Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patents 'IsNot', Enlists WTO
Milhouse102 writes "I was just reading an article on The Register about Microsoft's offshore patent war following Ballmer's recent outburst in Asia. I came across this little nugget, it seems MS has patented BASIC's IsNot operator."
I am going to patent "is too" and "nuh uh".
I hate sigs.
Somehow, this IsNot funny.
Hmmm Microsoft patents IsNot so we can't say Microsoft IsNot Linux or Mac, right? Maybe because they don't want us to say Microsoft IsNot good? IsNot fair? IsNot using best practice? I guess they are trying to surpress our complaining.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo, so there!
IsNot
IsToo
IsNot
IsToo
I win!!
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Unless I'm mistaken, they've only applied for a patent; it has not yet been granted. Sadly, given the state of the patent system nowadays, it would not surprise me if it is granted.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
else do what? microsoft would patent the method of taking a computer and turning it on if they could.
int* x;
int* y;
int foo = x != y;
So there
Would this be considered a preemptive strike?
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
Me: "IsNot" a valid patent.
Microsoft: "IsTo"! damn forgot to patent that one!
can you patent something that IS ALREADY PRESENT IN THE LANGUAGE. it would be differnet if it was not present in the language.
seriosuly, what the hell is with this? maybe i will patent structs in java, so if they ever put them in, i can sue!
If the whole idea of sanctioning a company because it formed and mainatined a monopoly through anticompetitive practices is to restore competition in the industry, why do we continue to allow it to secure a temporary monopoly in that industry? PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY ARE STILL BEING SANCTIONED?
I think it is a travesty that MS is allowed to aquire IP though the goverment that is sanctioning them. How does that restore competition? It is blatantly counter productive.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
And now, Microsoft can counqer the world... *Evil Laugh*
How about my new "aint" operator?
For future applications, the patent office will have to pay them to say "This IS NOT original".
They have filed an application, it IsNot allowed yet.
This may be the big one folks. There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny. Not only that, this is the backbone of the world's economy and its rigorous enforcement may well wake up the world to the problem of broad software patents and bring about quick change to the patent system.
May it be rigorously enforced for the good of humanity.
Linus Torvalds holds the patent on the "IsTo" and "IsSo" operators.
After a quick read of the patent, it seems to say that it is a test to see if two "variables" are actually the same entity, i.e. at the same address.
That would seem to imply
#define IsNot(A,B) (&(A) != &(B))
infringes?
Surely this is done in things like memmove() to prevent overwriting of data?
If so, the 'IsNot' operator is obvious and therefore not a good candidate to be patented. Of course what MS is really trying to do here is patent a representation of logic.
A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.
Prior art:
The C operator !=, for comparing two pointers.
Since GNU's Not Unix, clearly this sets the stage for an assault on GNU.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
isNot
Microsoft recently announced patents on the Instructions PRINT and GOTO, the Variable "Hello world" and the concept of Line Numbers (with particular reference to 10 and 20.)
In what way is comparing two memory addresses considered an innovation? Doesn't the i386 CMP operator constitute prior art?
See what is going on? do you want this, too?
I have a patent pending for all uses of and references to -1.
I'm going to make millions!
I'm still on the lookout for other negations I might be able to cash in on before anyone else does.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
If ever there were an example of how completely broken and useless the current patent system is then this is it. This makes you think, what other obvious and trivial functions have been granted patents? Can I get a patent on strcmp? I'll just apply for a patent on my new, special function that I just recently came up with. It's called StringCompare!
As I right this my colleagues are writing up patent applications for the !=, ==, &&, ||, &, and | operators. I expect these applications to be granted shortly, after which we'll own all your code and Microsoft will be my bitch.
--
Sounds like a scam, but it works.
Free Flat Screens | Free iPod Photo |
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
"a BASIC-like or BASIC-derivative language such as but not limited to MICROSOFT VISUAL BASIC, BORLAND DELPHI or REAL BASIC"
Delphi is BASIC-like or BASIC-derivative? News to me, and i have programmed in Delphi since 1995. You learn something new every day. Maybe it is (very superficially) Visual Basic-like, but that is the environment, not the language.
No... that's merely harmful.
They better get together on what the meaning of 'Is' and 'IsNot' is.
By the look if it, this only refers to BASIC code and to an operator to check if two pointers point to the same object.
At any rate there's still plenty of prior art in other languages
You will note the filing date: 2003. I would reeeeeeaaaaaaallllly like to see MS argue that there is no prior art to this date, or that 'one skilled in the art' would not have already used such an operator. I bet this goes all the way back to Babbage.....
WOODCOCK Washburn LLP, need I say more.
MS says "Let's throw some shite against the wall and see what sticks."
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is...
IsPatented - returns true if method/function/operator is patented
Programmers should be able to tell what methods and operators are patented before they call them
IF not IsPatented( IsNot() ) Then
IsNot(....
ELSE
OneTimeIsNotHandle = PayToUseIsNot(CC#, CC Type, CC Expiration)
OneTimeIsNotHandle(....
END IF
This is only for a BASIC compiler. How many of you that are bothered by this even use BASIC? Hands up please.
What I mean to say is they are not patenting !=, they are patenting "IsNot". From my point of view, who really cares?
Your "I" key is borked, isn't it?
I hate sigs.
That's nothing. I think my sister has the patent on "IsSo".
It's completely asinine that this sort of thing is legal.
The entire purpose is to make money without actually doing anything, and the end result is that it stifles innovation.
The patent system in this country needs a major overhaul.
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
This sentence no verb.
I just read the patent. This is what they are claiming:
Add the following rule:
Expression: Expression IsNot Expression
{ If ($1 is not an lvalue or $2 is not an lvalue) then print error message,
else
$$ = $1 == $2 (or assembly code for the same test)
}
Umm. Ok.
Next thing you know they will get a patent on the whole "One or Zero" thingy.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
IsNot basically the same asAin't? I guess it was inevitable.
No data, no cry
yet more proof that bill gates and his free mason ilk are ruling the entire earth via subliminal messages implanted in linux
my parents trusted the american government
trust can come back to screw you
In other news... (From an old Onion article)
REDMOND, WA--In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.
With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.
"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."
Read More.
--
Sounds like a scam, but it works.
Free Flat Screens | Free iPod Photo |
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Anyone have the link to this? He's got a face only a mother could love (or someone who thinks they could get a slice of his money) ... so between that and some of his more ridiculous statements (the one about the low cost computers) I love checking out dumb moves by him.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
From the Patent
1. A system for determining if two operands point to different locations in memory, the system comprising: a compiler for receiving source code and generating executable code from the source code, the source code comprising an expression comprising an operator associated with a first operand and a second operand, the expression evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the operator is IsNot.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler comprises a scanner, a parser, an analyzer and an executable-generator.
The patent only applies to the BASIC language.
This is like me patenting the color Blue only in my living room.
Nothing to see here.
www.christopherlewis.com
I think they are just trying to see what they can get away with. M$ recently talked about pumping up their patient portfolio. Maybe they are starting to flood the patent office and this is one of the more blatenly stupid ideas.
I suggest we team together, create a temporary company, and patent the sum, aka '+', operator.
There is a sublime although disturbing elegance in the fact that it is illogical to allow MS to patent a logic operator
I am currently trying to patent multiplication so all of you owe me a nickel everytime you times.
Is Microsoft and the other patent chasers so out of new ideas that they need to resort to this?
Are they truly that greedy or paranoid?
I hear a lot of deserved heckling, but what is the explanation for this type of behavior?
