BlazingWhitester <max.klyga gmail.com> writes:

I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
Wanted to clarify things.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes 
method pointers implementation (delegates)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5628016.pdf - describes compiler 
support for SEH, also this is the reason GNU toolchain does not support 
SEH right now

Both patents were owned by Borland, right now, I believe Microsoft owns them.

Walter, could you give some comments about this? Does dmd violate anything?

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"BlazingWhitester" <max.klyga gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ih55mp$2gtl$1 digitalmars.com...
I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes 
 method pointers implementation (delegates)
 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5628016.pdf - describes compiler support 
 for SEH, also this is the reason GNU toolchain does not support SEH right 
 now

 Both patents were owned by Borland, right now, I believe Microsoft owns 
 them.

 Walter, could you give some comments about this? Does dmd violate 
 anything?

I don't think there's a piece of software in existence that doesn't violate 
about ten different software patents.

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 18.01.2011 23:52, schrieb BlazingWhitester:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes method
 pointers implementation (delegates)

This is trivial, what idiot grants these kind of patents?
And were there really no delegates before Jan. 31 1996 when this was filed?

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5628016.pdf - describes compiler support for
 SEH, also this is the reason GNU toolchain does not support SEH right now

 Both patents were owned by Borland, right now, I believe Microsoft owns them.

 Walter, could you give some comments about this? Does dmd violate anything?

BlazingWhitester <max.klyga gmail.com> writes:

On 2011-01-19 01:15:03 +0200, Daniel Gibson said:
 This is trivial, what idiot grants these kind of patents?
 And were there really no delegates before Jan. 31 1996 when this was filed?

If I'm not mistaken, Oberon-2 implemented pointers to record-bound 
procedures as fat-pointers

Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:

On 01/18/2011 05:52 PM, BlazingWhitester wrote:
 Walter, could you give some comments about this? Does dmd violate anything?

It's probably in Walter's best interest to not even look at it.

On the one hand, it's probably a crap software patent that the Patent 
Office has been handing out like candy, and removing basic features that 
have been patented could cripple D. Whoever owns it might not decide to 
sue, Walter's implementation might not infringe, it might be 
invalidated, etc.

On the other hand, if Walter is sued and found to have infringed the 
patent, and if he "willfully infringed", meaning he had knowledge of the 
patent, then he could face up to three times damages.

retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:50:46 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 01/18/2011 05:52 PM, BlazingWhitester wrote:
 Walter, could you give some comments about this? Does dmd violate
 anything?

 
 It's probably in Walter's best interest to not even look at it.
 
 On the one hand, it's probably a crap software patent that the Patent
 Office has been handing out like candy, and removing basic features that
 have been patented could cripple D. Whoever owns it might not decide to
 sue, Walter's implementation might not infringe, it might be
 invalidated, etc.
 
 On the other hand, if Walter is sued and found to have infringed the
 patent, and if he "willfully infringed", meaning he had knowledge of the
 patent, then he could face up to three times damages.

At least he knows it now unless he deliberately ignores all newsgroup 

language with a feature 'delegate'. What's fun is that even if you're 
right and there's prior art or the patent is way too trivial, the patent 
trial can become very expensive. 

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ih7dih$q49$2 digitalmars.com...
 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:50:46 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 01/18/2011 05:52 PM, BlazingWhitester wrote:
 Walter, could you give some comments about this? Does dmd violate
 anything?

 It's probably in Walter's best interest to not even look at it.

 On the one hand, it's probably a crap software patent that the Patent
 Office has been handing out like candy, and removing basic features that
 have been patented could cripple D. Whoever owns it might not decide to
 sue, Walter's implementation might not infringe, it might be
 invalidated, etc.

 On the other hand, if Walter is sued and found to have infringed the
 patent, and if he "willfully infringed", meaning he had knowledge of the
 patent, then he could face up to three times damages.

 At least he knows it now unless he deliberately ignores all newsgroup

 language with a feature 'delegate'. What's fun is that even if you're
 right and there's prior art or the patent is way too trivial, the patent
 trial can become very expensive.

