Ada syntax patents

Ada syntax patents

[Georg Bauhaus]

Reading
    "http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?"
&   "Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html"
&   "&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR."
&   "&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959", i.e.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

about compiling the BASIC IsNot operator, Patent Application 20040230959.

What's this? What are they trying to protect? Is something
like this on the way for Ada?
 Interesting, everyone with an interest in a software exchange
with a US resident/whatever will have to consider whether they
can use comparison operators without being US-charged, patent
(im)pending.

-- Georg 

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Martin Krischik]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Reading
>     "http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?"
> &  
> "Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html"
> &   "&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR."
> &   "&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959", i.e.
> 
>
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
> 
> about compiling the BASIC IsNot operator, Patent Application 20040230959.
> 
> What's this? What are they trying to protect? Is something
> like this on the way for Ada?
>  Interesting, everyone with an interest in a software exchange
> with a US resident/whatever will have to consider whether they
> can use comparison operators without being US-charged, patent
> (im)pending.

Thank you Poland for your veto on software patents in Europe.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Ada syntax patents

[rien]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> about compiling the BASIC IsNot operator, Patent Application
20040230959.

the patent covers the IsNot operator as a single operator. but if we
write "Not( A Is Nothing )" then we are not under the term of the
patent...

> What's this? What are they trying to protect? Is something
> like this on the way for Ada?
>  Interesting, everyone with an interest in a software exchange
> with a US resident/whatever will have to consider whether they
> can use comparison operators without being US-charged, patent
> (im)pending.

we may consider patenting the "+" operator, it would be fun... how
about patenting the principle of tokenizing a file and parsing it to
produce an executable file ?

more seriously, is there a way to protect ourself from such a patent ?
and what are the implication of such a patent ?

consider for example the ability to declare a task in Ada to do some
concurrent execution: there is no patent on it and we use it in Ada
since 1983. if someone decide to patent this kind of construct, can we
legally break the patent on the fact that they have not invented
anything and it has been in use long before they tried to patent it ?
if it is still patented, will it prevent us from using this construct
in our softwares (rendering Ada far less powerful) ? how could they
ensure we are not under the term of such a patent ?

(i'm not a lawyer and i don't understand anything about patents...)

-- 
rien

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Martin Krischik]

rien wrote:

> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> about compiling the BASIC IsNot operator, Patent Application
> 20040230959.

> consider for example the ability to declare a task in Ada to do some
> concurrent execution: there is no patent on it and we use it in Ada
> since 1983. if someone decide to patent this kind of construct, can we
> legally break the patent on the fact that they have not invented
> anything and it has been in use long before they tried to patent it ?
> if it is still patented, will it prevent us from using this construct
> in our softwares (rendering Ada far less powerful) ? how could they
> ensure we are not under the term of such a patent ?

Yes it is called "prior art". The problem is that such a patent may be
granted and the Ada compiler vendors whould need to go to court to proof
"prior art".

The real problem of such patens is that most smaller companies will go
bancrupt over such court cases.

Her in Germany we have the classic example of the German Telecom using a
pink serif 'T' as logo sueing everybody which also uses a 'T' (even when
black and san-serif). If the Telecom looses they just go to next higher
court. One company needed donation for fund raising to affort the court
cases and in the end they had to settle otu of court.

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.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Georg Bauhaus]

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 

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Given that Ada the language is an ISO standard, I think the
> compiler producers won't claim anything, or will they?

Well, perhaps they should claim that there is no compiler involved at
all. At least not an optimizing one:

<URI:http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=EP0646864&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD>


Vinzent.

-- 
worst case: The wrong assumption there actually is one.

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Martin Krischik]

Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:

> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> Given that Ada the language is an ISO standard, I think the
>> compiler producers won't claim anything, or will they?
> 
> Well, perhaps they should claim that there is no compiler involved at
> all. At least not an optimizing one:
> 
>
<URI:http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=EP0646864&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD>

But FORTRAN (the very first one from 1954) was an optimising compiler! See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran. But then, sombody managed to patent
wheel-barrow a few years ago.

Again: Thank you Polan for your veto (http://thankpoland.info). Only they
have another go at it :-( .

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler]

Martin Krischik wrote:

> Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
> 
> <URI:http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=EP0646864&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD>
> 
> But FORTRAN (the very first one from 1954) was an optimising compiler!

Of course.

> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran. But then, sombody managed to
> patent wheel-barrow a few years ago.

Yeah, right. You wouldn't believe what sort of shit gets patented these
days. ;->

> Again: Thank you Polan for your veto (http://thankpoland.info). Only
> they have another go at it :-( .

On the long run I think, it won't matter. They *will* push it through
someday. They are politicians. :-(


Vinzent.

-- 
worst case: The wrong assumption there actually is one.

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Preben Randhol]

Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com> wrote on 23/02/2005 (10:05) :
> Yes it is called "prior art". The problem is that such a patent may be
> granted and the Ada compiler vendors whould need to go to court to proof
> "prior art".

Isn't it the other way around? It must be the one that want's to protect
his stupid patent that drags you to court.

> 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.

Software patents are hopeless. It is only a means to hurt the economy
and the competition. If the patents had been awarded for stuff that took
years to develope and that has REAL intellectual property it would be
ok. Then it ensures that the companies will work hard to progress as
they can get their monies back. However, now such stupidies as
one-click, wordprocessor XML-files format etc... are given. This hurts
the economy and not promote it.

