• Arcane Jill (10/10) Aug 13 2004 I noticed that on the Eiffel website, at
• Jarrett Billingsley (6/7) Aug 13 2004 apparently MS patented the idea of using double clicks and clicks-and-dr...
• Walter (18/28) Aug 13 2004 They applied for a trademark in December 2003. This was after I'd been
• Matthew (6/39) Aug 13 2004 No. We should just use "Design by Contract". Otherwise we'll spent point...
• Gold Dragon (11/25) Aug 13 2004 You can't trademark an idea but you can copyright it. The 1997 book
• Walter (7/12) Aug 13 2004 You cannot copyright an idea. But you can patent an idea. I know of no
• kinghajj (4/16) Aug 13 2004 I thought that Patents were for product ideas, such as a model of a car,...
• Walter (4/7) Aug 14 2004 etc.
• Gold Dragon (7/15) Aug 14 2004 Ouch! It appears I was talking out of my ass, I blame the confusing
• Walter (4/15) Aug 14 2004 What isn't implemented is the polymorphic behavior of pre and post
• David Medlock (4/23) Aug 15 2004 My issue with patents is when two completely normal pieces of technology...
• teqDruid (4/5) Aug 13 2004 I don't have any preference, but I really don't like Design by Contract'...

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

I noticed that on the Eiffel website, at
http://docs.eiffel.com/general/guided_tour/language/tutorial-09.html, it says:
"Eiffel directly implements the ideas of Design by Contract TM".

The "TM" bothers me. It implies that "Design by Contract" is a pending trademark
application. Does that mean that use of that phrase by anyone other than Eiffel
is breach of Eiffel's pending trademark? And if "(TM)" (pending trademark)
should ever change to "(R)" (registered trademark), how would things stand then?

This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.

Anyone got any clue about this?
Jill

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

 This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.

apparently MS patented the idea of using double clicks and clicks-and-drags.
which i think is equally inane.

but it struck my as humorous that someone would try to trademark "design by
contract".  that would be like trying to trademark "function" or "variable".
come on guys, let's go trademark a common programming term just to annoy
everyone else!  bah.

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

They applied for a trademark in December 2003. This was after I'd been
referring to it for about 3 years. Furthermore, trademarks only apply to a
product identifier, yet Bertrand Meyers refers to it in his 1997 book (where
I studied it) as a "concept", and NOWHERE indicates that it was a trademark
or that it applies to commerce or a specific product. Concepts are not
trademarkable according to US trademark law. (Ironically, in the eiffel
quote below, they refer to it as an "idea", yet ideas are not trademarkable,
either.) Frankly, I don't believe their belated trademark will hold up in
court, though I am not a lawyer.

Be that as it may, I don't care enough about it to engage in any sort of
fight about it. I've decided to change my use of the term to "Contract
Programming", a term I like even better. Maybe I should trademark that <g>.

"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cfi2u9$dlv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I noticed that on the Eiffel website, at
 http://docs.eiffel.com/general/guided_tour/language/tutorial-09.html, it

says:
 "Eiffel directly implements the ideas of Design by Contract TM".

 The "TM" bothers me. It implies that "Design by Contract" is a pending

trademark
 application. Does that mean that use of that phrase by anyone other than

Eiffel
 is breach of Eiffel's pending trademark? And if "(TM)" (pending trademark)
 should ever change to "(R)" (registered trademark), how would things stand

then?
 This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.

 Anyone got any clue about this?
 Jill

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:cfirse$rdi$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 They applied for a trademark in December 2003. This was after I'd been
 referring to it for about 3 years. Furthermore, trademarks only apply to a
 product identifier, yet Bertrand Meyers refers to it in his 1997 book (where
 I studied it) as a "concept", and NOWHERE indicates that it was a trademark
 or that it applies to commerce or a specific product. Concepts are not
 trademarkable according to US trademark law. (Ironically, in the eiffel
 quote below, they refer to it as an "idea", yet ideas are not trademarkable,
 either.) Frankly, I don't believe their belated trademark will hold up in
 court, though I am not a lawyer.

 Be that as it may, I don't care enough about it to engage in any sort of
 fight about it. I've decided to change my use of the term to "Contract
 Programming", a term I like even better. Maybe I should trademark that <g>.

No. We should just use "Design by Contract". Otherwise we'll spent pointless
amounts of time that none of us have to
spare in explaining it to people who will then think us peremptory ninnys.

Google reveals 26,900 "Design by Contract". I think that pretty much puts the
phrase into common usage. I am certainly
not worried about Dr Meyer trying to sue Addison-Wesley for my having used it
in "Imperfect C++".

Roger the Codger


 "Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:cfi2u9$dlv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I noticed that on the Eiffel website, at
 http://docs.eiffel.com/general/guided_tour/language/tutorial-09.html, it

 says:
 "Eiffel directly implements the ideas of Design by Contract TM".

