From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,525be57bd7f45978
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:54:02 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Organization: future apps GmbH
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105 Debian/1.7.5-1
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada syntax patents
References: <421b581b$0$13221$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
 <1109148987.384389.187240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <7720213.akB6FCcMrh@linux1.krischik.com>
In-Reply-To: <7720213.akB6FCcMrh@linux1.krischik.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <421c60be$0$24926$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Feb 2005 11:53:50 MET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 42a562c8.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=OOMfeUb6[<\J<1FClJbQ`\Q5U85hF6f;TjW\KbG]kaMXea\9g\;7NmUo8KFCAb`O;UUUng9_FXZ=S>:=P9Ihe`BX@Z?dZ]MOidU
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8469
Date: 2005-02-23T11:53:50+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Krischik wrote:

> If court cases where not so expensive those patent laws where not realy a
> problem. It is the combination which make the problem so explosive.
> 
> Especialy when you think Microsoft and they enourmous amound of cash.

Given that Ada the language is an ISO standard, I think the
compiler producers won't claim anything, or will they? I don't want to imagine
someone trying to "protect" the invention of the translation of a compiler
specific pragma. But who knows, the lawyers working for the big companies
tell us we shoul try to have a patent "portfolio".

So I guess even a small company, having a small to non-existent patent
"portfolio", can go on producing software in Ada without fear of
being sued for using Ada language constructs without "permission".
What is called a patent _portfolio_ is really a patent _armory_, consistent
with language used in the market: e.g. fight instead of compete.
 One euphemism created for every opporunity. Or do
company lawers negotiate patents in order to have a decent exchange of
securities from their respective "portfolios"?

-- Georg