Just think if somebody tomorrow could charge everyone driving a car in
the US $100 per day to use the car. Would this benifit the economy (it
would benifit the environment, but that is a different matter)?

Preben

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

rien a �crit :
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> more seriously, is there a way to protect ourself from such a patent ?
> and what are the implication of such a patent ?
> 
IANAL, but I've heard that one of the criteria for a valid patent is 
"not obvious for a man of the art", which certainly would apply in this 
case.

But as someone else pointed out, the trouble is FUD and the money it 
costs to attack such stupid patents.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Ada syntax patents

[rien]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
>
> about compiling the BASIC IsNot operator, Patent Application
20040230959.

here is a short article (including some possible interresting links) i
found about this patent:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1766949,00.asp

-- 
rien

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Charles Lindsey]

In <1109170494.968883.195150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> "rien" <aplisson-google@stochastique.net> writes:

>here is a short article (including some possible interresting links) i
>found about this patent:

>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1766949,00.asp

According to the patent application?filed in mid-November by Paul Vick,
lead architect for Visual Basic .Net at Microsoft; Amanda Silver, a
program manager on the Visual Basic team; and an individual in Bellevue,
Wash., named Costica Barsan?the IsNot operator is described as a single
operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two
point to the same location in memory.

May I draw the attention of the assembled company to the built-in operator
ISNT in ALGOL 68, which does precisely that.

Moreover, apparently this patent applies only to use of that operator in
the language BASIC.

Yes, maybe it is valid on the grounds that nobody in his right mind would
describe BASIC as a "language", and that therefore is in not obvious that
concepts could be lifted from Real languages into it :=).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Re: Ada syntax patents

[george.priv]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Reading
>     "http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?"
> &
"Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html"
> &   "&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR."
> &   "&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959", i.e.
>
>
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
>
> about compiling the BASIC IsNot operator, Patent Application
20040230959.
>
> What's this? What are they trying to protect? Is something
> like this on the way for Ada?
>  Interesting, everyone with an interest in a software exchange
> with a US resident/whatever will have to consider whether they
> can use comparison operators without being US-charged, patent
> (im)pending.
> 
> -- Georg

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1109258397.763243.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, george.priv@gmail.com writes:
> 
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> Reading
>>     "http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?"
>> &
> "Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html"
>> &   "&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR."
>> &   "&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959", i.e.
>>
>>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959
>>
>> about compiling the BASIC IsNot operator, Patent Application
> 20040230959.
>>
>> What's this? What are they trying to protect? Is something
>> like this on the way for Ada?
>>  Interesting, everyone with an interest in a software exchange
>> with a US resident/whatever will have to consider whether they
>> can use comparison operators without being US-charged, patent
>> (im)pending.

The cited page says:

	A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use
	of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables
	to determine if the two variables point to the same location
	in memory. 

which does not seem to me the same as a comparison operator.

Isn't this a capability for resolving aliasing issues that do not
arise when your language is Ada ?

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 24 Feb 2005 13:16:09 -0600, Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> The cited page says:
> 
> 	A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use
> 	of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables
> 	to determine if the two variables point to the same location
> 	in memory. 
> 
> which does not seem to me the same as a comparison operator.

Does X'Address = Y'Address qualify?

> Isn't this a capability for resolving aliasing issues that do not
> arise when your language is Ada ?

I cannot understand that patent Volapuek, but "a system that support ... to
determine ... the same location in memory" isn't it infringed by von
Neumann's machines?

Actually, I think that we should rush to patent letters A-Z and digits 0-9.
Once we'll have these patents...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada syntax patents

[tmoran]

>Actually, I think that we should rush to patent letters A-Z and digits 0-9.
  By all means feel free to submit patent APPLICATIONS for those.  It only
costs a few hundred bucks to apply for a patent, and the application
can be written and the forms filled out on your computer.

Re: Ada syntax patents

[Georg Bauhaus]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2005 13:16:09 -0600, Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> 
>>The cited page says:
>>
>>	A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use
>>	of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables
>>	to determine if the two variables point to the same location
>>	in memory. 
>>
>>which does not seem to me the same as a comparison operator.
> 
> 
> Does X'Address = Y'Address qualify?

By analogy, the sentence that mentions "ungrammatical"
can easily be "ported" to an Ada construct.

    if not (A in B) then

can be written

     if A not in B then

One Ada compiler maker is allowed to write a translator without
worrying about what another compiler maker is doing about the
translation of the second form. Right?

Programmers can write the second if statement and deliver
their code. They needn't worry about another programmer's
Ada compiler, if it is an Ada compiler.
  There is no patent on "not in" (AFAIK). The code is portable
between programmers, between projects, and between compilers.
This is of advantage to everyone. You can choose your compiler,
"not in" is no problem, neither a suing problem, nor a
translation problem, nor a maintenance problem. No FUD.

The patent potentially applies to BASIC compilers only, if at
all. (I don't know what clever tricks the patent lawyers
can play, the operator being present in Algol 68 (as per
Charles Lindsey), and probably also being present in
Simula 67 (according to Meyer's OOSC2).)
   Still this example demonstrates the mechanism employed by
one company in trying to get hold of a useful language construct,
with unpleasant consequences. One consequence would be that a
choice is likely gone for everyone. Another is that programs
could become less portable. A third is increased market control.
In particular, the competition (e.g. REAL Software) might face
a problem that has nothing to do with their capabilities as
compiler writers. Nothing to do with price, as well. The linked
page (in another post) about the Realbasic compiler explains.

Georg Bauhaus