Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
« Back 1 2 [3]

October 29, 2005

Who Owns XML?

Continued from page 2

By Wade Roush

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

RL: The answer is, by being reasonable as far as the licensing terms go. If you're not reasonable, if you're trying to hold the industry ransom, you're going to be in court for the rest of your life, because people will challenge the patent any way they can. My own personal view is that the way you avoid those challenges -- and nobody wants that -- is to be commercially reasonable in the licensing terms and not try and hold anybody up.

WR: There is some history around that. At various points, the W3C has worked with consortium members who hold patents related to developing Web standards to ensure that the patented technology is shared either under reasonable licensing terms or entirely royalty-free. Have you met with the W3C or discussed how your claims might be licensed through the W3C process?

RL: No, we haven't. Whether there should be some involvement now -- we haven't talked about it. It's an interesting question. We believe the success of any monetization system has to do with reasonable licensing.

WR: The patents we're talking about were granted in 1998 and 1999. What's the history of Scientigo? How did you come to own these patents? And what led you to decide to try to exploit them now?

Doyal Bryant: I came in about a year and a half ago. The company [then Market Central] was mainly a call-center company making a customer relationship management play, and it had assets, including Pliant Technologies, an acquisition it made in 2003. The company was deep in debt and had a lot of litigation problems. We spent nine to 12 months cleaning it up and recapitalizing and refocusing the company. I made a decision as we sold off the other assets to devote the entire effort of this company to building upon the technology platform that Paul and his team brought to us from Pliant. We needed to see if there was an asset that we had in our patents, and what value that might have to somebody else in the world. But I really want to make it clear that we are not in any way a "patent assertion" type of company. We're just trying to leverage what we have.

RL: Traditionally patents were viewed just as a ticket to court. "I have a patent, you're infringing it, you pay me." That's not at all what we are doing....What we're looking to do is to monetize the patent, which is code for a whole range of opportunities, one of which is to sell it to someone for whom it has strategic value. Many companies are looking to acquire broad patents for defensive use, so when competitors come along with patent suits they have something to trade with....There is a rapidly growing market in companies looking to acquire outside patents. That is the main focus of our strategy, to take these neutral form patents, which are very broad, reserve a license to help the company do its core business, and monetize the patents by selling them to someone for whom they have strategic value.

WR: What is your core business?

PO: We have two major product lines at this point that all fit on top of an engine that is based upon the two patents -- actually four, only two of which we've been talking about. Those two products are intelligent document recognition, which attempts to look at structured and unstructured documents as an individual would look at them and interpret them on the fly, extract appropriate information, and classify them. The other product we have is a search product that can track context and semantics and put it all together into one algorithm to give significantly more relevant answers.

WR: How does that relate to your patents?

PO: Neutral form is the basis for the engine. Based on those patents, we've created a "projection" technology that projects individual data items into a repository. Atomizing the data in that form allows you to do significantly faster processing, with far fewer resources than with the traditional algorithms.

« Back 1 2 [3]

Resources

Events

Comments

  • What a Riot!
    Guest (Peter Foglesong) on 11/12/2005 at 8:15 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Ive done contract work for these Yahoos on and off as they grew. Bryant is as dirty and sleezy as anyone you can come across. As a long time TR reader I cant stand to see these guys soil the content of TR. Market Central d.b.a. Scientigo has enough SOX violations to warrant an investigation and jail time for Bryant and several Board members. Id be happy to discuss these matters openly with the authors of this piece.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Ouch! Yahoos :)
      Guest (Ken) on 12/04/2005 at 11:04 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Skortching Hot.  You sure now how to paint a picture.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Ouch! Yahoos :)
      Guest (Ken) on 12/04/2005 at 11:04 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Skortching Hot.  You sure now how to paint a picture.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • What a Riot!
    Guest (Peter Foglesong) on 11/12/2005 at 8:15 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Ive done contract work for these Yahoos on and off as they grew. Bryant is as dirty and sleezy as anyone you can come across. As a long time TR reader I cant stand to see these guys soil the content of TR. Market Central d.b.a. Scientigo has enough SOX violations to warrant an investigation and jail time for Bryant and several Board members. Id be happy to discuss these matters openly with the authors of this piece.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Neutral Form
    Guest (alster) on 12/14/2005 at 11:18 AM
    Posts:
    1
    If the interviewer had been more informed, they would have nailed these creeps to the wall.  The concept of &quotneutral form&quot goes back decades.  And do you know what neutral form was the inspiration for XML?  I thought not since you didnt mention it.  Its an old protocol called EDI.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Neutral Form
    Guest (alster) on 12/14/2005 at 11:18 AM
    Posts:
    1
    If the interviewer had been more informed, they would have nailed these creeps to the wall.  The concept of &quotneutral form&quot goes back decades.  And do you know what neutral form was the inspiration for XML?  I thought not since you didnt mention it.  Its an old protocol called EDI.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The problem with software patents
    Guest (Ben Gustafson) on 01/02/2006 at 5:41 PM
    Posts:
    1
    This article sums up what is wrong with the idea of software patents. Namespaces are a basic part of object-oriented software namespaces in XML are just an extension of this concept. If the use of namespaces in XML infringes on a patent, then clearly the patent should not have been granted. Messrs. Bryant and Laurie are just trying to make money from a specious patent they found in the dust bunnies under the furniture of a failing company they acquired, and now they want to cash it in.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • (un)petty larceny
      Guest (Roger) on 01/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      If they reach an "Agreement" with major software companies, this would be a trade of not wasting their time in court in return for a licensing agreement, they can use this to extort smaller companies with the contention that this is a recognized as propriatary technology without being forced to prove it.

      Large companies may see the value in not being forced to waste resources. An association of technology companies should support open XML by paying for the litigation proactively, a reverse class action suit where the many sue the one.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • The problem with software patents
    Guest (Ben Gustafson) on 01/02/2006 at 5:41 PM
    Posts:
    1
    This article sums up what is wrong with the idea of software patents. Namespaces are a basic part of object-oriented software namespaces in XML are just an extension of this concept. If the use of namespaces in XML infringes on a patent, then clearly the patent should not have been granted. Messrs. Bryant and Laurie are just trying to make money from a specious patent they found in the dust bunnies under the furniture of a failing company they acquired, and now they want to cash it in.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review September/October 2008
How Obama Really Did It
Social technology helped bring him to the brink of the presidency.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology