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.
> 

Spoke too soon. A patent number has not been issued as far as I
 can tell.
This is listed in the application database. From the USPTO FAQ:

Does your database include data on pending patent applications?

The database only includes data on Published Applications in
 accordance with
the 18 month pre-grant publication rules. Pending patent
 applications where the
applicant has elected to not publish prior to grant remain
 confidential.

-- 
August 28, 2014
On 8/27/2014 8:25 PM, jollie wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> Spoke too soon. A patent number has not been issued as far as I
>   can tell.
> This is listed in the application database. From the USPTO FAQ:
>
> Does your database include data on pending patent applications?
>
> The database only includes data on Published Applications in
>   accordance with
> the 18 month pre-grant publication rules. Pending patent
>   applications where the
> applicant has elected to not publish prior to grant remain
>   confidential.

Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without a patent number.

Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)

August 28, 2014
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??

If the patent passes for whatever reason, this becomes a valid point if and only if you have the resources to contest its validity. The patent holder can effectively strongarm you into paying for licensing unless you have the (upwards of) hundreds of thousands of dollars needed for lawyer fees. They need only to drag out the court proceedings to starve you monetarily and win by walkover.

It's not a far stretch to make an analogy to protection rackets, and it seems to me that the very point of patents has been subverted.
August 28, 2014
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:29:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 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).

The inter-company vendetta isn't THAT big a deal, if they can still come together to fix wages against their own employees :/
August 28, 2014
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.

	I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
(i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
will be enough to say that the patent is new.

	Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
mutable type.

	Of course in addition to being new a patent must also be inventive
(i.e. "not obvious"), which is a lot more difficult to prove or
disprove (especially since it will be judged by lawyers who don't
know anything about the technical side of things). Usually something
is considered "obvious" if it results from the combination of not
more than two prior art documents and if there is some incentive to
combine the two.

		Jerome

PS: The above does not mean that I think the patent is valid (as a matter of fact I don't). It only means that the "immutable" keyword in D is not enough to invalidate it IMO.

PPS: IANAL but I have had lots of contacts with patent lawyers and I have taken part in several patent disputes as an expert witness. However, this was in France so most of my knowledge applies to French law and things may be different in the US.
August 28, 2014
On 08/28/2014 11:53 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> ...
>
> 	I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
> (i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
> patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
> will be enough to say that the patent is new.
> ...

This works as expected:

immutable class C{
    // ...
}

August 28, 2014
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 21:19:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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."

Sounds like someone should file a patent for a website with broken input fields and then force them to change theirs.
August 28, 2014
On 8/28/2014 2:53 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> 	I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an instance
> (i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
> patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent lawyer, this
> will be enough to say that the patent is new.

Um,

   alias immutable(char)[] string;

is declaring a type. It is not used in this case as a storage class, and there is no instance being declared. String is indeed a type.


> 	Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
> creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
> mutable type.

This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. And how does the patent say an immutable T is to be created without saying T anywhere?


> PS: The above does not mean that I think the patent is valid (as a
> matter of fact I don't). It only means that the "immutable" keyword
> in D is not enough to invalidate it IMO.

It's more than immutable, you're right. D also has transitive immunity, which is a feature of the patent, and also relaxed immutability during construction, which is also a point in the patent.

In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how immutability works in D.
August 28, 2014
On 08/28/2014 07:34 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>>     Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not allow
>> creating an immutable type without also creating the corresponding
>> mutable type.
>
> This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. And how does the patent say
> an immutable T is to be created without saying T anywhere?

I haven't actually read the claims, but there is an obvious way how to not create the mutable type as well:

immutable class C{
    D field; // error: D is not an immutable class
    // ...
}

class D{
    // ...
}

immutable class E{
    F field; // ok.
}

immutable class F{
    // ...
}

I.e. you can make immutability a property of the type instead of a type constructor. This does not share the head-immutability issue D has with its classes.
August 29, 2014
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:37:29 +0300
Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.
support Windows, give m$ more money.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15