I'm no lawyer, and there are probably reasons why this wouldn't work, but 
what I would consider doing in that situation is pull together a clear-cut 
example of obvious prior art, stick it in their faces, *record*/*document* 
showing it to them, and when they don't back down, hire a lawyer to 
counter-sue for frivolous lawsuit or harassment or something.

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

I thought Europe was getting software patents?

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

You're thinking EU. :p

On 1/19/11, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

 I thought Europe was getting software patents?

retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:44:38 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

 
 I thought Europe was getting software patents?

It's the US intellectual property mafia pushing software patents to EU 
via WIPO, bribes, and extortion.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ih7jv4$q49$7 digitalmars.com...
 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:44:38 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

 I thought Europe was getting software patents?

 It's the US intellectual property mafia pushing software patents to EU
 via WIPO, bribes, and extortion.

Well yea, but whatever the source of it, I was under the impression that it 
was succeeding, or had already succeeded.

"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message
 news:ih7jv4$q49$7 digitalmars.com...
 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:44:38 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

 I thought Europe was getting software patents?

 It's the US intellectual property mafia pushing software patents to EU
 via WIPO, bribes, and extortion.

 Well yea, but whatever the source of it, I was under the impression that  
 it
 was succeeding, or had already succeeded.

In the EU, it is succeeding at least to an extent. However, many EU members
do not want software patents, and few European countries outside EU would
consider it. (about half of Europe is not part of the EU)


-- 
Simen

Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 22:37 +0100, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
=20
 "retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message
 news:ih7jv4$q49$7 digitalmars.com...
 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:44:38 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

 I thought Europe was getting software patents?

 It's the US intellectual property mafia pushing software patents to EU
 via WIPO, bribes, and extortion.

 Well yea, but whatever the source of it, I was under the impression tha=


t =20
 it
 was succeeding, or had already succeeded.

=20
 In the EU, it is succeeding at least to an extent. However, many EU membe=

rs
 do not want software patents, and few European countries outside EU would
 consider it. (about half of Europe is not part of the EU)

The EU Patent Office is trying hard to succumb to the US pressure to
start issuing software patents in the same way USPTO does.  It will be a
disaster if they are allowed to get away with this.  So anyone in the
EU, make sure your MEP (or whatever you label your elected
representative) knows what is going on, knows that this is a "land grab"
by the US corporates to stiffle competition and innovation in EU.

The problem here is ACTA.  The software patents advocates (via USTR)
have managed to infiltrate this global agreement so as to force all
signatories to follow US rules on software patents.  This will force EU
members to do the unthinkable and honour all US software patents.

If this happens we might all as well give up writing software unless we
work for a huge corporation who can play the patent cross-licencing
game.

If the populace doesn't act, they will be shafted.

PS  Read the relevant articles at http://webmink.com/ especially
http://webmink.com/?s=3DACTA.  Simon Phipps is 110% correct on the issues
associated with ACTA.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:

On 01/19/2011 10:09 PM, retard wrote:
 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:44:38 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrej Mitrovic"<andrej.mitrovich gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

 I thought Europe was getting software patents?

 It's the US intellectual property mafia pushing software patents to EU
 via WIPO, bribes, and extortion.

Don't put everything on the back of the US ;-)
We in Europe have our own financial mafia pushing for the same kind of 
extortion system as in the US!

Deins
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 20.01.2011 11:19, schrieb spir:
 On 01/19/2011 10:09 PM, retard wrote:
 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:44:38 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrej Mitrovic"<andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.724.1295465996.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Or pack your bags and move to Europe. :p

 I thought Europe was getting software patents?

 It's the US intellectual property mafia pushing software patents to EU
 via WIPO, bribes, and extortion.

 Don't put everything on the back of the US ;-)
 We in Europe have our own financial mafia pushing for the same kind of
extortion
 system as in the US!

 Deins
 _________________
 vita es estrany
 spir.wikidot.com

Yes.
Of course it's also US companies like Microsoft who want software patents here
- 
but we've got a few ones ourselves, for example SAP and Siemens. Don't know if 
there are many more european companies who want this, though.

