REBOL may be in violation of MS patent...
[1/12] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 19-Nov-2004 13:16
....filed May 14, 2003. No, I'm not kidding. Something is SERIOUSLY
BROKEN in Washington!
Go to the USPTO website search page at
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and enter the patent number 20040230959 for the description (excerpted
below.)
Patent# 20040230959
IS NOT OPERATOR
Abstract
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.
-jn-
--
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood,
divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn
for the vast and endless sea.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[2/12] from: SunandaDH::aol::com at: 19-Nov-2004 14:27
Hi Joel!!
> ...filed May 14, 2003. No, I'm not kidding. Something is SERIOUSLY
> BROKEN in Washing
Welcome back -- you seem to have been away from the REBOLsphere for a long
time.
Reasonably detailed analysis of the whole mess here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/19/microsoft_wto_winning_without_firing/
Was it only earlier this year they also patented the double-click?
I'm thinking of making an IP grab for the power switch. Then every device
manufacturer in the world will owe me money.
Sunanda.
[3/12] from: joel::neely::fedex::com at: 19-Nov-2004 16:42
Ladislav Mecir wrote:
> OTOH, I am not seeing any Rebol operator that tries "to determine if two
> variables point to the same location in memory" :-), although the bugs
> in documentation (corrected now at least at some places) tried to
> suggest something like that.
>
uSoft doesn't know the distinction you're making. ;-)
In fact, a section heading in the patent (just above section [0041])
reads:
System and Method for Performing an Object
Non-Equivalence Comparison
and that reminds me of a common operation in MANY languages (REBOL
included) whether we concern ourselves with memory addresses as the
means of implementation or not.
-jn-
--
If you can't run over them with a steamroller, sting them to death
with killer bees!
(rumored to be the strategy of the kinder, gentler uSoft of 2004)
[4/12] from: roland:hadinger:arcor at: 20-Nov-2004 3:57
The patent, which hasn't been granted yet, is limited to compiled languages in
claim #1.
Of course this means the patent *will* be problematic in the future.
But even then -- REBOL doesn't use variables, right?
--
R.
[5/12] from: antonr::lexicon::net at: 20-Nov-2004 21:36
It's ridiculous, but I don't think it's anything
to be worried about. Especially by rebol;
there are too many specifics to affect rebol.
Good luck Microsoft.
Anton.
[6/12] from: roland:hadinger:arcor at: 20-Nov-2004 11:47
I'd also like to point out that this invention is definitely not patentable by
proper standards because of prior art in many other languages, like the
C++ != operator. If Microsoft is granted a patent on something hilariously
trivial as that, it's official: software developers and computer sciences in
the US are really in big trouble!
BTW, it is quite imaginable that the Microsoft guys didn't invent this at all,
but were inspired by listening to some former customer, like for example this
unhappy guy who once made a posting to the microsoft.public.vb.discussion
usenet group in 2000:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=IsNot+Roland+Hadinger&hl=en&lr=&selm=86a0qh%243th%241%40ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com&rnum=1
One of the developers even admits that they implemented this feature because
some customers requested it:
http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2003/11/17/243.aspx
So this patent should be easy to fight.
--
R.
[7/12] from: lmecir::mbox::vol::cz at: 22-Nov-2004 7:55
Ladislav Mecir napsal(a):
>Pure madness (YMMV).
>
>An excerpt from AltMe discussion:
>
>Erru: Hey, *I* invented that operator! (really!)
> Proof: http://groups.google.de/groups?q=IsNot+Roland+Hadinger
>
>-L
>
Why did this post need two days to appear?
-L
[8/12] from: SunandaDH::aol::com at: 22-Nov-2004 5:10
Ladislav:
> Why did this post need two days to appear?
I don't know.
But my reply to Tim about being locked out of Altme has not appeared yet --
that's taken at least a day so far.
Sunanda.
[9/12] from: tomc::darkwing::uoregon::edu at: 22-Nov-2004 9:00
? I got this message on Saturday.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Ladislav Mecir wrote:
[10/12] from: lmecir:mbox:vol:cz at: 19-Nov-2004 21:54
Joel Neely napsal(a):
>...filed May 14, 2003. No, I'm not kidding. Something is SERIOUSLY
>BROKEN in Washington!
<<quoted lines omitted: 10>>
> same location in memory.
>-jn-
Hi Joel, glad to hear from you again!
....your finding may well serve as a memento for some people where this
patent stupidity is heading. (...Carthaginem esse delendam...)
OTOH, I am not seeing any Rebol operator that tries "to determine if two
variables point to the same location in memory" :-), although the bugs
in documentation (corrected now at least at some places) tried to
suggest something like that.
-L
[11/12] from: lmecir::mbox::vol::cz at: 20-Nov-2004 9:25
Joel Neely napsal(a):
>Ladislav Mecir wrote:
>>OTOH, I am not seeing any Rebol operator that tries "to determine if two
<<quoted lines omitted: 13>>
>means of implementation or not.
>-jn-
Pure madness (YMMV).
An excerpt from AltMe discussion:
Erru: Hey, *I* invented that operator! (really!)
Proof: http://groups.google.de/groups?q=IsNot+Roland+Hadinger
-L
[12/12] from: roland:hadinger:arcor at: 20-Nov-2004 11:47
I'd also like to point out that this invention is definitely not patentable by
proper standards because of prior art in many other languages, like the
C++ != operator. If Microsoft is granted a patent on something hilariously
trivial as that, it's official: software developers and computer sciences in
the US are really in big trouble!
BTW, it is quite imaginable that the Microsoft guys didn't invent this at all,
but were inspired by listening to some former customer, like for example this
unhappy guy who once made a posting to the microsoft.public.vb.discussion
usenet group in 2000:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=IsNot+Roland+Hadinger&hl=en&lr=&selm=86a0qh%243th%241%40ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com&rnum=1
One of the developers even admits that they implemented this feature because
some customers requested it:
http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2003/11/17/243.aspx
So this patent should be easy to fight.
--
R.
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted