Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's 'IsNot' Patent Continued...
An anonymous reader writes " According to the patent application--filed in mid-November by Paul Vick, lead architect for Visual Basic .Net at Microsoft; Amanda Silver, a program manager on the Visual Basic team; and an individual in Bellevue, Wash., named Costica Barsan--the IsNot operator is described as a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two point to the same location in memory." This article continues the tale started last november, and here is an eWeek story on the same subject.
the IsNot operator is described as a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two point to the same location in memory.
Oh please. I remember our programming instructor in sixth grade teaching us about this logic operator is BASIC. This is simply an effort (albeit transparent) for Microsoft to continue to duplicate pre-existing code for Microsoft specific code to ensure that programs written with Microsoft specific tools will maintain future market share for the company. In other words, the creation of a Microsoft specific "equals" means that code years down the road will require Microsoft specific tools to edit/change/run this code. I call shenanigans! This is not innovation in any technical sense and indeed is not even innovation in a business sense.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
So what's the smallest pattern of bits that Microsoft can fairly claim to hold a patent on?
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
We will all have to pay royalties to MS when using the English language. The fees are based on Scrabble's point system, with 1 cent per point. Pls. sign up at www.microsoft.com with your bank-account or credit card information and will send you our patented verbal-word-counter to be attached to your brain.
Thinking the words are discounted at 10% over spoken words!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
MS announced today their plans to patent the string object, the ampersand, coffee, comfy chairs, and the letter 'T'.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
I'd better finish filing out my patent application for "Is" before MS finds out. It's pretty brilliant, if I do say so. "Is" compares two pointers and returns "true" if they contain the same value.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
It all depends on what the meaning of the word IsNot, is not.
...Ridiculous IP claims will be the death of Microsoft.
When they're resorting to patenting what appear to me to be boolean operations with an object-oriented twist, that's a bad sign about what real plans the company doesn't have.
I'm a big tall mofo.
...why any rational company would actually be afraid of this.
People didn't take the hyperlinking patent seriously did they?
I used to work for a company that trademarked the word "xor" (that was the name of the company, now defunct, 450 souls at the height of the dot-com boom). BTW no one (outside of the computer industry) knew how to prononunce xor, so they ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal explaining that it is prononuced "X like the letter, or like the word"
And thus Microsoft will have another patent paper to toss onto the pile like so many unwanted gelatine Desserts.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
Rumor has it that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Honest Politicians Society and Slashdotters with girlfriends are all filing suit claiming that they're proof of prior art...
In all seriousness, the fact that a patent like this is even entertained is a more than a bit disturbing. How in the world one can patent a logical operator is simply beyond me...
No, they want to patent: if (ptr1 != ptr2) ...
I like how the submitter conveniently left out Paul's blog entry on the subject:
1 /2 0/2321.aspx
http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2004/1
He says, among other things that software patents are a "bad idea" and that he did not "feel particularly proud of my involvement in the patent process in this case".
So there you have it, from the horse's mouth.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Dear MS (can I call you MS?)
I heard about your new IsNot, I think it is so elloquent and r33t, but someone has gone and copied you with a '==' object comparator that decides if the references point to the same memory area!
I say sue!
Yours,
A Microsoft Fan-Boy
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Let's pretend this patent goes through; could RealSoftware Inc. sue the patent office for failing in it's duty? I mean, there has to be some liability here. If Microsoft can start patenting any crazy thing with their immense resources, and then everyone else has to scramble to get these patents knocked down, something has really gone wrong. Raise the patent fees so the USPO can really examine these patents. Make them liable for costs when a patent gets stricken for being obvious.
In the last month alone the software patent bastards also gained patents on:
Network drives and folder mapping
The Photo Album Software that came with your digital camera
The clickable progressbar found in all video and music playing software
The "recent" menu
It is about time that Europe puts some tough law on software patents in place. Otherwise I fear that VB programmers will emigrate en masse to Europe. Please keep them over there!