Obviously you guys never heard of the totally original but controversial COME FROM statement proposed in Datamation magazine a long time ago.
To that I would like do add my own invention, the DO CAREFULLY statement.
Let them have IsNot, the rest of the world is either using "Is Not", "!=" or something similar anyway.
Microsoft may also patent "IsNotGreaterThanOrEqualTo" if they want, we'll just use "".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
i'm going to patent main() and then deny use to anyone and everyone... that will deal with it!
Would it matter? Microsoft could pay any random employee to own the patent and license it to them on an exclusive basis.
Laws could be made to to try to avoid that, but realisticly it doesn't seem like it could be prevented.
Eye wanted to avoyed et to keep from vyolayteeng MS's patent.
From the patent application: Such a language construction is ungrammatical, requires more typing and violates the philosophy on which BASIC rests. It would be helpful therefore, if a single more intuitive operator could perform the function that the combination of the two operators Is and Not typically performs.
Microsoft is simultaneously announcing the publication of an updated version of The Elements of Style, revised specifically for Visual BASIC programmers.
"We're concerned with the literacy rates among VB programmers," says Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. "How can programmers learn to write correctly in English when they're exposed on a day-to-day basis with ungrammatical programming constructs?"
Not everyone agrees with the initiative. Some people are expressing concern that Microsoft is concentrating on grammatical correctness at the expense of program correctness. Stay tuned for further details on this exciting development in the annals of programming history.
EricMore humor here
The patent isn't easy reading, but if you plow through enough of it you get to an example in code
It looks like their patenting using the Basic IsNot operator on object comparisons in Basic. It's a pretty limited patent.
On the other hand, I'm baffled that you can patent overriding a specific operator in a specific language. There's considerable prior art in overrding operatorsin general.
Of course, the problem with patent abuse by a few people is that it prompts others to do the same. Don't want someone to patent a piece of technology out from under you? Patent it first!
Extract from application:
[0013] Similarly, (for example), if a user wanted to perform Z if the variables a and b do not point to the same memory location, the following code, combining two operators, "Is" and "Not" (a negation of the expression) would be required:
3 Dim a, b As x a = New x( ) b = New x( ) . . . If Not (a Is b) Then (Perform Z) End If
[0014] Such a language construction is ungrammatical, requires more typing and violates the philosophy on which BASIC rests. It would be helpful therefore, if a single more intuitive operator could perform the function that the combination of the two operators Is and Not typically performs.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0015] A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two variables point to different locations in memory, that is, the reverse of the existing "Is" operator in a BASIC programming language or a derivative of BASIC or BASIC-like programming language. In one embodiment of the invention, the memory locations represent objects. The new operator enables a user to determine if the left operand (e.g., a reference type) "is not" the same instance as the reference type listed as the right operand. The use of a single operand for this concept may increase the readability of the programming language.
Wow. They even explain that it's neither original, innovative nor useful. How can this application fail?
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
A system whereby a computer arbitrarily switches to a debug info mode wherein the screen turns blue and displays a stack trace, register dump and other inscrutabile information in a grey fonr, then spontaneously reboots. This would have to happen both randomly and not, and the user may or may not percieve or be able to ascribe this to any particular cause. We should note in our patent that the only way to properly exit this mode is to format the disk drives.
If ever there were an example of how completely broken and useless the current patent system is then this is it.
Before you burst a blood vessel, this appears to only be a patent application, not a granted patent.
The USPTO "recently" changed its rules (to match the rest of the world) and no publishes applications before they are granted.
It is weird and pointless, but not exactly trivial. Since BASIC doesn't expose pointers to the programmer, you need a custom operand to compare them. And this patent only covers BASIC-style languages, as you can clearly see from the claims.
OH NOES, teh MSzors patented !=, but not really.
/. to blow things out of proportion.
Look at #2
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.
If it's not basic, then it doesn't matter; they're not claiming all IsNot type things in other languages. This doesn't even cover an sql "is not".
Typical
Microsoft will attempt to get patents on EVERY single aspect of computers, whether we find it funny, outrageous, or dangerous. What Microsoft is doing is perfectly legal.
The threat of patent lawsuits is the only chance Microsoft has against Linux. And for Microsoft even a little competition is an all out war.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I wonder if somebody will patent the voice of moaning women.
"Evil thrives when good men do nothing"
BASIC was running the bridge controls on the ark for goodness sake.
Is anyone still programming in BASIC?
It seems a bit weird to patent something in such an old and unused language...
I know some patent applications are obfuscated enough that USPTO workers can't tell whether they're patentable so they just rubber stamp them--but this is absurd. If it weren't on uspto.gov, I'd assume it was a hoax.
The != operator does essentially the same thing in C++, and it's been around for decades. Why is applying a well-known, absolutely trivial concept to another domain patentable? Heads should roll at the USPTO for this.
I keep writing and calling my Senators about this stuff and get really very little response. This crap is going to kill our innovation edge and we'll all be stuck paying for it. It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of crap combined with everything else to trigger a revolt within a generation.
Regards, Ian
From the patent...
3 Dim a, b As x a = New x( ) b = New x( ) . . . If Not (a Is b) Then (Perform Z) End If
[0014] Such a language construction is ungrammatical, requires more typing and violates the philosophy on which BASIC rests. It would be helpful therefore, if a single more intuitive operator could perform the function that the combination of the two operators Is and Not typically performs.
Regardless the fact that is stupid , they have a patent on this.
Maybe we should check to see if somebody else got a patent on FOR loops or do..while.
Crazy!:-(
Ballmer telling Clinton what the definition of *is* is.
Say hello to my little sig.
First off, the IsNot operator is not part of VB 6.0 or VB.net 2003 (I haven't checked 2005, which is still in Beta)
Second, if you undestand VB's "Is" operator, IsNot makes more sense.
"Is" is a memory location comparison commonly used to see if two variables point to the same object, e.g. . It does not compare the values of the variables, only that they are pointers to the same object.
Because there is no inverse version of this operator like there is with "=" and "", you end up with non-natural-language statements such asMuch more natural looking isWhether this is patentable is another issue. But you can certainly patent a published idea -- it's the only way to protect it.
Design for Use, not Construction!
Obviously, Microsoft has become an ally in the crusade against patents and is just doing this sort of thing to demonstrate how ridiculous the patent system is and how ineffectively the USPTO works.
Bu Shi operator?
How's that for a bad cross-language pun?
-- Bird in the Bush: The Renewable Energy Blog http://www.birdinthebush.org
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Good idea!!!
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
IsNot "IsNot" or IsIt?
If it isn't what it isn't, then it is not what it's not, therefore it is.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
That is the very first thing I thought after reading the first part of the application before I read the first comment.
Personally I'd be embarrassed to be named on this patent.
Jiggity
This is of course an attempt to patent a piece of logic. While it may be said that the whole purpose of the computer is to follow logic, we also have the problem of prior art. IsNot, a combination of 2 simple English words, does not differ from using ! as a way of symbolizing *not equal to*.
If MS gets away with this, thay will use it to destroy their compitition, as has been their habit. Can you imagine the problems created when every software developer gets a notice from MS's legal team that they're in violation of the IsNot patent?
This cannot be allowed to stand, and is clearly an abuse of the system.
Hhhmmm Can I patent cannot?
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Language Enhancements in Visual Basic 2005
Urk! Is that really how you Visual Basic guys test variables? 'Clunky' seems right.
Well, it appears that no one has claimed < > yet, so that's going to be my patent.
