August 27, 2014
On 8/26/2014 2:30 PM, 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

Well, I attempted to make a filing of prior art. The application form requires an "application number" and a "patent number". I can't find the patent number, and the form rejects my filing.

https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?ActionString=go.Begin
August 27, 2014
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:35:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 2:30 PM, 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
>
> Well, I attempted to make a filing of prior art. The application form requires an "application number" and a "patent number". I can't find the patent number, and the form rejects my filing.
>
> https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?ActionString=go.Begin

There is a number in the patents' page at http://www.freepatentsonline.com labeld under "Document Type and Number":


Title: DECLARATION OF LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
Document Type and Number: United States Patent Application 20140196015

Title: IMMUTABLE OBJECT TYPES
Document Type and Number: United States Patent Application 20140196008


Aren't these the patent numbers?
August 27, 2014
Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 2:30 PM, 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
> 
> Well, I attempted to make a filing of prior art. The application form requires an "application number" and a "patent number". I can't find the patent number, and the form rejects my filing.
> 
> https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered?ActionString=go.Begin

	The patent number is the one in the "Document type and number"
field, where it says "United States Patent Application XXXXXXXXXXXX"
(even though it says "application" in the text) and the application
number is the one in the "Application number" field.

	So for patent number 20140196015, the application number is
13/734762 and for patent number 20140196008, the application number
is 13/734750.

		Jerome
August 27, 2014
	Note however that as I understand it D does not have "immutable
types" as claimed by patent 20140196008. The difference is that
according to the patent the immutable attribute is given to the type
and applies to all instances of this type, whereas in D the
immutable attribute applies to an instance (I may be wrong about
that one, since I haven't done anything in D for years even if I try
to keep up with the forums).

	However, scala case classes should constitute prior art for this
patent.

		Jerome
August 27, 2014
On 8/27/2014 5:20 AM, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 03:00:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> 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 :-)
>

Unfortunately I need to use those gadgets in order to write software on/for them. :/

Heh, man, all I wanted was to find a reasonable inexpensive laptop, that won't choke on Linux, and be certain VT-x was supported in the big three: CPU, mainboard and BIOS. (And the CPU I was looking at supports VT-d too, so I was curious to see if it was actually *usable*, ie not blocked by lack of support in mainboard/BIOS, 'cause that could influence my choice of exact model.)

Back in the 90's that all would have been trivial: Slap CPUID (or some 90's equivalent thereof) onto the machine and run it. Heck, published specs used to be detailed and, well, somewhat less unreliable.

But these days everyone's so afraid of their own shadow, they've got everything locked down so tightly that the demo units may as well be cardboard props. And expecting published spec to be both complete and accurate? Pfft. No buzzwords == hide the info.

And then there's having to hear all of the dumb things coming out of the sales monkeys mouths. Like the password-protected windows admin account being referred to as a "firewall". Or the word "cloud" used for freaking *everything* (with no utterance of the *real* word: "Internet"). And *all* the verbal nonsense always coming with a heavy dose of suited-smugness and self-assuredness. 'Course, I blame "portlandian" silicon valley for that whole "cloud" bs. But whatever.

And then there's all the glare-magnet fingerprinted glossy half-height screens, DRM and lockouts to deal with even *after* you buy it, basic-yet-still-missing features that some suit decided I don't need because it saves twenty cents, etc, etc...Ugh. Computing used to be fun. Now it's just corporate paranoia, warring and idiocy.

And that's just *real* computers, I haven't even mentioned "phones"...


>> 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.
>

Sheep are fuzzy!! And tasty! I like! :)

August 27, 2014
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:08:45 UTC, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> 	Note however that as I understand it D does not have "immutable
> types" as claimed by patent 20140196008. The difference is that
> according to the patent the immutable attribute is given to the type
> and applies to all instances of this type, whereas in D the
> immutable attribute applies to an instance (I may be wrong about
> that one, since I haven't done anything in D for years even if I try
> to keep up with the forums).
>
> 	However, scala case classes should constitute prior art for this
> patent.
>
> 		Jerome

In D it applies to type. When you "apply immutable to the instance" you in fact create new type on the fly by adding immutable qualifier to the existing one. But it can also be aliased to always be immutable.
August 27, 2014
On 8/27/2014 12:50 PM, Idan Arye wrote:
> Aren't these the patent numbers?

Nope. Too many digits. Tried them, the form rejected them.
August 27, 2014
On 8/27/2014 1:17 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:08:45 UTC, Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>>     Note however that as I understand it D does not have "immutable
>> types" as claimed by patent 20140196008. The difference is that
>> according to the patent the immutable attribute is given to the type
>> and applies to all instances of this type, whereas in D the
>> immutable attribute applies to an instance (I may be wrong about
>> that one, since I haven't done anything in D for years even if I try
>> to keep up with the forums).
>>
>>     However, scala case classes should constitute prior art for this
>> patent.
>>
>>         Jerome
>
> In D it applies to type. When you "apply immutable to the instance" you in fact
> create new type on the fly by adding immutable qualifier to the existing one.
> But it can also be aliased to always be immutable.

Right. immutable(T) declares a transitive immutable type.
August 27, 2014
On 8/27/2014 1:02 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> 	So for patent number 20140196015, the application number is
> 13/734762 and for patent number 20140196008, the application number
> is 13/734750.
>
> 		Jerome
>

"Required fields (Patent Number) cannot be empty or the data entered is incorrectly formatted."

"The field contains over 9 characters which cannot be processed in the USPTO system."
August 28, 2014
Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> Wrote in message:
> On 8/27/2014 12:50 PM, Idan Arye wrote:
>> Aren't these the patent numbers?
> 
> Nope. Too many digits. Tried them, the form rejected them.
> 

Application number : 13/734750
Patent number: 0196008

--
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14