« Microsoft's Content syndication platform Patent | Main | My 2006 Favorites »

Friday, December 22, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

NewsMonster is prior art here and enough to seriously call into question the validity of these patent applications.


BTS. It isn't a zero sum game here. MS can be evil AND the patent system can be broken ;)

"Niall Kennedy has an in-depth analysis of Microsoft's syndication platform patent application."

No, it is *not* an "in-depth analysis"... For pity's sake what is the matter with you comp.sci. / programmer bods? If we computing amateurs, who learn how to program our computers because we like programming, or because it is useful or necessary for our work that we do so, can bone up on patent law sufficiently to know how to read and interpret a patent properly, (and grok enough patent system economics and history to know why it is outrageous that we have to do so in the first place), why on earth can't you pros do the same?

As an entreprenuer using RSS, I find the PR about RSS the most valuable part. Any patent and subsequent buzz is great for RSS. Bringing RSS to the masses has been a blog subject for awhile now....so it's great to see the transition.

OK, plh, where is your insightful, in-depth analysis?

"OK, plh, where is your insightful, in-depth analysis?"

If you want to commission one, I suggest you ask a patent professional. In the meantime, if you want to know why I got a little upset ;-) with Niall Kennedy's choice of title for his blog entry (and all the links to it), I suggest you read this walk-through of a patent analysis:


A patent is known by its claims - especially the independent ones - and the core of any patent analysis is an interpretation of those claims. Not only does Kennedy's "analysis" not even mention the claims, let alone interpret them, when he concludes, "I believe parts of Microsoft's patent application are new and interesting (and possible inventions)", those "worthy of a patent" parts he has identified are to be found only in the description sections he references!

Hey Nick, I'm curious: can you say why you removed your link to Sean Lyndersay's post on the topic? - Dave

Dave, I didn't remove that link, so thanks for letting me know it was gone. My best guess is that TypePad reverted to the older post for some reason. Anyway, I've added it back.

The comments to this entry are closed.