On a side note, you have no idea how long it took me to make slashcode accept those &-lt;'s and &-gt;'s
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Maybe I'm not too old to get a law degree. On the surface, it looks like a case of 'the more patents our lawyers can throw at your lawyers, the more money you will have to spend and we have MUCH more of that commodity than you do.'
The way the patent reads it's a sleaze into we own A XOR B !=0 when A and B are addresses. I know it doesn't say that, but imagine how long a bunch of slick lawyers could flumox a typical jury with a peck of similar patents.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Is it possible that Bill actually has a legal claim on this? Didn't he work on BASIC back in the day? When I turn on my TRS-80 it says BASIC 1.0 Microsoft.
Patent claims don't list all of the requirements an implementation needs to satisfy in order to satisfy the patent condition. If an implementation matches any of the claims, it's in violation. Claim 1 does not restrict the implementation to be the BASIC language. Therefore the patent, if granted, will cover all languages.
FTA - Which leaves us with the issue of when and where Microsoft will choose to apply pressure. It's much more likely to target weaker economies, as they have less bargaining power. Look out, Nepal! Microsoft would be foolish to force the issue in China, the largest holder of US dollars. If China were to retaliate, the dollar would be a junk currency and US shoppers could be looking at empty shelves. Er, Steve - you ought to think this one through.
This is something of an oversimplification. China cannot retaliate in such a way, and even if they did it is unlikely that Microsoft would be the cause. China has bigger problems than Microsoft and the WTO.
...14 year-old AOL subscriber Iain Polowski, 15, has lodged a patent application for the "Me too!" expression which he developed for use in internet chat rooms and meeting sites.
"i started hte develepoment process ovr 6 month ago when my mom baught me a comptutor for my birthday. i realised that most of that i said was saying the same thing as somebody else but it was hard to say it the same but differently. si i invented the process of typing 'Me too!' as a mechanicalism to show agreement with somebody, while saving on band-witdh and time", Iain said in an Online interview with Wired today. "What colour bra?", he continued before adding, "shit sorry, wrong window".
Microsoft's director of licensing David Kaefer indicated that MSN chat users who subscribed to their licence indemnification program would not have anything to worry about, raising speculation that Microsoft are preparing a hostile takeover of Iain. "Me too!", added Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer.
"A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
10 DIM A 10 ... ... ...
15 REM this is equivalent to A=malloc(10)
20 B=A
100 IF BA THEN
So this tests to see if two variables point to the same memory location, in a variant of Basic which has been in use since about 1982.
BBC Basic supports pointers, proper indirection, indexed indirection and dynamic allocation.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Am I right in thinking that if the original BASIC language had been released under the GPL, this nonsense would never have happened? (Except that Microsoft would have had to invent a language called, I don't know, BillSharp, and ensure that none of the constructs resembled BASIC, just as C# is in no way whatsoever a Java ripoff. But would it ever have gained the same acceptance?)
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Is if the USPTO's search page made use of the IsNot operator.
http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2003/11/1 7/243.aspx#Comments
And he writes that they "had requests for this in the past", so they did not even invent it, but some users suggested it.
Finally check out the comments of the VB users below wetting their pants for this little feature. Now isn't that really sad?
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
I'll have to think about that more, but intially it sounds like a brilliant idea. Ok, here come my counter arguments. If they aren't going to be allowed to patent anything, then they won't. That might be a problem. One of the benifits of the patent system is that a company completely explains the innovation, so that when the patent does expire anyone can easily implement it. While it might not be an issue with such a trivial idea such as the IsNot operator, it might be a huge problem in the semiconducter industry. So the monopoly might continue to come up with new ideas, they just won't tell anyone how they did anything. Then society will lose out as the information won't be shared.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
... we will have to invent an "isnt" operator
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
I mean, sure, when people from Seattle try to patent fundamental logical constructs, it has to be MS, but the only time they are mentioned by name is in the context of the patent being applicable to their compilers and languages (among others). Does a patent typically go in the name an employee of a corporation, and if so, who really owns it?
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
I am counter patenting 'IsToo', and am going to enlist WTF in response!
There is no spoon.
You just need to know when to use which.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
That is not the same. Subtlties are HUGE.
It would be up to the patent owner (the individual) to sue for infractions, not the monopolistic company. The implocation is huge. MS does not then have a patent portfolio to attack Linux or anything else with.
You could finally tax MS. Here's how. Sell them exclusinve use, but don't enforce for whatever you belive in. Now technically you're supposed to enforce, but how much and with what vigor is up in the air. If you don't belive that Linux is infringing, then don't bring a lawsuit. You probaly won't care because MS would have bankrolled you for life.
Also, if you pass on, you can will (ot trust) it to someone in your stead.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
the next generation of languages will be using such keywords as: NotExactlyLike, MaybeDifferent, and OtherBecauseMicrosoftSucks.
You can't handle the truth.
I don't know how people don't just straight up laugh in MS's collective face. It's just absurd. How goddamn long has the way of expressing the logical idea "is not" been expressed by those very words?
My theory is that it's been since those two words were paired up. How can you patent a method of expressing something that is what is being expressed?
IsNot is is not is ! is Is Not, and you can't patent IsNot as a way of expressing Is Not. Because IsNot !uniquely_unique.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Patent xxxxxWhoCares Granted for DMCA
Where DMCA is a system or method for preventing advances in technology while also suppressing free speech.
Patent xxxxxWhoCares Granted for RIAA
Where RIAA is a system or method for extracting monetary value from useless waste and / or preventing said useless from being removed in a safe and proper fashion.
Patent xxxxxWhoCares Granted for MPAA
Where MPAA is a system or method for disguising packet sniffing as a research project designed to provide high-speed data transfer.
So if I patent all the acronyms for each and every one of the big players would this make it possible for me to claim patent infringement? If so, I think it's time I spoke with my lawyer.
"2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler."
It's only IsNot in BASIC derived programming languages, so I bet any Java or C implementation of IsNot is still allowed.
I disagree. Patents should be granted with equal terms for everyone. I'm sorry if equality offends your sensibilities, but denying IP rights to their inventor is a ridiculous idea.
Should we now expect a BASIC IsNot bufer overflow exploit?
It's OK. I'm just finishing up my implementation of the "Ain't" operator, which will be released under the GPL.
Bill: I know lets patent IsNot!
Satan: Isn't that a essential logical operator?
Bill: It IsNot!
Satan: Yeah, funny Bill. But their has got to be prior art?
Bill: IsNot an issue.
Satan: Wasn't even funny the first time Bill. But without it want all programs become needlessly over-bloated, and buggy?
Bill: What's your point?
Satan: My point is that you will destroy all competion by make making simple not equal comparisons impossible
Bill: IsNot that a good thing?
Satan: I hate you Bill
So, just sent a registered letter to the patent examiner with a registered copy to the attorneys pointing out that there is prior art for claim one. this 1998 ISO comment, this 1997 IBM document or a few zillion others.
It made a great story, but it looks like, seeing the transcript, that MS was not in the wrong in asking for a retraction. Ballmer did say some awful things, which is to be expected, but if you look at the transcript, Reuters did take some things out of context. I'll leave RTFA as an exercise.
Patent Examiner: Uh, hi again. What is it this time? Weren't you just here yesterday? And the day before that? And the day before that?
Microsoft: Yes, but that's because I'm just so full of innovation! I'm just bursting with new ideas.
Patent Examiner: *sigh* OK, so what have you "innovated" today?
Microsoft: This (handing paper over). It's a patent idea!
Patent Examiner (looking at paper): Is not.
