I noticed that on the Eiffel website, at http://docs.eiffel.com/general/guided_tour/language/tutorial-09.html, it says: "Eiffel directly implements the ideas of Design by Contract TM".

The "TM" bothers me. It implies that "Design by Contract" is a pending trademark
application. Does that mean that use of that phrase by anyone other than Eiffel
is breach of Eiffel's pending trademark? And if "(TM)" (pending trademark)
should ever change to "(R)" (registered trademark), how would things stand then?

This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.

Anyone got any clue about this?
Jill

> This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.

apparently MS patented the idea of using double clicks and clicks-and-drags. which i think is equally inane.

but it struck my as humorous that someone would try to trademark "design by contract".  that would be like trying to trademark "function" or "variable". come on guys, let's go trademark a common programming term just to annoy everyone else!  bah.

They applied for a trademark in December 2003. This was after I'd been referring to it for about 3 years. Furthermore, trademarks only apply to a product identifier, yet Bertrand Meyers refers to it in his 1997 book (where I studied it) as a "concept", and NOWHERE indicates that it was a trademark or that it applies to commerce or a specific product. Concepts are not trademarkable according to US trademark law. (Ironically, in the eiffel quote below, they refer to it as an "idea", yet ideas are not trademarkable, either.) Frankly, I don't believe their belated trademark will hold up in court, though I am not a lawyer.

Be that as it may, I don't care enough about it to engage in any sort of fight about it. I've decided to change my use of the term to "Contract Programming", a term I like even better. Maybe I should trademark that <g>.

"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cfi2u9$dlv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I noticed that on the Eiffel website, at http://docs.eiffel.com/general/guided_tour/language/tutorial-09.html, it
says:
> "Eiffel directly implements the ideas of Design by Contract TM".
>
> The "TM" bothers me. It implies that "Design by Contract" is a pending
trademark
> application. Does that mean that use of that phrase by anyone other than
Eiffel
> is breach of Eiffel's pending trademark? And if "(TM)" (pending trademark)
> should ever change to "(R)" (registered trademark), how would things stand
then?
>
> This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.
>
> Anyone got any clue about this?
> Jill
>
>

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:cfirse$rdi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> They applied for a trademark in December 2003. This was after I'd been referring to it for about 3 years. Furthermore, trademarks only apply to a product identifier, yet Bertrand Meyers refers to it in his 1997 book (where I studied it) as a "concept", and NOWHERE indicates that it was a trademark or that it applies to commerce or a specific product. Concepts are not trademarkable according to US trademark law. (Ironically, in the eiffel quote below, they refer to it as an "idea", yet ideas are not trademarkable, either.) Frankly, I don't believe their belated trademark will hold up in court, though I am not a lawyer.
>
> Be that as it may, I don't care enough about it to engage in any sort of fight about it. I've decided to change my use of the term to "Contract Programming", a term I like even better. Maybe I should trademark that <g>.

No. We should just use "Design by Contract". Otherwise we'll spent pointless amounts of time that none of us have to spare in explaining it to people who will then think us peremptory ninnys.

Google reveals 26,900 "Design by Contract". I think that pretty much puts the phrase into common usage. I am certainly not worried about Dr Meyer trying to sue Addison-Wesley for my having used it in "Imperfect C++".

Roger the Codger


>
> "Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cfi2u9$dlv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I noticed that on the Eiffel website, at http://docs.eiffel.com/general/guided_tour/language/tutorial-09.html, it
> says:
> > "Eiffel directly implements the ideas of Design by Contract TM".
> >
> > The "TM" bothers me. It implies that "Design by Contract" is a pending
> trademark
> > application. Does that mean that use of that phrase by anyone other than
> Eiffel
> > is breach of Eiffel's pending trademark? And if "(TM)" (pending trademark)
> > should ever change to "(R)" (registered trademark), how would things stand
> then?
> >
> > This, IMO, is one of the sillier uses of trademarks, but there you go.
> >
> > Anyone got any clue about this?
> > Jill
> >
> >
>
>

Walter wrote:
> They applied for a trademark in December 2003. This was after I'd been
> referring to it for about 3 years. Furthermore, trademarks only apply to a
> product identifier, yet Bertrand Meyers refers to it in his 1997 book (where
> I studied it) as a "concept", and NOWHERE indicates that it was a trademark
> or that it applies to commerce or a specific product. Concepts are not
> trademarkable according to US trademark law. (Ironically, in the eiffel
> quote below, they refer to it as an "idea", yet ideas are not trademarkable,
> either.) Frankly, I don't believe their belated trademark will hold up in
> court, though I am not a lawyer.
> 
> Be that as it may, I don't care enough about it to engage in any sort of
> fight about it. I've decided to change my use of the term to "Contract
> Programming", a term I like even better. Maybe I should trademark that <g>.
> 

You can't trademark an idea but you can copyright it. The 1997 book
copyrighted the idea of Design by Contract or maybe it didn't. Depends
on the author. From my understanding there is this place you go to make
the copyright legal so the first person to the end of the rat race wins.

Personally, I like 'Contract Programming' name better, I don't think the
novice programmer even knows what Design by Contract is (I sure didn't
and unless I'm the only one...). Does Design by Contract mean I can
change whatever 'contract' is defined?

Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
that it hasn't been finished.

"Gold Dragon" <dragonwing@dragonu.net> wrote in message news:cfjtv3$1hgu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> You can't trademark an idea but you can copyright it.

You cannot copyright an idea. But you can patent an idea. I know of no patents encumbering DbC, and while Dr. Meyer very belatedly claims a trademark, I've not seen him claim any patents on it.

> The 1997 book
> copyrighted the idea of Design by Contract or maybe it didn't.

The book only copyrighted the text in it.

> Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs that it hasn't been finished.

No, it hasn't been finished.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:36:47 -0500, Gold Dragon wrote:
> Personally, I like 'Contract Programming' name better,

I don't have any preference, but I really don't like Design by Contract's abbreviation.  Whenever I see DbC, I think Design by Committee... and shudder.

In article <cfk5hi$1nhb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Gold Dragon" <dragonwing@dragonu.net> wrote in message news:cfjtv3$1hgu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> You can't trademark an idea but you can copyright it.
>
>You cannot copyright an idea. But you can patent an idea. I know of no patents encumbering DbC, and while Dr. Meyer very belatedly claims a trademark, I've not seen him claim any patents on it.
>
>> The 1997 book
>> copyrighted the idea of Design by Contract or maybe it didn't.
>
>The book only copyrighted the text in it.
>
>> Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs that it hasn't been finished.
>
>No, it hasn't been finished.
>
>

I thought that Patents were for product ideas, such as a model of a car, etc. Trade Marks are for identifying features of a company, like a logo, and copyright is for text. Correct?

"kinghajj" <kinghajj_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cfk7te$1p5s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I thought that Patents were for product ideas, such as a model of a car,
etc.
> Trade Marks are for identifying features of a company, like a logo, and copyright is for text. Correct?

Yes, I think that's about right.

Ouch! It appears I was talking out of my ass, I blame the confusing legal terms behind trademarks, copyrights, and patents (actually the fault is my own but you can't place the blame on yourself can you?). If you can patent the wheel then something isn't right with the system.

Walter wrote:
> 
>>Has Design by Contract been implemented yet? It is still in the docs
>>that it hasn't been finished.
> 
> 
> No, it hasn't been finished.
> 
> 

How far away is it to completion? I have seen sources that have included the syntax of DbC and thought that maybe it was finished.