August 29, 2014
On 8/27/2014 12:11 AM, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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?

In the US, filing a patent app requires about $10k and a good lawyer. It's not in the realm of most small entities to do.  It's a seriously bad use of $10k.  The best defense is prior art, and there's a ton of it.  I say this having my name on a handful of applications and one granted patent.

August 29, 2014
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:59:12AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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.

Since you're the inventor of D, perhaps it would be best if you could submit a prior art submission to the patent office? (Somebody has already posted links earlier in this thread where you can submit it to them directly.)


T

-- 
May you live all the days of your life. -- Jonathan Swift
August 29, 2014
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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 :-)

	Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
	incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte

;-)


(P.S. Yes, I know the quote has probably been misattributed to Napoleon, but I forgot who the real author is/was since I failed to update my sigs file last time.)


T

-- 
One reason that few people are aware there are programs running the internet is that they never crash in any significant way: the free software underlying the internet is reliable to the point of invisibility. -- Glyn Moody, from the article "Giving it all away"
August 29, 2014
Jérôme,

On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:53 +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
> 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.

Are you tracking the new EU unitary patent and TTIP activity? We need to make sure the US does impose on the EU the same insane patent framework the US has.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder


August 29, 2014
V Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:53:35 +0200
"Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
napsáno:
> 
> 	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.
> 

I don't agree completly

// immutable is used when declaring the type IS
immutable struct IS {
	string s;
}

IS s = IS("fff");
s.s = "d";
writeln(s);


August 29, 2014
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:34:16AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> 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.

Which is why it's extremely important that we fight against this patent, since it may jeopardize the future of D.


T

-- 
If blunt statements had a point, they wouldn't be blunt...
August 29, 2014
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 02:10:57 UTC, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Jérôme,
>
> On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 11:53 +0200, "Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
> […]
>> 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.
>
> Are you tracking the new EU unitary patent and TTIP activity? We need to
> make sure the US does impose on the EU the same insane patent framework
> the US has.

Any links to quickly get into the topic? This is first time I hear about it.
August 29, 2014
On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 17:34:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

This is why I don't believe in "coincidence". This could be either an attempt to crush D or some people might have realized that D's way of handling immutability is the way to go and they want to own it (or both). Where I'm from this is called "rip-off", "theft" or just "being a c**t".


H.S. Teoh:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

I never liked this quote. What appears to be outright incompetence can more often than not be attributed to malice.

But I agree, we should take this issue seriously. Even if the patent seems ridiculous, chances are that it will get through (exactly because it is so ridiculous). We should start to raise funds :-)
August 29, 2014
On 8/28/2014 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without
>> a patent number.
>>
>> Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)
>
> 	Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
> 	incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
>
> ;-)
>
>
> (P.S. Yes, I know the quote has probably been misattributed to Napoleon,
> but I forgot who the real author is/was since I failed to update my sigs
> file last time.)
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

One of my personal favorite quotes.

August 29, 2014
On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 10:01:17 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 8/28/2014 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, and the form rejects all attempts to disclose prior art without
>>> a patent number.
>>>
>>> Reminds me of obamacare.gov :-)
>>
>> 	Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
>> 	incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> (P.S. Yes, I know the quote has probably been misattributed to Napoleon,
>> but I forgot who the real author is/was since I failed to update my sigs
>> file last time.)
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
>
> One of my personal favorite quotes.

If something is incredibly stupid, it's often by design. (It's usually 50+ year later that people find out)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16