Microsoft: Yup, IsNot!
Patent Examiner: No, is not a patent!
Microsoft: That's great news. Thanks!
Patent Examiner: *sigh*
Dear Slashdot Readers
We wish to respond directly to the readers of slashdot.org, on the comments and complaints that have been voiced on this site, concerning the USPTO.
Here at the USPTO we grant patents without prejudice to trifling things like unoriginality, gross obviousness and indeed patentabiliy itself. Many posters on slashdot seem to think that this system is somehow flawed, and that it would be better that patents be thourghly and rigourously examined before they are granted. However, such a system would lead to CommuNaziTerrorists overrunning the US with cheap copyright infringing products. Hence it is proved that the system works and that slashdot readers are in league with the forces of evil.
Any attempts to undermine the credibility of the USPTO through subversive complaints or through the use of "common sense" arguments will be dealt with harshly under the terms of the DMCA, PATRIOT and (Insert Draconian Act Here) Acts.
Common Sense cannot and will not be tolerated by the USPTO.
Good day to your sirs.
Yours sincerly
USPTO
May the Maths Be with you!
So, does this mean that they transitively patent the "Is" as well? Because the rules of logic state that not "Is" is equivalent to "IsNot". To my knowledge, "not" is still in the public domain (not?) Gotta run, I'm off to patent the "Aint".
You're right, its a completely level playing field. Anyone can have a patent.
Basic filing fee - Utility $790.00
Utility issue fee 1,370.00
Due at 3.5 years 940.00
Due at 7.5 years 2,150.00
Due at 11.5 years 3,320.00
-1, Pyramid scheme
I'm from Romania,I have a small company, I just discovered on net that Poland turned against software patents in Europe!. htm :( )
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020505,39174245,00
Great!
In 2007 Romania will be (we hope) part of UE and we don't want US like software patents! noo way...
Thank you Poland!
Microsoft allready have a dangerous influence to our guvernment (what you say about a minister that is very hape to make pictures with Bill Gates or Steve Balmer,pictures that costs us milions - for use in schools and administration when free open source solution exist
Abss
http://www.intrebare.ro/
O.k. it's not all of you, I'm just really pissed.
But having said that, will you people get off your collective behinds and fix your g*d d*mn patent system. Enough is enough. This is the most ludicrous one I've seen yet. How, could the patent examiner possible let this get by. The only reason for its existance is because MS thinks that
IsNot(NOT(a Is b) grammatical), oops I think I just violated the patent. Oh, not only that it's not grammatical either I better invent another operator, I'm going to call it the IsIsNot operator.
Come on people, start a "million geek march" or something. Fill the WhiteHouse lawn and don't leave until your employees fix their mess. Note I was going to say leaders, but their not your leaders, you pay them good money to act on your behalf, people often forget this.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
GNU is Not Unix.
....
Pine Is Not Elm.
Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Any idea how long it's been around? It's not new, and I think it's been around since before this patent was filed.
MUAHAHA!!! isnt is MINE!!!
I HEREBY PATENT THE "aint" OPERATOR!!!!
Ha!! You'll all have no choice but to do what I say (as soon as I figure out how to patent the "no" operator)
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I remember using the PEEK statement in TRS-80 days to do the same function... Prior art? Nah, it doesn't even say "IsNot". But the will they get the patent anyway? Sure. Microsoft lines the pockets of the patent office staff.
Also, since Microsoft wrote the most popular BASIC interpreter, is it possible that they actually were the ones that made the isnot function?
Don't get me wrong, I think patenting a programming tool is stupid and along the same line as patenting gravity.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
seriously, I'm not as anti-patent as most of the slashdot crowd, and I've only given the article a once-over, but come on people. Patenting an is not is sort of like patenting != isn't it, sad sad sad.
I will go to my bank and will say "My bank account = Bill Gates' Bank account" and they will be unable to say "it IsNot", because then I could sue them and ask for more $$$ :)
...where is that patent on the numbers 1 and 0, Microsoft?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
This is sort of the same strategy Microsoft is attempting with it's protocols by incorporating patents into the protocol to lock in propietary ownership.
hands off.
Technically, it isn't Microsoft Corp. isn't claiming to have invented fire, it's Paul A. Vick Jr., Costica Corneliu Barsan, and Amanda K. Silver.
In most situations where Microsoft employees act like rat bastards people place the blame on this nebulous entity "Microsoft", but for a patent application the names of real people to blame are published for the whole world to see! What kind of circle of friends must you have if you're not too ashamed to put your name on such a blatant attempt at defrauding the legal system as a means of stifling your competitors?
"So, what did you do at work today?"
"I filed a patent for pointer comparisons in BASIC, pretending to have invented a programming technique older than I am in order to help my criminal employer keep competiting compilers incompatible and thus entrap our customers. And you?"
"Oh, same old, same old. Those puppies don't just drown themselves, you know!"
Describe exactly the java "!=" operator (except when it's used on base types) ?
It says on there it's a patent application, not an actual patent. Still could get rejected.
IANAPL, but I seem to recall that after a patent approved by the Patent Office but before it is finally granted, there is a comment period (maybe 60 days) where it is published, and any member of the public can present evidence against it without paying fees or such.
The two examples would seem to be prior art for claim 1.
Claim 2 should be an obvious refinement of prior art, and I suspect the other claims would be as well.
The === operator compares two operators to determine if they are the same value and type (sort of the same). The only reason I can think of for even _caring_ if two variables are the same variable programatically is when determining if you should delete a variable. In PHP, if you have two variables that are references, unsetting one doesn't kill the other, so this isn't a problem.
You can also compare pointers in C/C++, e.g. &a == &b. But I really think that if you ever need to use a construct like this, your program probably has design problems to begin with.
NonMSVisualBasic (NMSVB for short) is identical in every respect to Microsoft Visual Basic [trademark owned by Microsoft, all rights reserved by them] except that it lacks an IsNot operator. Instead, please use one of the following methods:
- !Is()
- MicrosoftSucksAss()
- SoftwarePatentsSuckAss()
- NotIs()
We apologize for the inconvenience; please direct all further questions on this issue to billg@microsoft.com.Now programmers will just have to call their operator "Isn't".
I've patended "operands" so this ISNOT operand is plain silly.
So unless M$ has patented threats, everyone stop using operands or be sued!!!!
Like maybe "a circular object to allow for more efficient movement across land".
Groklaw has an interesting article on MS and its FUD about OSS and patents.
Your multiplication patent violates my addition patent as multiplication is simply reiterive addition. So does subtraction (adding a negitive value) and Division (Reiterive addition of negative values).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
n/t
This operator _does_ exist in Python, so it'd be more than a tad frustrating if this patent was granted.
It's very common to do object identity comparisons in Python, such as
if x is not None:
do_something_with(x)
Is Microsoft fucking kidding me?
It so happens that IAMAITL (I am an international trade lawyer). I can assure you that the article, in that regard, is utter bullshit on various levels:
Is this 'patent' necessitated by the difficulty of comparing objects in COM?
If I remember correctly, it's very difficult to compare two objects for identity because they expose the class interfaces to the object, but not the actual address of the object itself...Hence the requirement for a seperate comparison based on address of the actual object?
. . . by the time I read this article, almost 300 people have posted comments: some insightful, some defending MS's actions, & certainly at least one funny joke. But as far as I can tell, this is the first to address the issue "What can we do about it?"
