• Bob W (4/4) Dec 23 2006 Just wondering how software patens like this one ...
• Sean Kelly (24/30) Dec 23 2006 It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden of
• Walter Bright (4/14) Dec 23 2006 All software patents should be invalidated. There was no shortage of
• Don Clugston (6/21) Dec 23 2006 Did you know that the decision to allow people to patent algorithms, was...
• Hasan Aljudy (9/21) Dec 23 2006 Good point.
• Daniel Keep (7/36) Dec 23 2006 With patents, it seems that it doesn't matter *who* invented it, rather
• Hasan Aljudy (7/46) Dec 24 2006 Yeah, I've heard that Bell wasn't really the first guy who invented

"Bob W" <nospam aol.com> writes:

Just wondering how software patens like this one ...

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=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060089942&RS=DN/20060089942

... might affect future development of languages like D - and
I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Bob W wrote:
 Just wondering how software patens like this one ...
 
 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=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060089942&RS=DN/20060089942
 
 .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
 I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".

It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden of 
proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the side 
with the largest bank account).  That said, this seems one of the raft 
of patents Microsoft filed regarding C++/CLI, and in fact mentions 
C++/CLI specifically quite a few times in the text.  So I don't think 
it's anything to worry about.  The language would have to be more 
general if they were to use the patent against developers of an 
unrelated language like D.

What bothers me more is that essentially all of the techniques used in 
lock-free programming have been silently patented by Sun, HP, etc, in 
the past few years.  It's gotten so bad that some of the regulars on 
comp.programming.threads have taken to ignoring the patents altogether.

I personally feel that the value of patents has been tarnished so much 
by the tech industry that the whole thing should just be scrapped and 
re-invented.  While patents were once a way to protect the independent 
inventor from big business, they have become a way for businesses to 
protect their own business model from competition, and more generally, 
for independent firms to generate money from out of court settlements. 
Thus they no longer serve to protect innovation but instead stifle it. 
Some businesses may argue that research budgets would be cut if ideas 
could not be patented, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a 
legitimate patent case brought to court.


Sean

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 I personally feel that the value of patents has been tarnished so much 
 by the tech industry that the whole thing should just be scrapped and 
 re-invented.  While patents were once a way to protect the independent 
 inventor from big business, they have become a way for businesses to 
 protect their own business model from competition, and more generally, 
 for independent firms to generate money from out of court settlements. 
 Thus they no longer serve to protect innovation but instead stifle it. 
 Some businesses may argue that research budgets would be cut if ideas 
 could not be patented, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a 
 legitimate patent case brought to court.

All software patents should be invalidated. There was no shortage of 
innovation in software before 1990, so software patents are simply not 
necessary.

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 I personally feel that the value of patents has been tarnished so much 
 by the tech industry that the whole thing should just be scrapped and 
 re-invented.  While patents were once a way to protect the independent 
 inventor from big business, they have become a way for businesses to 
 protect their own business model from competition, and more generally, 
 for independent firms to generate money from out of court settlements. 
 Thus they no longer serve to protect innovation but instead stifle it. 
 Some businesses may argue that research budgets would be cut if ideas 
 could not be patented, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a 
 legitimate patent case brought to court.

 
 All software patents should be invalidated. There was no shortage of 
 innovation in software before 1990, so software patents are simply not 
 necessary.

Did you know that the decision to allow people to patent algorithms, was 
based on some case in the 1800's where some guy patented an opera ticket 
that could be folded in three ways?  So on one occasion, origami was 
patented, therefore software can be patented too. It's so ridiculous.

It's so ridiculous.

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 Bob W wrote:
 Just wondering how software patens like this one ...

 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=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/200600899
2&RS=DN/20060089942 


 .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
 I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".

 
 It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden of 
 proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the side 
 with the largest bank account).  

Good point.
As far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no respect for these kinds of 
patents.

With that said, what's the implication of patents on 
software/algorithms/ideas?!
Say someone patented an algorithm, and meanwhile I came up with a very 
similar algorithm (very similar to the point that they are almost the 
same) on my own and implemented it. So what? Can he sue me?

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep+lists gmail.com> writes:

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 
 
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 
 Bob W wrote:

 Just wondering how software patens like this one ...

 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=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/200600899
2&RS=DN/20060089942 


 .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
 I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".


 It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden 
 of proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the 
 side with the largest bank account).  

 
 
 Good point.
 As far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no respect for these kinds of 
 patents.
 
 With that said, what's the implication of patents on 
 software/algorithms/ideas?!
 Say someone patented an algorithm, and meanwhile I came up with a very 
 similar algorithm (very similar to the point that they are almost the 
 same) on my own and implemented it. So what? Can he sue me?

With patents, it seems that it doesn't matter *who* invented it, rather 
it matters who managed to get to the patent office first wins.

My favourite example thus far, however, has to be the Aussie bloke who 
patented crop rotation.  I think he also patented the wheel, and maybe 
fire, too.  Yes, the patent system is *that bad*.

	-- Daniel

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Daniel Keep wrote:
 Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Bob W wrote:

 Just wondering how software patens like this one ...

 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=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/200600899
2&RS=DN/20060089942 


 .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
 I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".


 It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden 
 of proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the 
 side with the largest bank account).  


 Good point.
 As far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no respect for these kinds 
 of patents.

 With that said, what's the implication of patents on 
 software/algorithms/ideas?!
 Say someone patented an algorithm, and meanwhile I came up with a very 
 similar algorithm (very similar to the point that they are almost the 
 same) on my own and implemented it. So what? Can he sue me?

 
 With patents, it seems that it doesn't matter *who* invented it, rather 
 it matters who managed to get to the patent office first wins.

Yeah, I've heard that Bell wasn't really the first guy who invented 
telephones, he just managed to get the patent first!!!

 
 My favourite example thus far, however, has to be the Aussie bloke who 
 patented crop rotation.  I think he also patented the wheel, and maybe 
 fire, too.  Yes, the patent system is *that bad*.

Funny, someone should patent Chinese characters!! Oh wait, maybe someone 
already did that? Then maybe someone should dig in some old Chinese 
literature to find some old characters that haven't been patented yet!!

Don't forget patenting the idea of "making jokes about idea-patents".

 
     -- Daniel