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.
 
 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes 
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's all 
about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements and 
events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to achieve 
this.

D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an 
object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature), 
and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty 
and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't 
seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything else.
The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer 
together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Don wrote:
 BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes 
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

 
 This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's all 
 about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements and 
 events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to achieve 
 this.
 
 D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an 
 object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature), 
 and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
 I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty 
 and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't 
 seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything else.
 The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer 
 together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

D's delegate scheme is essentially the same as described by Richard 
Hickey, "C++ report" (Feb 1995).

See also a discussion on comp.std.c++, Feb 1996, titled "Generic Object 
Callbacks". Ian Willmott states:
"I suggest that a new data type needs to be added to the language. We
could call it "pointer-to-bound-member-function".
...
Conceptually, it is a two-element structure consisting of
pointer into data space, identifying an object, and a pointer into
code space, identifying a member function on that object. The static
type of such a variable is the signature (return type and arguments)
of the member functions it is compatible with, just as the type of a
regular function pointer is the signature of the functions it can
reference. The only operations defined for this type are assignment,
equality, and callthrough. Static typechecking is done at the point
where a value of this type is created, and where a call is made
through it. "

Borland's patent dates from Feb 6, 2001. They were SIX YEARS too late.
<g>

spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:

On 01/21/2011 03:51 PM, Don wrote:
 Don wrote:
 BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

 This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's
 all about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements
 and events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to
 achieve this.

 D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an
 object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature),
 and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
 I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty
 and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't
 seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything else.
 The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer
 together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

 D's delegate scheme is essentially the same as described by Richard
 Hickey, "C++ report" (Feb 1995).

 See also a discussion on comp.std.c++, Feb 1996, titled "Generic Object
 Callbacks". Ian Willmott states:
 "I suggest that a new data type needs to be added to the language. We
 could call it "pointer-to-bound-member-function".
 ...
 Conceptually, it is a two-element structure consisting of
 pointer into data space, identifying an object, and a pointer into
 code space, identifying a member function on that object. The static
 type of such a variable is the signature (return type and arguments)
 of the member functions it is compatible with, just as the type of a
 regular function pointer is the signature of the functions it can
 reference. The only operations defined for this type are assignment,
 equality, and callthrough. Static typechecking is done at the point
 where a value of this type is created, and where a call is made
 through it. "

 Borland's patent dates from Feb 6, 2001. They were SIX YEARS too late.
 <g>

IIUC, the structure you describe is /exactly/ the same, both concretely 
and semantically as Oberon-2 "type-bound procedures" (read: virtual 
methods). Oberon-2 was created in 1991, IIRC. This makes 10 years ;-)
Unlike you, I don't consider D's delegate to follow the same scheme. 
Sure, it's a pair of pointers, one of which point to a routine (to use a 
neutral word). But in the case of D the second one does not point to to 
a type/object, but to the definition scope (environment). This is very 
different, isn't it?
Thus I would consider D to not even be concerned by the patent. If you 
use a 3-integer struct to store a color, do you have to pay royalties to 
the owner of a patent about a 3-integer struct used to store a position? 
Indeed, lawyers...

Denis
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 21.01.2011 21:06, schrieb spir:
 On 01/21/2011 03:51 PM, Don wrote:
 Don wrote:
 BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

 This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's
 all about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements
 and events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to
 achieve this.

 D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an
 object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature),
 and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
 I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty
 and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't
 seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything else.
 The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer
 together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

 D's delegate scheme is essentially the same as described by Richard
 Hickey, "C++ report" (Feb 1995).

