets and costumes in the barn, let's put on a show' Andy Hardy comedy.
AMEN TO THAT!!! :D
>> But the entertainment value of this stuff is enormous because of the naivete of the horrified pundits. We've seen the same plotline so many times now that's like going to see "Black Christmas" expecting it to be a real horror film.
Oh how so very true >> I wouldn't have half the smile I have on my face at any given moment if it wasn't for the entertainment value of all this stuff :D
Will catch up with this thread again when I return on Saturday.
Thanks len!