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.
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."
int* x;
int* y;
int foo = x != y;
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!
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.
But seriously, is there prior art? (i'm not old enough to know :P)
For future applications, the patent office will have to pay them to say "This IS NOT original".
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.
See what is going on? do you want this, too?
This is a direct attack against GNU/Linux, no longer will GNU be GNU isNot UNIX!
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
Hey! That's the prior art we need to stop this thing.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is...
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
But I do have the patent on IsToo non-enumarable infinity, witch is larger then IsToo infinity. I win!
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
no longer will GNU be GNU isNot UNIX!
Yes, but GAU Ain't UNIX doesn't have that same academic feel to it...
The dependent claims (2, 3 and 4) are merely shorthand to avoid writing the entire claim out each time, but for purposes of what they cover, you should read the claims like this:
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
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!
...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"
On the other hand, this patent does not apply only to the BASIC language. Each claim of a patent is treated as a seperate patent. Thus claim one covers any system that does the particular operation. Claim two covers a system where the compiler is a BASIC compiler. Claim three covers any system where the operator used is "IsNot" regardless of whether or nor the language is BASIC. Claim four covers any system wherein the compiler comprises a scanner, parser, analyzer, and executable generator (regardless of language).
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
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.
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.
... we will have to invent an "isnt" operator
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
He won't know I did it for another 260 years.
It's OK. I'm just finishing up my implementation of the "Ain't" operator, which will be released under the GPL.
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.
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
GNU is Not Unix.
....
Pine Is Not Elm.
Wine Is Not an Emulator.
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!"
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.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:
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.
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...
probably a vi user. I bet his ESC key is worn out also.
been there. done that.
Say, this is bad for GNU. You know, GNU isNot unix.
... at a store near you.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Paraphrasing Orwell only slightly, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is not five; everything else will follow."
[
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
Muerde mi brilloso culo de metal! ;-)
Cheers,
Adolfo
It depends on what the definition of "IsNot" is.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
People just refuse to accept that Microsoft is an innovator. But this patent proves it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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... :-)
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.
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.