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
Can anyone explain why IsNot != !=?
Go IsNot patent, go!
The sooner the industry is choked with these obvious lock-out bullshit patents, the sooner development will grind to a total stop for fear of litigation. And as soon as that happens, the system will have to be reformed.
Well, either that or we all give up tech completely and be farmers. It's in the court's hands now.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Microsoft IsNot sane.
Microoft IsNot reasonable.
Microsoft IsNot ethical.
Why shouldn't they get to patent "IsNot"?
Insert witty sig here.
... on what your definition of the operator isNot, is. :-)
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
is for the Linux Corporation to patent the IsTo operator and the competition can devolve to a completely childish level.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Sorry, can't give the specific example since I don't want to give anyone ideas.
It is up to YOU the people to elect at least half-way savvy human beings who can change the system. Whining about it on /. isn't going to solve shit. For all the complaining that geek types do, I see scant few of us actually organizing and trying to make a difference.
Do I think Microsoft should be able to patent this? Absolutely not, because I don't believe the basic core functions of the computer should be patentable. Now taking those functions and tying them together into a cohesive program should definitely be copyrightable, but patenting a computer adding two numbers together (This will happen eventually, I'll bet a C note on it) is ridiculus.
If this is held up, it help define the precision of software patents. IsNot must be spelled exactly that, isnot would be ok. Ergo any innovation that contained a single letter different than the patten would be safe. Well that sounds silly but if it requires patent applications with every permutation of spelling a capitalization, each weighing in at 75 tons of paper, it may make the USPO revise some rulings. :-)
> When they're resorting to patenting what appear to me to be boolean operations with an object-oriented twist, that's a bad sign about what real plans the company doesn't have.
Yes, but think how useful it could be in their advertising campaign:
IsNot reliable
IsNot secure
IsNot a good idea
...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
However, I think there is a closer parallel.
Consider the following java snippet:
Of course, underneath it is probably implemented with pointers, but the semantics of the != operator on reference types is defined to be object identity non-equality.
This prints out the following:
s1 is NOT s2
s1 EQUALS s2
The comparison operators in Java, when applied to reference variable types (which is everything other than built in primitive3 types) tell you whether the objects have the same identity (==) or different (!=).
Imagine, for example, instead of a conventional virtual memory architecture, we have an architecture where we have different kinds of memory with different speeds mapped to different address ranges; say that adresses under 1 million are fast memory and addresses 1 million or over are slow memory. This is not impossible to imagine for some kind of embedded device. Suppose, in addition, the runtime system understands this and caches copies of frequently used addresses in the below 1 million range to enhance performance.
In that case suppose we have the java expression:
if (objRef1 != objRef2)
In this case, a correct java implementation on this hypotethetical platform could not use a simple address comparision. If the addresses were unequal, it would have to do a further check to see if one of them were a cached version of the other.
Y'know, a news for nerds site really ought to make it possible to post code examples without resorting to stupid tricks like this: 2qy982uoiu 3o2iu4o23iuoi23u4 23o4uo23iu ou34oi 23oi4u o2i3u4o i234 lkasdfls llflawl fasdf ssdlllle asdf foo sdalkfl adlk;jlaskdf lsadf . as;ldkf
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think SCO had been in decline for years before resorting to frivolous IP claims. It seems to me that their business model (sell a mediocre version of Unix on highly specialized machines to retailers) wasn't working well, their profits sank and they saw the writing on the wall. In comes a new CEO known for pushing IP litigation and *bang* they have a new business model overnight.
MS is in a different place. I think they will probably go into decline eventually, but they have a long way to go before their business model fails the way SCO's did.
Taft
Hold on, if Microsoft is just developing a patent arsenal in case someone else uses software patents against them, how come thay're pushing so hard for software patents in Europe? If this is just a matter of defense, Bill Gates should be asking European ministers to oppose the software patent process, not twisting their arms to push it through against the will of the European Parliament.