 See also a discussion on comp.std.c++, Feb 1996, titled "Generic Object
 Callbacks". Ian Willmott states:
 "I suggest that a new data type needs to be added to the language. We
 could call it "pointer-to-bound-member-function".
 ...
 Conceptually, it is a two-element structure consisting of
 pointer into data space, identifying an object, and a pointer into
 code space, identifying a member function on that object. The static
 type of such a variable is the signature (return type and arguments)
 of the member functions it is compatible with, just as the type of a
 regular function pointer is the signature of the functions it can
 reference. The only operations defined for this type are assignment,
 equality, and callthrough. Static typechecking is done at the point
 where a value of this type is created, and where a call is made
 through it. "

 Borland's patent dates from Feb 6, 2001. They were SIX YEARS too late.
 <g>

 IIUC, the structure you describe is /exactly/ the same, both concretely and
 semantically as Oberon-2 "type-bound procedures" (read: virtual methods).
 Oberon-2 was created in 1991, IIRC. This makes 10 years ;-)
 Unlike you, I don't consider D's delegate to follow the same scheme. Sure, it's
 a pair of pointers, one of which point to a routine (to use a neutral word).
But
 in the case of D the second one does not point to to a type/object, but to the
 definition scope (environment). This is very different, isn't it?

You're thinking of closures (which are also "delegates" in D), but D's
delegates 
can also be used to simple point to a member of an object.
It's kind of hidden in the definition:

"Delegates to non-static nested functions contain two pieces of data: the 
pointer to the stack frame of the lexically enclosing function (called the
frame 
pointer) and the address of the function.
_This is analogous to struct/class non-static member function delegates 
consisting of a this pointer and the address of the member function._
Both forms of delegates are interchangeable, and are actually the same type:
[...]"

from http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/function.html

 Thus I would consider D to not even be concerned by the patent. If you use a
 3-integer struct to store a color, do you have to pay royalties to the owner of
 a patent about a 3-integer struct used to store a position? Indeed, lawyers...

 Denis
 _________________
 vita es estrany
 spir.wikidot.com

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:18:46 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com>  
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:18:57 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:

Damn, beat my by 11 seconds :)

-Steve

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 21.01.2011 21:20, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
 On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:18:46 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com>
wrote:
 On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:18:57 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com>
 wrote:

 Damn, beat my by 11 seconds :)

 -Steve

*g*

spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:

On 01/21/2011 09:18 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
 You're thinking of closures (which are also "delegates" in D), but D's
 delegates can also be used to simple point to a member of an object.
 It's kind of hidden in the definition:

 "Delegates to non-static nested functions contain two pieces of data:
 the pointer to the stack frame of the lexically enclosing function
 (called the frame pointer) and the address of the function.
 _This is analogous to struct/class non-static member function delegates
 consisting of a this pointer and the address of the member function._
 Both forms of delegates are interchangeable, and are actually the same
 type: [...]"


Thank you for the information, Daniel. You are right: I didn't even know 
"delegate" is used in the second sense. Then, what is he difference 
between a delegate in the second sense and a (non-static) "member 
function" (I mean a method)?
Or is "delegate" the name of the data structure (implementation side) 
and "member function" or "method" the name of what it holds or means 
(semantic side)?

Denis
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 21.01.2011 21:31, schrieb spir:
 On 01/21/2011 09:18 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
 You're thinking of closures (which are also "delegates" in D), but D's
 delegates can also be used to simple point to a member of an object.
 It's kind of hidden in the definition:

 "Delegates to non-static nested functions contain two pieces of data:
 the pointer to the stack frame of the lexically enclosing function
 (called the frame pointer) and the address of the function.
 _This is analogous to struct/class non-static member function delegates
 consisting of a this pointer and the address of the member function._
 Both forms of delegates are interchangeable, and are actually the same
 type: [...]"


 Thank you for the information, Daniel. You are right: I didn't even know
 "delegate" is used in the second sense. Then, what is he difference
 between a delegate in the second sense and a (non-static) "member
 function" (I mean a method)?
 Or is "delegate" the name of the data structure (implementation side)
 and "member function" or "method" the name of what it holds or means
 (semantic side)?

 Denis
 _________________
 vita es estrany
 spir.wikidot.com

A delegate is like a function pointer to a method.
So like a function pointer is not a function a delegate is not a method ;)
See also Steves code example.

