* Ada syntax patents @ 2005-02-22 16:04 Georg Bauhaus 2005-02-23 7:59 ` Martin Krischik ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-02-22 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-22 16:04 Ada syntax patents Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-02-23 7:59 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 8:56 ` rien ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-02-23 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-22 16:04 Ada syntax patents Georg Bauhaus 2005-02-23 7:59 ` Martin Krischik @ 2005-02-23 8:56 ` rien 2005-02-23 9:42 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 10:24 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-02-23 14:54 ` rien 2005-02-24 16:04 ` george.priv 3 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: rien @ 2005-02-23 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 8:56 ` rien @ 2005-02-23 9:42 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 10:54 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-02-23 19:14 ` Preben Randhol 2005-02-23 10:24 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-02-23 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 9:42 ` Martin Krischik @ 2005-02-23 10:54 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-02-23 11:00 ` Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler 2005-02-23 19:14 ` Preben Randhol 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-02-23 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 10:54 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-02-23 11:00 ` Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler 2005-02-23 12:44 ` Martin Krischik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler @ 2005-02-23 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 11:00 ` Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler @ 2005-02-23 12:44 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 14:02 ` Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-02-23 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 12:44 ` Martin Krischik @ 2005-02-23 14:02 ` Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler @ 2005-02-23 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 9:42 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 10:54 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-02-23 19:14 ` Preben Randhol 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2005-02-23 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Krischik; +Cc: comp.lang.ada 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 8:56 ` rien 2005-02-23 9:42 ` Martin Krischik @ 2005-02-23 10:24 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-02-23 10:24 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-22 16:04 Ada syntax patents Georg Bauhaus 2005-02-23 7:59 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 8:56 ` rien @ 2005-02-23 14:54 ` rien 2005-02-24 19:31 ` Charles Lindsey 2005-02-24 16:04 ` george.priv 3 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: rien @ 2005-02-23 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-23 14:54 ` rien @ 2005-02-24 19:31 ` Charles Lindsey 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Charles Lindsey @ 2005-02-24 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-22 16:04 Ada syntax patents Georg Bauhaus ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-02-23 14:54 ` rien @ 2005-02-24 16:04 ` george.priv 2005-02-24 19:16 ` Larry Kilgallen 3 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: george.priv @ 2005-02-24 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-24 16:04 ` george.priv @ 2005-02-24 19:16 ` Larry Kilgallen 2005-02-24 19:52 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2005-02-24 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-24 19:16 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2005-02-24 19:52 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2005-02-24 20:50 ` tmoran 2005-02-24 22:19 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2005-02-24 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-24 19:52 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2005-02-24 20:50 ` tmoran 2005-02-24 22:19 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2005-02-24 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) >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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada syntax patents 2005-02-24 19:52 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2005-02-24 20:50 ` tmoran @ 2005-02-24 22:19 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-02-24 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-02-24 22:19 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-02-22 16:04 Ada syntax patents Georg Bauhaus 2005-02-23 7:59 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 8:56 ` rien 2005-02-23 9:42 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 10:54 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-02-23 11:00 ` Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler 2005-02-23 12:44 ` Martin Krischik 2005-02-23 14:02 ` Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler 2005-02-23 19:14 ` Preben Randhol 2005-02-23 10:24 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-02-23 14:54 ` rien 2005-02-24 19:31 ` Charles Lindsey 2005-02-24 16:04 ` george.priv 2005-02-24 19:16 ` Larry Kilgallen 2005-02-24 19:52 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2005-02-24 20:50 ` tmoran 2005-02-24 22:19 ` Georg Bauhaus
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox