So Microsoft got this interesting patent (I saw a reference to
this in comp.lang.python):
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5742828
"...enclosed between a predefined pair of
matching separators, such as square brackets..."
What will be next?
I wonder how many software patents could have been issued
by Lisp users/vendors/researchers/implementors?
--
http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig
In article <·······················@194.163.195.67> , ······@lavielle.com
(Rainer Joswig) wrote:
>
>So Microsoft got this interesting patent (I saw a reference to
>this in comp.lang.python):
>
>http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5742828
>
>"...enclosed between a predefined pair of
>matching separators, such as square brackets..."
>
>What will be next?
Looking quickly through all of M$'s claims, it seems at first as if they're
trying to patent the inner workings of dynamic languages. Things like:
configurable readers, symbol tables, late binding, runtime
compilation/evaluation, etc.
But the bulk of the patent seems to be concerned with syntax and especially
with application of their "technique" of delimiting non-standard identifiers
with the use of [brackets]. (Probably because |...| is already reserved
<g>.) There are many examples based upon Excel, and a few references to
Visual Basic and Word.
To my legally-untrained eye, it looks as though they're trying to prevent
other spreadsheet vendors from incorporating a compatible syntax in
extension languages for office automation products.
---
David B. Lamkins <http://www.teleport.com/~dlamkins/>
On Mon, 05 Oct 1998 03:03:33 GMT, "David B. Lamkins"
<········@teleport.com> claimed or asked:
% To my legally-untrained eye, it looks as though they're trying to prevent
% other spreadsheet vendors from incorporating a compatible syntax in
% extension languages for office automation products.
Since it is not new, I don't see the patent holding up. Microsoft has
nothing that isn't a prior art.
--
David Steuber (ver 1.31.1b)
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
When the long night comes, return to the end of the beginning.
--- Kosh (???? - 2261 AD) Babylon-5
"Where do you want to go tomorrow?" --- KDE tool tip
········@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper") writes:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 1998 03:03:33 GMT, "David B. Lamkins"
> <········@teleport.com> claimed or asked:
>
> % To my legally-untrained eye, it looks as though they're trying to prevent
> % other spreadsheet vendors from incorporating a compatible syntax in
> % extension languages for office automation products.
>
> Since it is not new, I don't see the patent holding up. Microsoft has
> nothing that isn't a prior art.
But noone has enough money to pay advocates to contest M$'s patents.
Klaus Schilling
In article <················@news.newsguy.com>, ········@david-steuber.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 1998 03:03:33 GMT, "David B. Lamkins"
> <········@teleport.com> claimed or asked:
>
> % To my legally-untrained eye, it looks as though they're trying to prevent
> % other spreadsheet vendors from incorporating a compatible syntax in
> % extension languages for office automation products.
>
> Since it is not new, I don't see the patent holding up. Microsoft has
> nothing that isn't a prior art.
>
Well, then you should be able to cite something which actually performs the
exemplary claims, and whose code is public.
Note having a language that matches brackets is insufficient. They're
talking about a method for compiling code in which two different
programming languages are used, where one of them is specific to an
application (i.e. rather than quoting assembler in C code, which is
application non-specific, and not covered (and prior art).
Of course, nobody said the patent examiner knows anything, but a
pre-existing implementation in the public domain (i.e. not whose mechanism
was a trade secret), would certainly keep you safe.
NB: patents are about processes; how you try to accomplish a given task.
You don't get a patent on a way to do something, rather, a way to solve a
particular problem. It can't be prior art, i.e. already published (except
by the patent author, and then you have something like a 2 year grace
period), and it can't be obvious to someone familiar with the art, i.e. if
you grab someone off the street who knows of the problem, this can't be the
first process of the top of their head. If you meet both criteria, then
you've basically got something patentable.
Of course there's still making it hold up in court, but MS certainly has
the lawyers for that.
--
Bradford W. Miller
(I have a job, but you're talking to me)
Disclaimer: There are no states, corporations, or other pseudo-individuals.
There are only people. Justify your actions without resorting to your
orders.
"Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment
and will die here like rotten cabbages."
- Number Six's speech from "Free for All" _The Prisoner_
······@my-dejanews.com (Gorbag) writes:
> Well, then you should be able to cite something which actually performs the
> exemplary claims, and whose code is public.
>
> Note having a language that matches brackets is insufficient. They're
> talking about a method for compiling code in which two different
> programming languages are used, where one of them is specific to an
> application (i.e. rather than quoting assembler in C code, which is
> application non-specific, and not covered (and prior art).
Ignoring anything else, I'd think that any database-specific Embedded
SQL would probably hold up here, e.g. OraSQL. OTOH this again is
nothing new under the sun, IBM's COBOL having had escapes to CICS,
etc. for ages (but not with balanced brackets, ... ;).
This reminds me of the patent on device-independent files, which was
equally funny, with Don E. Knuth having produced DVI (guess what the
acronym was refering to) many years in advance...
But the problem with all these patent claims is, that once they are
granted, you have to defend yourself in court against them. And even
tons of prior-art will get you nothing, because often the cost of
litigation is too high to even try this.
Which is basically what the big ones are aiming at, because this makes
it easy to force you into a cross-licensing agreement, where they get
your really novel patent for nothing, because you infringed on their
"invalid" patent... Or in the words of Marvin:
Funny how just when you think life can't possibly get any worse
it suddenly does. [Marvin]
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre Mai <····@cs.tu-berlin.de> http://home.pages.de/~trillian/
"Such is life." -- Fiona in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" (UK/1994)
* Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>
| But the problem with all these patent claims is, that once they are
| granted, you have to defend yourself in court against them. And even
| tons of prior-art will get you nothing, because often the cost of
| litigation is too high to even try this.
the solution should then be to have the claimant defend himself against
proof of prior art presented to the patent office. as the patent system
is today, patents reward those who steal ideas and patent them first, not
those who develop them. a decent society should have ways to make amends
for such travesties of justice without cost to the offended party.
#:Erik
In article <················@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> the solution should then be to have the claimant defend himself against
> proof of prior art presented to the patent office. as the patent system
> is today, patents reward those who steal ideas and patent them first, not
> those who develop them. a decent society should have ways to make amends
> for such travesties of justice without cost to the offended party.
I believe there's an inexpensive (a couple hundred dollars) way to tell the
PTO about things like this, to force them to re-examine the patent.
The experts over in misc.int-property would be able to provide more
details.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
··@world.std.com (Jeff DelPapa) writes:
>
> One of the things clearly missing in the current patent system, are
> examiners (employee's of the patent office) that have a clue about
> computer science. Othewise things like the XOR cursor paten't
> wouldn't have stood a chance.
>
Could somebody take the time to explain this ignoramus what the XOR
cursor patent is?
Thanks
Immanuel
In article <············@195.130.146.38>,
Immanuel Litzroth <·················@pandora.be> wrote:
>Could somebody take the time to explain this ignoramus what the XOR
>cursor patent is?
A very efficient way to draw a cursor on a monochrome bit-mapped computer
screen is simply to XOR the cursor's shape into the display buffer. When
you move the cursor, you first re-XOR it in the old location, which
restores the original contents. A similar technique is used for "rubber
band" lines in graphics drawing programs.
A patent on this technique was awarded years ago (I think in the 60's, so
it's long expired now). But this technique is considered by many to be
incredibly obvious (I figured out the rubber band technique on my own when
I wrote my first graphics program) and is often quoted as the archetype of
bad software patents (the patent probably wasn't issued as "software", I
expect it was a patent on a video terminal, which may have done it in
hardware).
--
Barry Margolin, ······@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
David B. Lamkins wrote:
>
> In article <·······················@194.163.195.67> , ······@lavielle.com
> (Rainer Joswig) wrote:
>
> >
> >So Microsoft got this interesting patent (I saw a reference to
> >this in comp.lang.python):
> >
> >http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5742828
> >
> >"...enclosed between a predefined pair of
> >matching separators, such as square brackets..."
> >
> >What will be next?
>
> Looking quickly through all of M$'s claims, it seems at first as if they're
> trying to patent the inner workings of dynamic languages. Things like:
> configurable readers, symbol tables, late binding, runtime
> compilation/evaluation, etc.
>
> But the bulk of the patent seems to be concerned with syntax and especially
> with application of their "technique" of delimiting non-standard identifiers
> with the use of [brackets]. (Probably because |...| is already reserved
> <g>.) There are many examples based upon Excel, and a few references to
> Visual Basic and Word.
>
> To my legally-untrained eye, it looks as though they're trying to prevent
> other spreadsheet vendors from incorporating a compatible syntax in
> extension languages for office automation products.
It looks to me like they are trying to patent languages such as Lisp.
>
> ---
> David B. Lamkins <http://www.teleport.com/~dlamkins/>
Georg Bauer wrote:
> Oh. My. God.
>
> When will someone get the patent on the digits 0 and 1? This
> patent-business is disgusting.
>
Do you think you made a joke? Sometime ago, I remember seeing a patent
aplication for using the number base 12 for certain mathematical
operations. The patent search examiner at the EPO rejected the
aplication based on some ancient Babylonian documents which showed that
base 12 was already in use more than 3000 years ago!