Cheers,
- Daniel

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:06:37 -0500, spir <denis.spir gmail.com> wrote:

 On 01/21/2011 03:51 PM, Don wrote:
 Don wrote:
 BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

 This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's
 all about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements
 and events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to
 achieve this.

 D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an
 object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature),
 and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
 I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty
 and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't
 seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything  
 else.
 The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer
 together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

 D's delegate scheme is essentially the same as described by Richard
 Hickey, "C++ report" (Feb 1995).

 See also a discussion on comp.std.c++, Feb 1996, titled "Generic Object
 Callbacks". Ian Willmott states:
 "I suggest that a new data type needs to be added to the language. We
 could call it "pointer-to-bound-member-function".
 ...
 Conceptually, it is a two-element structure consisting of
 pointer into data space, identifying an object, and a pointer into
 code space, identifying a member function on that object. The static
 type of such a variable is the signature (return type and arguments)
 of the member functions it is compatible with, just as the type of a
 regular function pointer is the signature of the functions it can
 reference. The only operations defined for this type are assignment,
 equality, and callthrough. Static typechecking is done at the point
 where a value of this type is created, and where a call is made
 through it. "

 Borland's patent dates from Feb 6, 2001. They were SIX YEARS too late.
 <g>

 IIUC, the structure you describe is /exactly/ the same, both concretely  
 and semantically as Oberon-2 "type-bound procedures" (read: virtual  
 methods). Oberon-2 was created in 1991, IIRC. This makes 10 years ;-)
 Unlike you, I don't consider D's delegate to follow the same scheme.  
 Sure, it's a pair of pointers, one of which point to a routine (to use a  
 neutral word). But in the case of D the second one does not point to to  
 a type/object, but to the definition scope (environment). This is very  
 different, isn't it?

The pointer could be an object:

class C
{
   int x;
   void foo() {x = 5;}
}

void main()
{
   auto c = new C;
   auto dg = &c.foo; // context pointer is pointer to c, not main's stack  
frame
}

Really, the context pointer could be anything.

-Steve

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

spir wrote:
 On 01/21/2011 03:51 PM, Don wrote:
 Don wrote:
 BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

 This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's
 all about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements
 and events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to
 achieve this.

 D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an
 object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature),
 and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
 I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty
 and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't
 seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything 
 else.
 The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer
 together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

 D's delegate scheme is essentially the same as described by Richard
 Hickey, "C++ report" (Feb 1995).

 See also a discussion on comp.std.c++, Feb 1996, titled "Generic Object
 Callbacks". Ian Willmott states:
 "I suggest that a new data type needs to be added to the language. We
 could call it "pointer-to-bound-member-function".
 ...
 Conceptually, it is a two-element structure consisting of
 pointer into data space, identifying an object, and a pointer into
 code space, identifying a member function on that object. The static
 type of such a variable is the signature (return type and arguments)
 of the member functions it is compatible with, just as the type of a
 regular function pointer is the signature of the functions it can
 reference. The only operations defined for this type are assignment,
 equality, and callthrough. Static typechecking is done at the point
 where a value of this type is created, and where a call is made
 through it. "

 Borland's patent dates from Feb 6, 2001. They were SIX YEARS too late.
 <g>

 
 IIUC, the structure you describe is /exactly/ the same, both concretely 
 and semantically as Oberon-2 "type-bound procedures" (read: virtual 
 methods). Oberon-2 was created in 1991, IIRC. This makes 10 years ;-)
 Unlike you, I don't consider D's delegate to follow the same scheme. 
 Sure, it's a pair of pointers, one of which point to a routine (to use a 
 neutral word). But in the case of D the second one does not point to to 
 a type/object, but to the definition scope (environment). This is very 
 different, isn't it?
 Thus I would consider D to not even be concerned by the patent. If you 
 use a 3-integer struct to store a color, do you have to pay royalties to 
 the owner of a patent about a 3-integer struct used to store a position? 
 Indeed, lawyers...

