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."
int* x;
int* y;
int foo = x != y;
Would this be considered a preemptive strike?
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
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.
See what is going on? do you want this, too?
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
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
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.
Perhaps the intent is to keep implementations of Visual BASIC from springing up on other platforms. A great deal of software out there is still written in VB and this code often stands in the way of getting off of Windows for good.
Unknown host pong.
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 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.
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!:-(
Each claim stands on its own unless it makes reference to another claim. Claims 1, 15, and 21 are independant claims - that do stand on their own. The others are additional "inventions" that are narrower than the independantly claimed "inventions."
So if Claim 1 would cover something that C or another language already does, the claim is invalid and should be rejected.
IANAL, but does this mean that any language which wasn't BASIC derived would be free to implement this?
No, because 1 stands alone, you can't use it anywhere. 3 combines with 1, but isn't affected by 2, so if you wrote your own language that wasn't basic but used the word isnot, you'd still be infringing 1 and 3 (and any other claims that might apply)
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
scope of the patent seems so narrow as to really not be worth the hassle.
You are misreading the patent. It is incredibly broad. Claim 1 *is* the fundamental patent. There's legal reasons for tossing in the other stuff, but for our purposes the isolated claim 1 is itself a full "patented invention" (presuming the application is approved).
If granted, it covers absolutely any system and any language complier with any expression accepting two pointers and returning TRUE if they are different.
There are also extra claims on the act of running such a complier or on any media with instructions for such a compiler.
Welcome to the wonderful world of software patents.
The "prior art" and "obviousness" battles over individual software patents are a waste of time. The problem is the very idea of patenting software at all. The US fuxored the system when we REVERSED our rule stating math and mental steps were not inventions and thus non-patentable. And now the US is attempting to armtwist the rest of the world into reversing their rules to also allow patents on math and mental steps.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
> I don't remember anything about pointers in BASIC 20 years ago
Sure it did. We just didn't call 'em pointers.
10 FOR I=49152 TO 49152 + 8192
20 POKE I,0
30 NEXT I
I here is clearly a pointer. Now, mind you, the pointer read/write operators were a little clumsy (POKE and PEEK), and it was a pain in the ass to have pointers to native language variables (but doable if you knew your interpreter well enough), but the concept was clearly there.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
If the purpose is to create uncertainty, then even the merest hint, of thinking about, possibly, applying for a patent, may actually be as effective as being granted one!
Uhh, IsObvious IsPriorArt ???
Makes me think of another way to save money on govt spending. Simply replace all patent examiners with a rubber stamp that says "approved". Think about it, would we notice any difference?
Lucky for us the Knuths, Dijkstras, Prims, Kruskals did not patent the algorithms - otherwise we may all be using bubble sort or may not be able to sort anything without paying someone or violating something.
Of course, on the other hand, its good that these patents (IsNot, IsToo) are not as basic as the algorithms and thus we do not really loose anything.