What am I missing?
It is major companies that are trying to aquire patents to be able to stop small start-ups. Basically, MS is moving into a defensive posture. That makes sense WRT the article that was written earlier about MS starting to decay.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Think global, act loco
If a patent is given for this, then it proves that the patent system is truely broken beyond repair.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
You wouldn't, by any chance, be a lawyer, would you?
Your advice is simple enough. But who is going to pay the legal fees you rack up while fighing this 'uninventtive' patent?
Sure, you might win. But you aren't likely in such a case to get a judge to order the other party to the suit to pay your legal expenses.
So, I guess you better be very sure, before you follow your advice.
- dj
NAND. You can build any logic operation from only NANDs. If they patent that, they've got us all.
According to Thomistic philosophy, being and good are equivalent. Therefore, not-being is evil. Therefore Microsoft is attempting to patent evil.
Python's 'is' operator tests the address. As does its 'is not' operator (it's distinct from "x is (not y)", a mostly meaningless op). No law says you can't have a two-token operator.
Maybe part of Microsoft's patent is spelling it with studlyCaps.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
I refuse to acknowledge all these silly software patents, and will continue to program whatever the hell I want.
Think of it: it should be easy to convince even a judge that this is an absolutely ridiculous patent claim. So invariably the judge will arrive at two conclusions: (a) this patent is invalid, and (b) the USPTO cannot do a good job. Especially (b) will go a long way in going back to a saner patent system.
VB.NET already has a keyword 'Is', which does exactly that. However to execute a code block if 2 references aren't the same, you have to do:
...
... oh darn, I need 'Not' in front of Foo... and you swear and hate VB.NET forever.
... ...
...
...
If Not foo Is Bar Then
End If
Which is apparently too hard to remember for these VB.NET programmers. In a way it's awkward of course, you write as a C#/C++ programmer: If Foo
So VB.NET designers thought... what about an IsNot operator? This really shows their inability to think: Colliding the Not to the Is operator makes it only work for Is. So I still have to write (if I would opt for VB.NET)
If Not A = B Then
End If
which compares to values, A and B and I can't say:
If A Not = B Then
End If
So, now they'll have for value compare:
If Not A = B Then
End If
and for reference compare you'll have:
If A IsNot B Then
End If
Not only is IsNot redundant, it also makes the language fragile. In the If A IsNot B Then.. example, if A is a class (reference type) and I make it a struct, the code breaks. This could have been avoided if they would have made '=' as a comparison operator for ref and val types.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
That's funny because XOR is logically the same as isNot. The output is true when the two inputs are not equal. The Cadtrak patent on XOR is 4,197,590. A company that I worked for got the threatening letter for using this patented technique for graphics displays.
I always thought that a good example of prior art is analog TV sync signals. The H and V sync are XORed because its easy to separate them using another XOR.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unless the government specifically passes legislation allowing you to sue the government, then you can't sue the government. It's a legal concept called sovereign immunity and is derived from the ancient concept of "the divine right of kings."
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
Unfortunately, the USPTO seems to have a large rubber approve stamp to use on all MS patent applications. Microsoft has already receieved several patents of dubious merit, many of which have been talked about here in the past.
People are still getting too caught up on the wrong thing. The problem isn't even what MS is getting a patent on. The problem is a system that allows anyone to patent software at all. Software is already protected by copyright, it had no need for patent protection as well. By allowing people to patent software, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Innovation will grind to a halt. Who wants to spend years reviewing a large program for potential patent violations? The only companies that will be able to write software will be those that have obtained cross-licensing agreements with one another. In other words, the big companies like MS and IBM. The day of the small programming shop are numbered.
Very few companies innovate. Most have climates that stifle innovation rather than encourage it. Large companies are good at buying up small companies that have made innovations and then turning those innovations into money makers.