Yeah. I think we can be certain that that patent has zero risk for D.
On the positive side -- I think that the rise of public source 
repositories (with complete histories) means that public disclosure has 
become much more common (factor of 1000 or more) than the days when 
these junk patents were issued.

Imagine you're a patent examiner, who has to work out if a particular 
code idea has been previously published. How can you be confident that 
it doesn't already exist in the billions of lines of open source code on 
the web? And how much would you charge someone who asked you to check 
them all?

I used to be quite depressed about software patents, but now I just 
don't think they are workable. The prior art is just growing too fast.

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 21.01.2011 21:55, schrieb Don:
 spir wrote:
 On 01/21/2011 03:51 PM, Don wrote:
 Don wrote:
 BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

 This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's
 all about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements
 and events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to
 achieve this.

 D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an
 object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature),
 and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
 I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty
 and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't
 seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything
 else.
 The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer
 together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

 D's delegate scheme is essentially the same as described by Richard
 Hickey, "C++ report" (Feb 1995).

 See also a discussion on comp.std.c++, Feb 1996, titled "Generic Object
 Callbacks". Ian Willmott states:
 "I suggest that a new data type needs to be added to the language. We
 could call it "pointer-to-bound-member-function".
 ...
 Conceptually, it is a two-element structure consisting of
 pointer into data space, identifying an object, and a pointer into
 code space, identifying a member function on that object. The static
 type of such a variable is the signature (return type and arguments)
 of the member functions it is compatible with, just as the type of a
 regular function pointer is the signature of the functions it can
 reference. The only operations defined for this type are assignment,
 equality, and callthrough. Static typechecking is done at the point
 where a value of this type is created, and where a call is made
 through it. "

 Borland's patent dates from Feb 6, 2001. They were SIX YEARS too late.
 <g>

 IIUC, the structure you describe is /exactly/ the same, both
 concretely and semantically as Oberon-2 "type-bound procedures" (read:
 virtual methods). Oberon-2 was created in 1991, IIRC. This makes 10
 years ;-)
 Unlike you, I don't consider D's delegate to follow the same scheme.
 Sure, it's a pair of pointers, one of which point to a routine (to use
 a neutral word). But in the case of D the second one does not point to
 to a type/object, but to the definition scope (environment). This is
 very different, isn't it?
 Thus I would consider D to not even be concerned by the patent. If you
 use a 3-integer struct to store a color, do you have to pay royalties
 to the owner of a patent about a 3-integer struct used to store a
 position? Indeed, lawyers...

 Yeah. I think we can be certain that that patent has zero risk for D.
 On the positive side -- I think that the rise of public source
 repositories (with complete histories) means that public disclosure has
 become much more common (factor of 1000 or more) than the days when
 these junk patents were issued.
 That doesn't help.
 Imagine you're a patent examiner, who has to work out if a particular
 code idea has been previously published. How can you be confident that
 it doesn't already exist in the billions of lines of open source code on
 the web? And how much would you charge someone who asked you to check
 them all?

 I used to be quite depressed about software patents, but now I just
 don't think they are workable. The prior art is just growing too fast.

I don't think this makes patents much less of a harm.
1. There are still these old patents around from the times not much free 
prior art was around for checking. If they fall in the hands of the 
wrong people they still can do much harm.
2. New software patents are issued anyway - by big corporations who have 
a lot of money and lawyers.
If they claim that you infringe their patents you're probably screwed 
anyway.
When you're living from selling your software (like a small software 
firm), they could get your products removed from the stores (this has 
even happened to Microsoft because of some XML patent their OOXML 
infringed) and you're bankrupt before you can have the patent 
invalidated because of prior art (this whole process probably takes 
years..).
If you're just a hobby developer you may have even less money for legal 
defence than small companies..

So while in theory probably most patents could be invalidated because of 
prior art, I guess that in reality this won't happen because the patents 
owners have more money and lawyers.
Also I *think* that the european patent system doesn't even care about 
prior art..