 The "TM" bothers me. It implies that "Design by Contract" is a pending

 trademark
 application. Does that mean that use of that phrase by anyone other than

 Eiffel
 is breach of Eiffel's pending trademark? And if "(TM)" (pending trademark)
 should ever change to "(R)" (registered trademark), how would things stand

 then?
 This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.

 Anyone got any clue about this?
 Jill

Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:

Walter wrote:
 They applied for a trademark in December 2003. This was after I'd been
 referring to it for about 3 years. Furthermore, trademarks only apply to a
 product identifier, yet Bertrand Meyers refers to it in his 1997 book (where
 I studied it) as a "concept", and NOWHERE indicates that it was a trademark
 or that it applies to commerce or a specific product. Concepts are not
 trademarkable according to US trademark law. (Ironically, in the eiffel
 quote below, they refer to it as an "idea", yet ideas are not trademarkable,
 either.) Frankly, I don't believe their belated trademark will hold up in
 court, though I am not a lawyer.
 
 Be that as it may, I don't care enough about it to engage in any sort of
 fight about it. I've decided to change my use of the term to "Contract
 Programming", a term I like even better. Maybe I should trademark that <g>.
 

You can't trademark an idea but you can copyright it. The 1997 book
copyrighted the idea of Design by Contract or maybe it didn't. Depends
on the author. From my understanding there is this place you go to make
the copyright legal so the first person to the end of the rat race wins.

Personally, I like 'Contract Programming' name better, I don't think the
novice programmer even knows what Design by Contract is (I sure didn't
and unless I'm the only one...). Does Design by Contract mean I can
change whatever 'contract' is defined?

Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
that it hasn't been finished.

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Gold Dragon" <dragonwing dragonu.net> wrote in message
news:cfjtv3$1hgu$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 You can't trademark an idea but you can copyright it.

You cannot copyright an idea. But you can patent an idea. I know of no
patents encumbering DbC, and while Dr. Meyer very belatedly claims a
trademark, I've not seen him claim any patents on it.

 The 1997 book
 copyrighted the idea of Design by Contract or maybe it didn't.

The book only copyrighted the text in it.

 Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
 that it hasn't been finished.

No, it hasn't been finished.

kinghajj <kinghajj_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <cfk5hi$1nhb$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Gold Dragon" <dragonwing dragonu.net> wrote in message
news:cfjtv3$1hgu$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 You can't trademark an idea but you can copyright it.

You cannot copyright an idea. But you can patent an idea. I know of no
patents encumbering DbC, and while Dr. Meyer very belatedly claims a
trademark, I've not seen him claim any patents on it.

 The 1997 book
 copyrighted the idea of Design by Contract or maybe it didn't.

The book only copyrighted the text in it.

 Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
 that it hasn't been finished.

No, it hasn't been finished.

I thought that Patents were for product ideas, such as a model of a car, etc.
Trade Marks are for identifying features of a company, like a logo, and
copyright is for text. Correct?

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"kinghajj" <kinghajj_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cfk7te$1p5s$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I thought that Patents were for product ideas, such as a model of a car,

etc.
 Trade Marks are for identifying features of a company, like a logo, and
 copyright is for text. Correct?

Yes, I think that's about right.

Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:

Ouch! It appears I was talking out of my ass, I blame the confusing 
legal terms behind trademarks, copyrights, and patents (actually the 
fault is my own but you can't place the blame on yourself can you?). If 
you can patent the wheel then something isn't right with the system.

Walter wrote:
 
Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
that it hasn't been finished.

 
 
 No, it hasn't been finished.
 
 

How far away is it to completion? I have seen sources that have included 
the syntax of DbC and thought that maybe it was finished.

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Gold Dragon" <dragonwing dragonu.net> wrote in message
news:cfkoht$271n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
that it hasn't been finished.


 No, it hasn't been finished.

 How far away is it to completion? I have seen sources that have included
 the syntax of DbC and thought that maybe it was finished.

What isn't implemented is the polymorphic behavior of pre and post
conditions. Otherwise, it works fine.

David Medlock <amedlock nospam.org> writes:

My issue with patents is when two completely normal pieces of technology 
are put together and 'patented'.  That is not an invention, its 
engineering. (Example: single click shopping, sending images over the web).

Gold Dragon wrote:
 Ouch! It appears I was talking out of my ass, I blame the confusing 
 legal terms behind trademarks, copyrights, and patents (actually the 
 fault is my own but you can't place the blame on yourself can you?). If 
 you can patent the wheel then something isn't right with the system.
 
 Walter wrote:
 
 Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
 that it hasn't been finished.



 No, it hasn't been finished.

 
 How far away is it to completion? I have seen sources that have included 
 the syntax of DbC and thought that maybe it was finished.

teqDruid <me teqdruid.com> writes:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:36:47 -0500, Gold Dragon wrote:
 Personally, I like 'Contract Programming' name better, 

I don't have any preference, but I really don't like Design by Contract's
abbreviation.  Whenever I see DbC, I think Design by Committee... and
shudder.