Any other ideas? Or shall we just gripe for another 300 posts about how the US patent system is broken & run by a bunch of lusers?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
This illustrates very well how companies abuse the patent process to their own ends. This is obviously prior art, obvious, and in wide use. Yet Microsoft will focus an army of attorneys and carpetbaggers on the patent examiner's office and shower the process with money to persuade the patent examiner that they should be granted an exclusive franchise to use this, while denying it to everyone else. Then Micrsoft will point to this as another example of its 'intellectual property' that must be protected.
Just in time for the opening of the Clinton Presidential Library.
You could forbid exclusive licensing, although that would still reduce the playing field to the big companies. A company owning a patent would have to base the share the inventor gets on the fee that it sort of pays to itself for using the patent.
So if the company is a miser is trying to save fees to the inventor, competitors get a chance to license too.
Re: exclusively, I wish I had the money to patent the Basic XOR operator.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
If you check the PTO web site, it is for "published patent applications."
Microsoft applied for a patent on "IsNot" on May 14, 2004, and the patent was published 18 months later on November 14, 2004.
This doesn't mean that the patent will issue and that Microsoft will receive patent protection for the operator. The author is getting ahead of himself...
I know the following has already been said by me and others but it's worth repeating...
probably a vi user. I bet his ESC key is worn out also.
What cracks me up is that is this isn't even an function in VBScript. I know, sad but true, I use VBScript on a daily basis :( Oh well it was part and parsel with the job!
The only operations you need are AND, OR, XOR, and NOT. ISNOT is equivalent to not.
In Smalltalk comparison for identity (two instance addresses) is done by an '==' Equality is done by an '='
Its like you can construct every comparison operation on ! = is != is !
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
From now own you need to license: Yeah, right!
(Update: I'm just informed that 'varient' also belongs to Microsoft Visual Basic. Yeah, right!)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Since any serious programming language is case sensitive, my "isnot" operator will not infringe the patent.
lol
Say, this is bad for GNU. You know, GNU isNot unix.
it's free with your purchase of "No's Treasure"
Yea. Also, many patents form a chain, so that claim (N+1) is based on claim(N). So this kind of patent should fall over when claim 1 falls. However it is my impression that when a patent with an overbroad claim 1 goes to court, the court might just choose to too cancel claim 1 and say the patent is valid starting from claim 2.
Are there there any examples that support my above perception? If yes, this seem unfair and encourages overbroad claims.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
... at a store near you.
Someone patent the Not IsNot enhancement to the IsNot feature
I've got a patent on the != operator
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
1: .NE.
2: <>
3: !=
4: Not (A Is B)
5: IsNot
6: Profit!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think it is a hoax. If so, 2cents from me to M$ for joining the patent troll brigade, thereby allowing us to show the absurdity of software patents.
/. readers as USPTO workers, that is.
And imagine, what if we had a Beowulf cluster of M$ patent trolls? The USPTO surely would collapse. Unless they hire a Beowulf cluster of
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Children in the USA can avoid expensive legal fees by paying a nominal license fee.
U aa!
t s.htm
$49.95 per year allows children to use the following patented terms:
GimmyThat!
ItsMine!
IsNot!
IsToo!
Nah
You're a poo-poo head!!!
MOM!
Geez! This reminds me of this story:
http://home.att.net/~jbcole/humor/Microsoft_paten
The real purpose in applying for such an offensive patent is to provide ammunition for the American pro-corporate lobby to justify sanctions against the EU, or other socialist states, and to justify violating WTO rulings when they go against American (corporate) interests, on the basis that the international community conspires to unfairly exploit American intellectual property, such as the IsNot operation, which allows software developers to differentiate pointers which prior to the invention of IsNot would be unusable in software.
By virtue of the fact that this "exploitation" is condoned by states who fail to recognize the "benefit" to the global community, (meaning corporate conglomerates), of such software patents, which although lacking in invention or innovation were properly filed, it constitutes an unfair subsidy and unjust socialization of private property.
American corporate interests need a scapegoat to blaim the current downwards trend on the standard of living, education and healthcare as well as increase in poverty in order to deflect the criticism that it is American corporate interests themselves who are at fault. Filing for a patent which ought not be granted simply creates propaganda fuel.
When the patent office can say that thousands of patents are rejected each year, it would appear that the patent system is working, as the corporate community would have the electorate believe, when in fact the patent system is NOT working because it rewards monopolies, not for the purpose of encouraging the speed at which new ideas enter the public domain, which is its stated objective, but simply for the purpose of protecting the current established corporate conglomerates and encouraging corporate profit.
Whether or not this patent is ever granted or holds up in court, it has served its purpose.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Sell them exclusinve use, but don't enforce for whatever you belive in. Now technically you're supposed to enforce, but how much and with what vigor is up in the air.
You're under no obligation to enforce patents. Submarining a la Unisys is perfectly legal.
Trademark law is different; there, you DO have to protect your trademark for it to remain valid.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
You could always complain to the FTC that they're abusing their monopoly powers again. The earlier lawsuit was put to bed, but there's no reason another one can't be opened if they're repeating prior illegal behavior...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You're under no obligation to enforce patents. Submarining a la Unisys is perfectly legal. Trademark law is different
U.S. trademark law has a rather strong doctrine of use it or lose it, but U.S. patent case law has something similar but weaker called the doctrine of laches. If a patent holder harms an alleged infringer by delaying legal action, the patent holder cannot recover damages for infringements prior to legal action; about the best the patent holder can hope for is an injunction against further infringement and some negative press.
Who wants to write/alter a language to use "Ain't" instead, and patent THAT? (evil grin)
Before you burst a blood vessel, this appears to only be a patent application, not a granted patent.
Sure, I agree. And lots of posters seem to miss the point... it's an APPLICATION FOLKS!
BUT...
These are legal documents.. isnt the signer claiming under penalty of perjury that to the best of their knowledge there is no prior art? That would seem to be the case.
I don't think they ever enforce the law in this context, obviously. I'm sure the fellow has done some work in school in C or whatever and himself has been exposed to prior art... thus claiming otherwise would be fraud.
Conservatives: sugar and spice and everything nice
Liberals: baby eating, blood drinker, satan worshippers, terrorist sympathisers, want to ban the bible and feed christians to the lions, pedophiles and drug addicts
There. Isn't that better, dumbass?
probably a vi user. I bet his ESC key is worn out also.
No, but you should see his colon....
Never mind, forget I said that.
Seems to me that Lisp had just such an operator in the 50's. That's right, the eq operator! Oh wait. I guess you'd have to prepend a not to that, wouldn't you.
All hail Microsoft's brilliant innovation!
If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?
Claim 1 is broad for strategic reasons. It pays to file the broadest patent possible, and see what will get by the examiners. Upon examination it is likely that Claim 1 will be narrowed at the insistence of the examiner, but no company wants to patent less than they can, so there is a logical tendency to make the initial claims overly broad.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
That's what they're trying to patent. The use of a keyword rather than boolean logic.
This would seem to apply only in an infix language. In an infix language, the set of infix operators is most often a closed set, even if one can overload the implementation of an operator for a given data type. However, in a prefix language, there is usually[1] no difference between a procedure and an operator, and defining an operator as a procedure would not disrupt the flow of operators. For example, Scheme has two functions not and eq? which correspond roughly to VB Not and Is, and one could define a function not-eq? (to parallel the patented operator) thus:
[1] Exception: Where one wants to shortcut operation, such as terminating evaluation of an or clause after the first true argument, one must use define-syntax.
Other than using IsNot as an operator, in what way is this defined to be any different than the != operator which would test the same thing?
Is this a statement which works in a different way or on a particular object in memory that makes it unique?