When you're dealing with very recent technology (like newest 3D 
hardware), it may even happen that you "discover" some algorithm that 
someone else discovered and patented before you and really happened to 
be the first one to discover it (or at least the first one to publish 
it). This has happened to John Carmack, see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail

IMHO when you have a specific (algorithmic) problem and you let 10 smart 
programmers solve it independently, you have a high chance that you'll 
get several similar solutions.. so it makes no sense to patent software, 
because other people are likely to have the same idea independently.
It's not like developing new medicine that may take years and high costs 
to be done, so it *may* make sense to protect it from rip-offs.
(Yeah, developing software can take years as well, but there's copyright 
to protect this - developing a clone takes almost as long when you don't 
steal code).

Cheers,
- Daniel

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:ihcrve$1t5l$1 digitalmars.com...
 spir wrote:
 On 01/21/2011 03:51 PM, Don wrote:
 Don wrote:
 BlazingWhitester wrote:
 I spotted some patents that can theaten current DMD implementation.
 Wanted to clarify things.

 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6185728.pdf - this patent describes
 method pointers implementation (delegates)

 This was obviously a patent aimed at protecting Delphi from VB. It's
 all about the RAD designer: visual connections between GUI elements
 and events has a 1:1 correspondence with code; delegates are used to
 achieve this.

 D delegates can store a data pointer to a nested function, or to an
 object. This is rather more general (not an object-oriented feature),
 and doesn't provide a 1:1 correspondence to visuals.
 I presume they were only able to satisfy the requirements for novelty
 and non-obviousness, because of the RAD usage. In fact, there doesn't
 seem to be any suggestion that delegates would be used for anything 
 else.
 The more general idea of storing a data pointer and a function pointer
 together is simple and obvious, and surely has prior art.

 D's delegate scheme is essentially the same as described by Richard
 Hickey, "C++ report" (Feb 1995).

 See also a discussion on comp.std.c++, Feb 1996, titled "Generic Object
 Callbacks". Ian Willmott states:
 "I suggest that a new data type needs to be added to the language. We
 could call it "pointer-to-bound-member-function".
 ...
 Conceptually, it is a two-element structure consisting of
 pointer into data space, identifying an object, and a pointer into
 code space, identifying a member function on that object. The static
 type of such a variable is the signature (return type and arguments)
 of the member functions it is compatible with, just as the type of a
 regular function pointer is the signature of the functions it can
 reference. The only operations defined for this type are assignment,
 equality, and callthrough. Static typechecking is done at the point
 where a value of this type is created, and where a call is made
 through it. "

 Borland's patent dates from Feb 6, 2001. They were SIX YEARS too late.
 <g>

 IIUC, the structure you describe is /exactly/ the same, both concretely 
 and semantically as Oberon-2 "type-bound procedures" (read: virtual 
 methods). Oberon-2 was created in 1991, IIRC. This makes 10 years ;-)
 Unlike you, I don't consider D's delegate to follow the same scheme. 
 Sure, it's a pair of pointers, one of which point to a routine (to use a 
 neutral word). But in the case of D the second one does not point to to a 
 type/object, but to the definition scope (environment). This is very 
 different, isn't it?
 Thus I would consider D to not even be concerned by the patent. If you 
 use a 3-integer struct to store a color, do you have to pay royalties to 
 the owner of a patent about a 3-integer struct used to store a position? 
 Indeed, lawyers...

 Yeah. I think we can be certain that that patent has zero risk for D.
 On the positive side -- I think that the rise of public source 
 repositories (with complete histories) means that public disclosure has 
 become much more common (factor of 1000 or more) than the days when these 
 junk patents were issued.

 Imagine you're a patent examiner, who has to work out if a particular code 
 idea has been previously published. How can you be confident that it 
 doesn't already exist in the billions of lines of open source code on the 
 web? And how much would you charge someone who asked you to check them 
 all?

I've been under the impression that, as a rule, the USPTO doesn't check for 
prior art and deliberately leaves "invalid due to prior art" up to the 
courts.

Jean Crystof <a a.a> writes:

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 I've been under the impression that, as a rule, the USPTO doesn't check for 
 prior art and deliberately leaves "invalid due to prior art" up to the 
 courts.

