This idea has been embodied in IBM code, that some people might call legacy code, for many decades, on IBM systems known as S/38, AS/400, iSeries, using a concept IBM calls “external definitions” of files and other computer objects. IBM’s prior art could invalidate the i4i patent and Microsoft patents.

With “external definitions”, the layout of a file or table or other IBM object type, is stored separately from the actual content of the file. The layout says how big the thing is, a fixed size, or if it has variable size, what can go in each of the field columns such as text, ISO compliant date, floating point, integers with how many decimal places, urls, images, whatever.

Prior to IBM inventing “external definitions”, IBM software used “internal definitions” where the layout was defined by the various programs that accessed the files, and these definitions could be contradictory, not complying with relational data base rules. IBM systems still support this, so legacy code can be ported to the newer systems.

With “internal definitions”, the content was separate from the layout, and that concept goes back to the dawn of IBM computers, 50 years or more ago, before even when Microsoft was founded.

In fact, core OOXML isn’t at threat either (though it’s more at risk from other patents than ODF, since it does its formatting in an oddball fashion that isn’t HTML/SGML-like). The infringing feature is something called “Custom XML”, where you can stick an arbitrary XML file in the Word file and integrate text from it into the document proper.

The key elements of the patent are that the document is split into two parts – one containing just text, the other containing formatting – and that the formatting part references the bits of text to which it applies via their locations. Custom XML has these key elements (though the location is actually implemented as a full XML path).

ODF doesn’t. While they are adding their own answer to Custom XML in the next version, it doesn’t work the same way. The key idea of their RDF-based solution seems to be that you insert the text inline into the document XML itself like normal text, and mark it up with metadata that allows it to be extracted later. It may additionally allow the incorporation of things from seperate RDF files into the document (hard to tell from the docs), but it uses unique xml:id attributes added to the XML elements to glue everything together.

Plus, even if ODF did infringe (which it doesn’t), it wouldn’t necessarily be at risk of being sued. i4i isn’t just a patent troll – they’re angry with Microsoft because this new Microsoft Word feature was killing off the market for their own core product based on this patent (and Microsoft was entirely aware that it would, as demonstrated by internal memos). Microsoft has a long history of deliberately pulling stunts like this – it’s why they have a bad reputation in the IT industry.

I might as well patent every process that people today do mentally that is not yet done by a computer.

That seems to me to be about the most obvious and trivial solution in the world. Using indices to reference portions of a data stream was described in the literature at least as early as 1973. Communications of the ACM, 16:622 (http://books.google.com/books?id=pmAfAAAAMAAJ&q=index+data+stream&dq=index+data+stream).

Also, I cannot see a threat to the Open Document Format itself. ODF is XML. The patent is for a technique that is basically not XML. (Although I suppose the ODF method of recording editing history might be conceived of as infringing.) It may well be the case though that OpenOffice–and many, many more programs–use an index map technique that is covered by the patent.

Interesting (unfortunately with apparently a bit of tragedy) to see at the same time one of your colleague pondering on the effects of a court decision back in Dec 2008 about infringement by Emptoris of 2 patents owned by Ariba. I don’t know the details, and don’t know if Emptoris had what it would take to develop into a contributing company, but extracting $7M of Flesh to feed a company like Ariba did certainly not help the cause for innovation.

http://blogs.gartner.com/debbie_wilson/2009/08/13/a-new-chapter-for-emptoris-%E2%80%93-and-avner-schneur/

http://www.timacheson.com/blog/2009/aug/microsoft_word_banned_in_usa_over_alleged_patent_infringement

I can offer technical expertise and experience of the type of computer operation in question. I am consulting with contacts who have specialist knowledge in the other key areas, patent law and patent interpretation — patent attorneys and editors on publications about scientific patents.

At this stage the story has been widely-reported in the mass media and online, and commented upon by the general public. There is a lack of informed analysis.