Since pointers in C work more or less the same way, how exactly can they claim to have invented anything which exists in all other languages?
Doesn't this all come down to the equivelant of the BNZ (Branch Non Zero) which is used to check this stuff down at the machine code??
I just don't get it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I can already see this being implemented into the next KDE and K-Office scripting languages. Maybe they should call it "Kasual BASIC".
That's sounds casual. - J-man
WTF (who, not what) cares? They're not trying to patent the real not operator, !.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
that depends on what you mean by "is"...
Yep, sometimes the reporting around here can be design to envoke passion rather than inform. All that is missing are the picture of mangled babies that were the cause of faulty microsoft software.
They are wasting money, and forcing companies to slug out patent infringement in court, when they should be doing basic research themselves.
But in fact, they are obviously doing exactly *nothing* but sit on their asses, drink coffe and then accept all patent applications without even reading them first. But of course, only after they had delayed them for a while, to look busy.
That should be enough basis for the mother of all class action cases, where everybody who have ever bought a product from a company involved in a patent case have suffered from increased prices.
Are they tax funded? Then everybody who have ever payed taxes can sue them too..
Suggested use of the exact same syntax is here. There are numerous other examples of Jonathan Allen suggesting and requesting this exact same feature.
Maybe he should sue for not being mentioned in the patent application! Or maybe he just didn't read the EULA for Microsoft newsgroups...
This *is* an assault on GNU. I'm glad he pointed this out.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The application lists Vick, Paul A. JR; Barsan, Costica Corneliu; and Silver, Amanda K. as the "inventors" of this. When are we going to acknowledge that MS can carry out its despicable deeds because there are people like these three "inventors", all too willing to execute their masters' orders? When are we going to acknowledge that every MS employee has a share of guilt on MS's despicable behavior?
and you have clearly respondd to the wrong article.... now, exactly who is the dumbass?
I reject your reality
...is not that it's trying to patent IsNot, but that it was filed in the first place.
:-), and a good patent attorney will almost play the role of devil's advocate. "Are you sure this is new?" "Can you point me to anything that anyone contesting this might cite as prior art, and explain why it isn't?" "I did a search and found these 5 patents that look like they cover what you're applying for; why should we file your application?"
Who was the brain-dead lawyer who approved this? I guarantee that the applicant didn't do this on his own, especially in a corporation the size of Microsoft. I've been involved in patent applications before (including software patents - yeah, so sue me - no, wait, I'll sue you!
This looks like the work of either some extremely junior lawyer trying to justify his existence, or a completely unethical, greedy lawyer who doesn't care whether the patent gets approved, he just wants to bill the hours it'll take to work on the application. Or both.
Feh.
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
Hopefully, eventually, people will wake up to what the WTO really is..
Should be spelled 'one world government' setting new lower standards for laws across borders..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Does this mean that Microsoft can sue GWB when he says, "Our children isnot educated?"
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
#define TRUE -1
#define FALSE 0
if ( TRUE ) {} fals under this, as well as Java code.
Its time to start writing the patent office and challenge this patent.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
SQL:
Select name from patients where name is not null
It could be argued that the name object (variable) is being tested for equivilence to a global null object. (Where reference counts are used, like Pythons single None object)
Oh, hey there is another lanuage that uses is not.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Rather than IsNot, use IsNotIsNot. Or, if you want to use the recursive, GNU approach, IsNotIsNotIsNot, or just III.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
So Rockefeller, having establised a monopoly should be able to use his money to invent (patent) all kinds of things (after he is a monopoly) and create an oil/coal industry that heavily relies on those patents? Because that is exactly what Microsoft is doing.
.Net. If they just suggest something then people will just go along with it, wether it is a smart idea or not. Who actually uses the features of .Net? Very few. But they all use the C/C++ compiler from Dev Studio .Net So .Net is not required for 1/2 the jobs out there.
Microsoft has critical mass, look at
So Rockefeller with his monopoly money comes up with a new way to refine coal. He patents it, and because it works well, others use it too. Then he files for a dozen other patents on the transportation of coal. All smart ideas. But eventually the competition is denied entry into the monopoly because the monopoly was there and ate up all the rights to processing coal, thanks to the patent office. We then have a monopoly that the goverment doesn't want, but is serving to maintain through the patent office.
You just can't have IP aquisition during monopoly correction period. They are mutually exclusive.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
My patent for the letters a-z should be through in one year. From then on, you can only use the brittish letter "zed".
Oh, im also going to patent the numbers 1, 3, and 7.
Paraphrasing Orwell only slightly, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is not five; everything else will follow."
[
By the way, the USPTO has recently updated the Public Pair service so file wrappers for published applications (at least the more recent ones) can be viewed by the public. With all the talk of more robust examination, the new PAIR is a good way for public watchdogs to keep tabs on "patent" offenders, especially since many dubious applications are in art groups with significant delays that enable the publication of the application even before it is examined (such as this one).
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
Dear Anonymous Coward, /. to revoke your membership. In the future, please refrain from using the word IsNot unless you obtain a license from Microsoft.
Our department has been informed that you have violated our patent: US No. 304577425 regarding the use of the word IsNot. However, since you posted as Anonymous Coward, we have been unable to sue you directly. Please contact us at (425) 873-9274 in the Redmond area or our toll free number at (800) MS-SUE-ME or via email at b.gates@microsoft.com to settle the charge or to complete legal papers to sue you. Failure to do so will result in suing
Sincerely up your's,
Richard P. Ness, Head of Legal Counsel
Microsoft Illegal Department
That is it. Since MS owns the English language, I'll start a new language which I shall call : BASE which uses si, autrement, puis, pour keywords and I will patent the word NePas too.
I'm going to patent the GOTO operator and charge HUGE royalties for use. I'll be rich *and* be doing a service to readable code everywhere. Course I might hurt some job security, but hey, ya have to break a few eggs to make an omlet, right?
This is a published patent application. It most definitely IsNot a patent...
Sorry to spoil the MS-bashing party kids, but there's really nothing to see here.
It hasn't even been reviewed by an Examiner yet. If you're concerned or curious about the progress of this application (or any other), you can monitor changes here: http://portal.uspto.gov/. Just plug in the application or publication number. The "Transaction History" tab has a timeline of things that have happened with the application, and the "Image File Wrapper" tab (if there is one) links to images of every paper filed in the application.
things to contest a patent application.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
If the above statement is valid in Basic, why not trying the following in the first place?
If (a Is Not b) Then (Perform Z) End If
We don't need an extra operator such as IsNot.
They patented the "AINT" operator.
IF it$ AINT broke$
dontfix(it$)
Maybe we could ask them directly what they were thinking when they filed that patent?
bool IsNot(int& a, int& b){ return (&a != &b); } : P
It would make a nice project to set up an environment (a student group, an online forum, etc.) where people would be able to patent/copyright everything just by pointing at it or by claiming it as their own. After the first such claim is made, others must honor it and either not use the patented/copyrighted object, or license it (or enter a cross-licensing agreement). It would be really funny to see what would happen after a few days, when the air is copyrighted, breating is patented, the process of patenting is patented and most words are either trademarked or copyrighted. It should provide some great insight into the distopian future of technology (in the worst scenario) to look at how these people would manage (or would NOT manage) to function in such environment.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Please note that this differs from the application in several significant ways. Specifically, it is in C, not VB. Being in C, it doesn't check whether two pointers are pointing to the same object, because C is not object-oriented and therefor has no objects. It doesn't use StUdLyCaPs because C programmers know that the Shift key is a keystroke too. Finally, it is not named in an infringing way.
int aint(void *x, void *y) {
return (x != y);
}
That, and things like the half-billion pound deal the National Health Service just struck with Microsoft to supply software for them for the next nine years (IIRC). Once you've got that sort of momentum in a small organisation like the NHS (Europe's largest single employer, for those who don't know) it's very hard to change course.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Who wants to code in EUROPE? any takers?