That's how it works. The patent threat is always there. Someone can patent
delegates, classes, and whatever language feature whenever they want. In the
courts if Walter is much poorer than the competitor, he can't win. The SCO case
was a great example. They didn't own the Unix rights and couldn't find any
patent infringing code. Nevertheless, the Microsoft money kept them fighting.
If Apple or Microsoft wants to compete with Walter, he simply can't win.

Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:

On Sat, 2011-01-22 at 15:54 -0500, Jean Crystof wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
=20
 I've been under the impression that, as a rule, the USPTO doesn't check=


 for=20
 prior art and deliberately leaves "invalid due to prior art" up to the=


=20
 courts.

=20
 That's how it works. The patent threat is always there. Someone can
 patent delegates, classes, and whatever language feature whenever they
 want. In the courts if Walter is much poorer than the competitor, he
 can't win. The SCO case was a great example. They didn't own the Unix
 rights and couldn't find any patent infringing code. Nevertheless, the
 Microsoft money kept them fighting. If Apple or Microsoft wants to
 compete with Walter, he simply can't win.

Isn't this why the US system of software patents is wrong?

"Big Money" keeps insisting that the whole patent system is designed to
allow people who have inventions but not the resources to exploit them,
a route to obtaining remuneration by allowing others to do the
exploitation.  This has always been a specious argument.  Even if it
were not, and whatever the original use of letters patent that led to
the patent system, this system, especially in the USA, has turned into a
business tool for "Big Money" to ensure control of all exploitation is
handled by "Big Money".  To preserve power in the hands of "Big Money"
the patent system has been evolved into a game that only "Big Money" can
play, small players are systematically excluded.  (Of course, lawyers
are the only real winners as they get paid win or lose.)

Where the invention is something that can only be exploited by there
being something physical that must be manufactured, then there are
arguments that patents are a useful tool.  Where the invention is a
business process or a software technique (or a user interface
technique?) then I don't see that it serves any purpose other than
preservation of control by "Big Money" over innovation.  The exact
opposite of the avowed purpose of patents. =20

I have yet to see how business processes, algorithms, and programming
techniques are anything other than ideas or mathematics, and ideas and
mathematics are supposed to be not patentable.  As far as I am aware the
UK Patent Office still does not issue software patents, though the EU
Patent Office, seems to have started to try, under pressure from "Big
Money" I suspect.  (I agree it is easy to blame US companies and ignore
the fact that European and Asian companies are part of the cartel when
Microsoft, IBM, HP, etc. are the easy names to roll off the tongue, so
"Big Money" here does not mean large US corporate.)

Sadly, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA -- cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement)
appears to have been somewhat hijacked by US "Big Money" via the US
Trade Representative (USTR -- cf. http://www.ustr.gov/) as a tool for
imposing the US way of patents onto the rest of the world (*).  This
means software patents will have to be granted everywhere that ACTA
applies.  No matter how much lobbying the FLOSS community do, I bet "Big
Money" will not fail to sieze the opportunity to ram through the whole
"software techniques are not ideas, they are patentable" philosophy.

Perhaps then the only defence these days, especially in the USA, and
sadly if ACTA is signed into place, the rest of the world, is to be a
signatory to the Open Invention Network (OIN -- cf.
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/). However appealing though, even
this is just a tool for "Big Money" since only by having significant
resources can you actually patent something that you can then
magnanimously donate to the OIN patent pool -- have you noticed that
"Big Money" is very selective about which patents get donated and which
don't?

So it seems the only hope for small players to do any innovation, indeed
any work, in the software arena, is to be ignorable by "Big Money", i.e.
do stuff that doesn't matter or doesn't constitute a threat to "Big
Money".  Either that or the policitians of the world spontaneously see
the light, that they are being herded by "Big Money", and disallow
software patents forever.

All in all though it seems the days of the small independent software
development organization doing anything innovative are strictly limited.

(*) You might want to follow Simon Phipps (Wild Webmink) on this
http://webmink.com/2010/03/19/acta-roundup/

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder