Just wondering how software patens like this one ...

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060089942&RS=DN/20060089942

... might affect future development of languages like D - and I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".

Bob W wrote:
> Just wondering how software patens like this one ...
> 
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060089942&RS=DN/20060089942
> 
> .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
> I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".

It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden of proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the side with the largest bank account).  That said, this seems one of the raft of patents Microsoft filed regarding C++/CLI, and in fact mentions C++/CLI specifically quite a few times in the text.  So I don't think it's anything to worry about.  The language would have to be more general if they were to use the patent against developers of an unrelated language like D.

What bothers me more is that essentially all of the techniques used in lock-free programming have been silently patented by Sun, HP, etc, in the past few years.  It's gotten so bad that some of the regulars on comp.programming.threads have taken to ignoring the patents altogether.

I personally feel that the value of patents has been tarnished so much by the tech industry that the whole thing should just be scrapped and re-invented.  While patents were once a way to protect the independent inventor from big business, they have become a way for businesses to protect their own business model from competition, and more generally, for independent firms to generate money from out of court settlements. Thus they no longer serve to protect innovation but instead stifle it. Some businesses may argue that research budgets would be cut if ideas could not be patented, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a legitimate patent case brought to court.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> I personally feel that the value of patents has been tarnished so much by the tech industry that the whole thing should just be scrapped and re-invented.  While patents were once a way to protect the independent inventor from big business, they have become a way for businesses to protect their own business model from competition, and more generally, for independent firms to generate money from out of court settlements. Thus they no longer serve to protect innovation but instead stifle it. Some businesses may argue that research budgets would be cut if ideas could not be patented, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a legitimate patent case brought to court.

All software patents should be invalidated. There was no shortage of innovation in software before 1990, so software patents are simply not necessary.

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>> Just wondering how software patens like this one ...
>>
>> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060089942&RS=DN/20060089942 
>>
>>
>> .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
>> I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".
> 
> It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden of proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the side with the largest bank account).  

Good point.
As far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no respect for these kinds of patents.

With that said, what's the implication of patents on software/algorithms/ideas?!
Say someone patented an algorithm, and meanwhile I came up with a very similar algorithm (very similar to the point that they are almost the same) on my own and implemented it. So what? Can he sue me?

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 
> 
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> 
>> Bob W wrote:
>>
>>> Just wondering how software patens like this one ...
>>>
>>> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060089942&RS=DN/20060089942 
>>>
>>>
>>> .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
>>> I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".
>>
>>
>> It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden of proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the side with the largest bank account).  
> 
> 
> Good point.
> As far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no respect for these kinds of patents.
> 
> With that said, what's the implication of patents on software/algorithms/ideas?!
> Say someone patented an algorithm, and meanwhile I came up with a very similar algorithm (very similar to the point that they are almost the same) on my own and implemented it. So what? Can he sue me?

With patents, it seems that it doesn't matter *who* invented it, rather it matters who managed to get to the patent office first wins.

My favourite example thus far, however, has to be the Aussie bloke who patented crop rotation.  I think he also patented the wheel, and maybe fire, too.  Yes, the patent system is *that bad*.

	-- Daniel

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> I personally feel that the value of patents has been tarnished so much by the tech industry that the whole thing should just be scrapped and re-invented.  While patents were once a way to protect the independent inventor from big business, they have become a way for businesses to protect their own business model from competition, and more generally, for independent firms to generate money from out of court settlements. Thus they no longer serve to protect innovation but instead stifle it. Some businesses may argue that research budgets would be cut if ideas could not be patented, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a legitimate patent case brought to court.
> 
> All software patents should be invalidated. There was no shortage of innovation in software before 1990, so software patents are simply not necessary.

Did you know that the decision to allow people to patent algorithms, was based on some case in the 1800's where some guy patented an opera ticket that could be folded in three ways?  So on one occasion, origami was patented, therefore software can be patented too. It's so ridiculous.

It's so ridiculous.

Daniel Keep wrote:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> Bob W wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just wondering how software patens like this one ...
>>>>
>>>> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060089942%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060089942&RS=DN/20060089942 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .... might affect future development of languages like D - and
>>>> I am certainly not just referring to "whitespace in keywords".
>>>
>>>
>>> It's best not to research patents, as from what I understand, burden of proof is on the patent holder (though generally the winner is the side with the largest bank account).  
>>
>>
>> Good point.
>> As far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely no respect for these kinds of patents.
>>
>> With that said, what's the implication of patents on software/algorithms/ideas?!
>> Say someone patented an algorithm, and meanwhile I came up with a very similar algorithm (very similar to the point that they are almost the same) on my own and implemented it. So what? Can he sue me?
> 
> With patents, it seems that it doesn't matter *who* invented it, rather it matters who managed to get to the patent office first wins.

Yeah, I've heard that Bell wasn't really the first guy who invented telephones, he just managed to get the patent first!!!

> 
> My favourite example thus far, however, has to be the Aussie bloke who patented crop rotation.  I think he also patented the wheel, and maybe fire, too.  Yes, the patent system is *that bad*.

Funny, someone should patent Chinese characters!! Oh wait, maybe someone already did that? Then maybe someone should dig in some old Chinese literature to find some old characters that haven't been patented yet!!

Don't forget patenting the idea of "making jokes about idea-patents".

> 
>     -- Daniel