The "isnot" operator was proposed for the D Programming Language as a replacement for the !== operator already in use in D. The !== operator determines if two references are at the same address or not. Both the "isnot" reference and the !== operator well predate the patent application.
isnot proposal
earlier D specification
It's only a patent application. Claim 1 seems to specify the idea of determining that two pointers are not aliases, which is of course well-known in compiler technology. This one is so broad that I expect even the USPTO will not grant it, at least not in the present form.
SQL has a syntax of "IS" and "IS NOT" operators used for matching outside of domain of legal values for defined type: i.e. NULL not being an integer, "=" operator can not intuitevely match non-NULL values against NULL condition (0 NULL), but "IS NOT" can (0 IS NOT NULL).
Historicaly, many logical constructs in programming languages happen to be joins of natural language words expressing the desired relation and/or action. One other example is GoTo statement found in many languages, including BASIC.
First paragraph means there is a prior art for relation itself, second paragraph means the expression is obvious and based on generaly accepted nomenclature for naming contructs. If both paragraphs are true, that means the patent is invalid.
OTOH, they can always patent operator "IsNot" for matching within domain of legal values for parameters: i.e. matching two numbers (0 IsNot 1). In this case I for one will certainly agree that this is completely unobvious use of a name. Not that it is worth patenting for BASIC syntax, though. Perhaps VB.Net v2.0 if they really mean that anyone will want to write syntax like that.
Anonymous Cowards Unite
Sic.
Please, somebody who maintains a langauge, can you implement these operators? When are we going to have iSnot operator in Brainfuck, for example?
AccountKiller
The branch (or jump) if not equal operand that's present in probably every processor's assembly language.
What's really pathetic is that it took three people to invent the IsNot operator!
....that never gets old.
His colon is nothing compared to his penis bird.
In the immortal words of former President William J Clinton,
what do you consider the definition of "is"?
It looks like "IsNot" is a new, albeit small, feature of Visual Basic 2005 to simplify the syntax of comparing object references:
u ll =/library/en-us/dnvs05/html/vbnet2005_preview.asp# vbnet2005_preview_topic15
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/default.aspx?p
I don't see that it matters much. If the goal is to prevent the open source community from using technology X, why would microsoft care who owns the patent? As long as it is licensed to them, and well defended (via microsoft money, routed in various and sundry ways), they get the benefit anyway.
Sell them exclusinve use, but don't enforce for whatever you belive in.
The point was that someone working FOR Microsoft would hold the patent, and would license it only to Microsoft. Of course Microsoft would have them well paid and over some kind of barrel to prevent them licensing the patent to anyone else.
The point is that Microsoft does not need to own a patent to control it. As long as they control whomever holds the patent, and if they get to choose the patent holder, choosing a controllable entity would be trivial.
Muerde mi brilloso culo de metal! ;-)
Cheers,
Adolfo
variables a 256 and c 262 both point to the same location (location 254)
Isn't one of the requirements for a patent that the invention work?
You forgot $10,000 in attorney fees.
evil is as evil does
Real Basic has used < to do a not if pointer comparison for objects since the last millenium. It still works. They cribbed it from NEQ in Lisp (1958), and the Lisp guys cribbed it from the machine code guys before them. There was probably an implementation on the original Watt steam engine.
Real Basic runs on the Mac and the PC. I guess once Bill Gates gets his patent, he'll sue.
It depends on what the definition of "IsNot" is.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
And XPath 2.0 was under construction well before January, 2003 (does anyone know when the isnot operator was included in the XPath spec?
We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
I try to force my brain around this mind-numbing patent application.
In the back of my head a single synapse starts firing to the "mock-it" lobe.
But I find I cannot. The other 10^22 neurons are frozen. My brain shuts down.
The body is saved by instinctively reaching for the back button...
To get the USPTO back in working order, congress should institude a fine for frivilous patent applications. They should increase their staff and review each patent carefully and be able to throw them out. I recommend a tiered system. Your first frivilous patent application is just the cost of a normal patent application, but it doubles for each frivilous application after the first. If patents cost $1000 to apply for, the 10th frivilous application would cost $1 million. The 16th would cost you $65 million, and the 24nd would cost you $16 billion.
AFAIK, one has to show due diligence in patent application, which means that you show progress with the patent. You can't have things lying around for years, show it to everyine and then decide that it is worth patenting. In essence when it has already spread throughout the marketplace it is too late for patents. If the patent office follows it's own rules they should deny the patent
People just refuse to accept that Microsoft is an innovator. But this patent proves it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Yes, and they needed 3 (in words: three) people to invent it. That should tell you something about the talent that is at work a microsoft.
They look to have derailed the attempts to introduce software patents in the EU, for the time being at least.
The famous patent on XOR (^) for one... (using xor to draw sprites on monochrome bitmap screens).
There's some USPTO bashing that you've shown to be unjustified, but let the MS bashing continue. Whether or not they were awarded the patent doesn't excuse the application's idiocy and obfuscated wording. I can't understand how someone would be willing to put their name such a piece of trash.
In other news, Microsoft combines many of their cutting-edge initiatives, resulting in the highly anticipated .NET isNot TrustWorthy Computing
har
This may be a sign that an MS employee gets a bonus every time they patent something. No question that MS has patent fever-- what better way to get everything under the sun patented than to connect an employee perk to them?
Look for MS to next patent the GOTO HELL command-- while me, I'm trying to get the GOSUB HELL command patented and hope there's a RETURN down there somewhere... :-)
You have a feel a certain pity for the poor bastard at MS that was asked to author that pitiful excuse for a patent application.
On the other hand, you have to admire the tenacity it must have taken to write so much about such a trivial thing. Lawyer material for sure.
Personally, I would have been laughing too hard to be able to make it through the first paragraph...
Double negatives cancel out, self explanitory.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Out of curiosity, how did you know it was a Microsoft patent application? I didn't see any reference to Microsoft as the application, though the "inventors" are from WA. There are several mentions that these could be implemented in Microsoft products, but are we positive this is a Microsoft patent?
In Aussie BASIC, patent pending, the combined use of the IsCloseEnough and NotReally statements would negate the use of such an anti karma item as "IsNot"
Actually there must be a large number of extensions to the BASIC language that could be patentable, timee to dig throught the source code...
There was an unknown error in the submission.
... the Latin++ alphabet, ( the current one + single characters for the multi-character phenomes ). 50% license commission available for all educational establishments. Untold riches result from legally mandated lincensed reading and writing.
It's because in the versions of VB based on COM, objects can have a default property. So rather than writing Textbox1.Text = "ABC" you can write Textbox = "ABC" and it will check for the default property of the interface and call that, in this case the "Get/Let Text(value)" property will be called. The same applies for collections etc, where Get/Set Item(index) is the default property so instead of Forms.item(1) you can use Forms(1).
Because of the default properties you need a way to disambiguate the assignment comparison of object references from assignment and comparison of the value of the default property. VB uses the Set keyword to denote object assignment
Suppose that the class myobject has a default property mytext that accepts a string.
