On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 20:55:26 UTC, Cliff wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 20:27:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 08/26/2014 10:13 PM, Cliff wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:47:25 UTC, Casper Færgemand
>>> wrote:
>>>> How would this even work?
>>>
>>> It looks like this applies only to the inference of immutability
>>> based on the structure of the type and its methods, as opposed to
>>> a declaration of immutability.
>>
>> It does not look like that to me.
>
> Hmm, I went and re-read more closely, and it appears the Summary
> differs from the claims in that very important detail...  that
> sucks.

In patents only the claims matter. What is written in the summary is not enforceable.

http://joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html

On 08/26/2014 02:30 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

There has been some changes in the US since that article was written:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

Ali

On 8/26/2014 5:24 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:02:43PM +0000, MacAsm via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:37:29 UTC, Max Klyga wrote:
>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE
>>> OBJECT TYPES
>>>
>>> I really hope patent office will reject these applications.
>>
>> How bad will this be to D?
>
> D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
> the patent office accept prior art submissions?
>

I doubt very much the USPTO gives a rat's ass about prior art. Their strategy has been to sell patents to as many applicants as they can and let the courts sort them all out. (The gov like to pretend that that their court system, and therefore justice itself, doesn't cost $$$$$.)

As for the specific patents, meh, I've long been convinced that it's physically impossible to write any useful software without inadvertently "infringing" on several US patents. I doubt very much that even a "Hello World" wouldn't involve anything that some patent could make a claim over.

This is what happens when corporations are permitted free reign.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:30:39PM +0000, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d 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

Should the D community file for prior art in the immutable case? It might become very important for D's future.


T

-- 
If the comments and the code disagree, it's likely that *both* are wrong. -- Christopher

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:38:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 5:24 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 09:02:43PM +0000, MacAsm via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 19:37:29 UTC, Max Klyga wrote:
>>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196008.html - IMMUTABLE
>>>> OBJECT TYPES
>>>>
>>>> I really hope patent office will reject these applications.
>>>
>>> How bad will this be to D?
>>
>> D has had immutable for years! Surely that counts as prior art?? Does
>> the patent office accept prior art submissions?
>>
>
> I doubt very much the USPTO gives a rat's ass about prior art. Their strategy has been to sell patents to as many applicants as they can and let the courts sort them all out. (The gov like to pretend that that their court system, and therefore justice itself, doesn't cost $$$$$.)
>
> As for the specific patents, meh, I've long been convinced that it's physically impossible to write any useful software without inadvertently "infringing" on several US patents. I doubt very much that even a "Hello World" wouldn't involve anything that some patent could make a claim over.
>
> This is what happens when corporations are permitted free reign.

You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you would fit right in.
Best part? No software patents.

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 21:35:39 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> There has been some changes in the US since that article was written:
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent
>
> Ali

True but First-to-file didn't take away Prior Art. In fact, the America Invents Act actually broadened what qualifies as Prior Art so it's even easier* to submit prior art now.

* And by "easier" I mean "still extremely hard but not as hard as it used to be".

I think they're about 40 years late on these patents...

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:52:17PM +0000, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote: [,..]
> You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you would fit
> right in.
> Best part? No software patents.

New D-land FTW! ;-)


T

-- 
Once the bikeshed is up for painting, the rainbow won't suffice. -- Andrei Alexandrescu

On 8/26/2014 6:52 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>
> You guys should totally move to New Zealand. Seriously you would fit
> right in.
> Best part? No software patents.

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].

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.

[1] http://www.microcenter.com/site/stores/default.aspx