On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:30:40 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:26:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
>> the patent office accept prior art submissions?
>>
>>
>> T
>
> They do.
>
> http://meta.patents.stackexchange.com/a/107

I don't like that. Even if we want to break this patent with prior art, we need to publish one for ourselves. This system sucks, we can't choose not to be part of it if we want to be protected. And do we have the money to publish patents anyway?

I feel pretty bad about this. What are the thoughts of Andrei and Walter on this stuff?

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:29:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 4:34 PM, Chris wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:37:29 UTC, Max Klyga wrote:
>>> Microsoft being microsoft again.
>>>
>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
>>> LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
>>> This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
>>>
>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT
>>> TYPES
>>>
>>> I really hope patent office will reject these applications.
>>
>> That's why I absolutely love MS!
>
> It's FAR more than just MS. For example, Apple's just as bad. Just look at Steve Job's undying vendetta against Google (by way of Samsung as a proxy target).

Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 03:00:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 6:52 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>>
>> You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you would fit
>> right in.
>> Best part? No software patents.
>
> Nice. I've heard that a lot of the scenery is stunning over there, too. Slow and expensive electronics importing AIUI, but maybe that'd be in my best interest anyway...biggest thing to raise my blood pressure lately was my last trip to MicroCenter[1].

Take it easy. The most important things are the ideas and the software. The latests gadgets are for users :-)

> As soon as I finally snap and go all luddite hermit or something, maybe that's where I'll retire ;) New Zealand that is, not MicroCenter.

Swapping your chip for sheep.


> [1] http://www.microcenter.com/site/stores/default.aspx

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:08:24 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:29:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 8/26/2014 4:34 PM, Chris wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:37:29 UTC, Max Klyga wrote:
>>>> Microsoft being microsoft again.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
>>>> LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
>>>> This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT
>>>> TYPES
>>>>
>>>> I really hope patent office will reject these applications.
>>>
>>> That's why I absolutely love MS!
>>
>> It's FAR more than just MS. For example, Apple's just as bad. Just look at Steve Job's undying vendetta against Google (by way of Samsung as a proxy target).
>
> Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.

Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:20:49 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:08:24 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.
>
> Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.

Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the way it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's not some conspiracy or corporate war.

That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure we don't become the losers here. It would help to have input from Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he also happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:28:17 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:20:49 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:08:24 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>> Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.
>>
>> Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.
>
> Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the way it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's not some conspiracy or corporate war.
>
> That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure we don't become the losers here. It would help to have input from Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he also happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.

Their brand new type qualifier is the same as D's one. They even copied the name "immutable". Maybe it's part of a strategy, maybe not. In any case it's a "thief", I don't like this word because you can't steal an idea, but they took ownership of it.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:28:17 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:20:49 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:08:24 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>> Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.
>>
>> Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.
>
> Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the way it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's not some conspiracy or corporate war.

I don't share your optimism.

> That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure we don't become the losers here. It would help to have input from Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he also happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:36:30 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:28:17 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:20:49 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:08:24 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>>> Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're preparing a counter strike.
>>>
>>> Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.
>>
>> Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the way it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's not some conspiracy or corporate war.
>>
>> That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure we don't become the losers here. It would help to have input from Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he also happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.
>
> Their brand new type qualifier is the same as D's one. They even copied the name "immutable". Maybe it's part of a strategy, maybe not. In any case it's a "thief", I don't like this word because you can't steal an idea, but they took ownership of it.

From a linguistic point of view it is only logical one should come up with the word "immutable" in this context. If something (data, objects) are not "mutable" they are "immutable" (this may sound trivial but it is not). I suppose they filed the patent, because concurrency, thread safety and multi core programming have become so important over the last couple of years, and because it has become clear that some sort of "immutable" type is needed. Thus, they seek to get ownership of the word/idea/concept (which is ridiculous of course) to (pre-emptively) knock out others (or get money for it by licensing it to others, including those they stole it from). A shame, really.

On 8/26/14, 12:37 PM, Max Klyga wrote:
> Microsoft being microsoft again.
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
> LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
> This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT
> TYPES
>
> I really hope patent office will reject these applications.

Now on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2eohiv/microsoft_filed_patent_applications_for_scoped

Two links of interest you may want to contribute to:

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10128/prior-art-for-us-patent-application-20140196008-immutable-object-types

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/10122/looking-for-prior-art-for-patent-application-us20140196015-declaration-of-lifet


Andrei

On 8/26/2014 12:37 PM, Max Klyga wrote:
> Microsoft being microsoft again.
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF
> RESOURCE REFERENCE
> This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
>
> I really hope patent office will reject these applications.
>

The first release of D 2.000 in 2007 had transitive immutable types in it.