Dim thisobject As myobject
Set thisobject = New myobject
thisobject = "Use the default property"
debug.print thisobject.mytext
Dim anotherobject As myobject
Set anotherobject = thisobject
Set thisobject = Nothing
and the Is operator to denote object reference comparison
If Not thisobject Is Nothing Then
thisobject = "Still Exists"
Else
If anotherobject Is thisobject Then
anotherobject = thisobject
End If
End If
This also leads to the property syntax where if the property accepted an object reference you had to create Get and Set methods, and if it accepted a value you had to create Get and Let properties.
VB hides all the COM reference counting details, so assigning one object reference to another is actually calling AddRef under the covers and assigning an object reference to Nothing is calling Release(). The New operator hides CoCreateInstance(), QueryInterface() etc.
Since they got rid of default properties with VB.Net the Set and Is are not strictly required, but they retained for source compatiblility and for the introduction of operator overloading.
I'm not sure if in VB6 two references to different interfaces of the same evaluate to the same, I would guess that they don't since one of the points of COM was to hide the object implementation.
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
Ok, it turns out I am wrong about Is not evaluating to True when comparing two references to different interfaces of the same object.
On reading the documentation for QueryInterface is says that an object must always return the same pointer when queried for the IUnknown interface. This means that the Is operator must be querying both references for IUnknown and comparing the results.
Hey, you learn something new everyday.
Class declaration for myobject:
Implements Interface1
Implements Interface2
Private obname As String
Public Function Interface1_methodone() As String
Interface1_methodone = "You called method one of " & obname
End Function
Public Function Interface2_methodtwo() As String
Interface2_methodtwo = "You called method two of " & obname
End Function
Public Property Let objectname(value As String)
obname = value
End Property
Public Property Get objectname() As String
objectname = value
End Property
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
Dim myint1 As Interface1
Dim myint2 As Interface2
Dim myobj As New MyObject
myobj = "this object"
Set myint1 = myobj
Set myint2 = myobj
Set myobj = Nothing
Debug.Print myint1
Debug.Print myint2
Debug.Print "These references point to " & IIf(myint1 Is myint2, "the same", "different") & " objects"
Set myobj = New MyObject
myobj = "another object"
Set myint2 = myobj
Debug.Print myint2
Debug.Print "These references point to " & IIf(myint1 Is myint2, "the same", "different") & " objects"
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
You called method one of this object
You called method two of this object
These references point to the same objects
You called method two of another object
These references point to different objects
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
I'm going to patent the keyword Something, so that code can be made even easier to write:
Then, since Everything is Something, I'm going to sue Everybody for Everything.
Some unfortunate guy suggested IsNot publicly in one of Microsofts usenet forums way before 2003:
& lr=&selm=86a0qh%243th%241%40ssauraab-i-1.productio n.compuserve.com&rnum=1
:( )
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=IsNot+VB7&hl=en
(yep, that was me and I'm sorry I did.
Good thing they didn't patent "ain't" because then I'd be fucked. I'm working on a new programming language, which has the "ain't" operator. (It works a little different than the "xain't" operator, which is like "eXclusive ain't.") Oh well.
If something can be patented after a weary 5 seconds of focused hard, imaginative work, I imagine that a popular language 5 years from now will look like this:
While.pay(control_structure_royalty) IsNot.pay(IsNot_royalty) Done.pay(variable_royalty)
Begin.pay(codeblock_royalty) Print "hello world".pay(null_terminated_string_royalty)
End.pay(codeblock_royalty)
(Note to investors: if your code is in the middle of the loop, you get paid more often!)
Pretending there's no prior art:
Priceless!
Say it right: "Nuc-le-ah Powah".
No, it's not, faggot.
Your replying anonymously to someone you think is a sissy? Your brawn must match your brain... Puny.
I hereby announce plans to patent an invention: Off by One errors
There is no prior art. (We'll, who's going to admit to it?)
Prove innovation? Who are we kidding? That requirement is long dead.
Utility? Ummmm.... Wait! It helps reduce the global fencepost shortage! Yeah, they'll buy that.
Now, every time someone releases a program with an off by one error, they'll owe me money!!!! I'll be rich in no time!!!
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.
This is just one of the many limiting factors of the patent. From just reading the first few paragraphs, I learned that the patent only protected them from people who use the exact name of the operation in a BASIC-derived programming language.
While it's still a silly thing to patent, it doesn't seem to me to be an incredibly big deal.
-Vendal Thornheart
...when he warned Asian governments.
It seems that Linux is using 228 times the IsNot macro.
wtf.n0x.org
Maybe someone else can patent isNot, or isnot, or isNOT, or ISnot, or....
Sorry to reply to my own post . . . when, oh, when will we get the ability to edit our posts?
Anyway -- it seems someone has already written a Prior Art HOWTO, as I would have discovered had I thought to run it through Google before hitting the "Submit" button.
And the patent office accepted that? Aren't there 20,000 previous uses of Is Not in programming languages in the past? How the hell they consider this an innovation? I tell you, the world is going to end soon.
The best part about this "invention" is that it apparently took three Microsoft employees to come up with it.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
That's a patent application publication, not a patent. That just means MS has applied for a patent, but they have not received one yet.
So can you or can't you do this:
1. Patent an operator from $dumblanguage.
2. Introduce the said operator in $newdumblanguage.
3. Sue people for making compilers for $newdumblanguage.
Where $dumblanguage == BASIC and $newdumblanguage == C#.
Lisp has had NEQ for at least 30 years.
I don't have any old Lisp books around, alas, so the earliest citation I could find is from page 96 of Smalltalk-80: The Language by Adele Goldberg and David Robson:
The book is dated 1989. However, it's the second edition and I'm reasonably sure that the operator is also described in the first, which dates back to 1983.
This sort of thing is really frickin' obvious for to anyone who's ever used a dynamically-typed language.
This one made my day.
Haven't had a good laugh like that in ages.
(NEQ "IsNot" Original)
(NEQ Microsoft InFromLunch)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
well IIRC the KCML version of WANG BASIC2C allows something like ADDR(a)ADDR(b) so you can compare two items to see if they occupy the same memory location or are the same instance of a variable. KCML has been around since at least the mid/late 80's. KCML is done by an English company. The place I worked used the Niakwa version of WANG 2200 Basic2C. It's been many years so I don't remember the details on KCML and I recently moved and my KCML stuff is still packed away somewhere.
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
I had feared that, and it is absurd.
Just skipping overbroad claims puts absolutely no burden for trying to file a correct patent on the patent claimant, and it leaves someone who reads the patent without a way to determine whether the patent applies to him without going to court.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Remember, it doesn't compare the contents, but the address - so
a IsNot b
is equivalent to
&a != &b
Which is three operators - two &s and a !=
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Thank you for speaking up! I see someone else shares the sentiment I've had the past few months. Patents are just an additional monopoly, and there's no justifying granting them to those who abuse their existing monopolies.
-AD-
I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Where does it says that the assignee of this patent is Microsoft? The word "microsoft" appears just a few times in references to Microsoft programming language products, but nowhere it mentions that MS has rights over IsNot. The "inventors" are Vick, Paul A. JR.; (Seattle, WA) ; Barsan, Costica Corneliu; (Bellevue, WA) ; Silver, Amanda K.; (Seattle, WA) and a corporation named WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP is cited as "Correspondence". The patent was filed on 14 May 2003 but the USPTO gave it the code 20040230959 and published it on 18 November 2004. It appears that it is not an actual patent yet, but just an application. I don't pay any attention to patent applications. Here in my country I have seen many applications in our patent office for UFO constructions et cetera. Of course they are never accepted.
You are my hero