If we eliminate the small start ups that are responsible for the majority of innovations in our country, we will be giving away even more of our jobs to other countries who have more rational approaches to intellectual property protection.
In the event we manage to force everyone to acknowledge and enforce software patents throughout the world, we'll slow the pace of innovation in technology at a time when it is needed more than ever.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
"VC++ is sufficiently broken"
I hate to say it, but that's no longer the case. For a couple of years now MS has had the most standards (ISO/ANSI) compliant compiler. In fact I think Microsoft even hired one of the main STL guys to help on this front...
You forget the most humerous part.
Microsoft is patenting an operation which basicly is CMP at assembly level. This means that Microsoft is patenting something they are using obvious prior art to acomplish. Now, if this goes trough, Intel and AMD will have to pay Microsoft royalties, for Microsoft to have an OS on the x86 platform!
As far as patent abuse and patent chaos goes, this is without a doubt the best, the most stupid and most tailbiting shit I've seen so far.
So far, because I don't rule out the possibility that even more moronic things may come up in the future. *sigh*
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Need I go on? You can see some more here:
Enter The 'Stupid Patent Tricks' Contest
Disclaimer: This opinion was created without the use of any facts
I think GNU actually has the prior art:
GNU isNot Unix
Here are two links:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/19650
http://www.golem.de/0307/26462.html
Both in german, however, because the lawsuits were in Germany and probably not big news in english speaking countries.
C - the footgun of programming languages
(From the Google Cache, couldn't find it on onion.com)
Microsoft Patents Zeroes, Ones
See here for a whole discussion from December 2001 and here for a suggestion for an IsNot operator dated January 2001. The patent application was filed in May 2003. Anyway this application is just funny and I hope it'll be granted just to watch the effect.
Speak for yourself mate. This is a US only problem, it's not affecting the rest of us. What's happening is US inovation is speeding up on it's continual decline. Been that way for about 10 years I'd say, and the legal aspect has been a huge part of it. Come up with something new that replaces X? Get sued by the makers of X. When was the last time you heard of the latest gadget coming from the US? Or the take up of some new technology? Broadband was the last big US-led inovation I can think of, other than the segway. In terms of mobile phones, the US is about 3 years behind the UK, and we tail Japan by another year. Television; we'll we've had digital widescreen for about five years, with interactive programming for 3 of them and now recently video on demand (real, with pause controls etc). Over on your side of the pond you are still debating broadcast-flags and the like! You can't do that to innovation, it's not innovative. Someone WILL come along and beat you to it. For example, BitTorrent and RSS is so much more elegant than over-the-air broadcasting, and it threatens to replace TV altogether. Where will the broadcast flag be then? And all the wavelengths auctioned off at high prices? Some one needs to pull their head out the sand quicktime!
The US is going to feel the pain from this for a long time. It's in the finacial shitter and it's digging a deeper hole for itself with each new corporate bought law. A lot of finacial experts believe that this is a large influnce on the "nation building" as they call it. While the war is a cost on the tax payer, it's incredibly good business and the spoils will filter down the economy and give it a kick start. But the world has gotten more complex, with more communication between everyone. You can't just go around starting wars everytime the moneys tight anymore. People start to boycot your products; they refuse to go to your country and you do lose out. It's a PR nightmare.
But that's thing nowadays. Countries mean squat. No one wants to be king or president. You get far more power and pay in business and it's far more obtainable. What the US government doesn't realise is that corporations can only be depended on to do one thing; whatever is in their own best interests. There will come a time when those businesses decide to move elsewhere, as that will be in their best interest. They hold no loyalty to the state. And when those rats leave the ship, there isn't going to be much left.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Click here for more info on the topic.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
Common Lisp has a number of equality operators (eq, eql, equal, equalp, =) which are subtly different. CL differentiates among objects that are equal in type and value, equal in value regardless of type, are identical, or some combination of these.