Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's 'IsNot' Patent Continued...

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the but-don't-worry-it's-only-for-basic dept.

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.

15 of 566 comments (clear)

  1. Oh please! by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Oh please! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "IsNot" is different from "Not equal to"

      But it is the same as "Not equal to" applied to the address of the variable:

      a isNot b
      is equivalent to:
      &a != &b

      So, it's still a pretty trivial concept...

    2. Re:Oh please! by shenanigans · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

      Well I can't help you. Stop calling me!

    3. Re:Oh please! by janoc · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well all LISP variants have at least four comparison predicates (and LISP predates Visual Basic by ages):

      From Lisp primer:

      = (= x y) is true if and only x and y are numerically equal.

      equal As a rule of thumb, (equal x y) is true if their printed representations are the same (i.e. if they look the same when printed). Strictly, x and y are equal if and only if they are structurally isomorphic, but for present purposes, the rule of thumb is sufficient.

      eq (eq x y) is true if and only if they are the same object (in most cases, this means the same object in memory).

      eql (eql x y) is true if and only if they are either eq or they are numbers of the same type and value.

      So what Microsoft is trying to patent is known in LISP as (not (eq a b)) for a long time already :(

    4. Re:Oh please! by WillerZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      The IsNot operator described in the patent also differentiates between objects with the same address in different memory spaces. They mentioned running a cluster-aware program which could manage objects on multiple machines simultaneously.

      So, it's equivalent to:

      ((&a != &b) && (a.host != b.host))

      Which is yet more complex but still not worth patenting a simplification on.

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    5. Re:Oh please! by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative
      a isNot b
      is equivalent to:
      &a != &b


      Well, in C, if a and b are strings, structures, or arrays, then the variable name is the same as the address.

      Therefore a != b when you're testing if the 'two variables point to the same location in memory' is covered by friggin' PDP-11 architechture. It's basically a comparison of two integers and a BNZ (branch non-zero) instruction.

      They can make all the claims they want about how they've done all sorts of innovative stuff to make the link novel, it's still comparing a pointer reference in a programming language as far as I can seem.

      What's next, start patenting the AND, NOT, OR family of operations? I hope not!

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Oh please! by BabyDave · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're only calling you 'cause they're too polite to call the person they really want.

  2. Uh, oh. by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. as was testified under oath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It all depends on what the meaning of the word IsNot, is not.

  4. Wow, nice bias by rabtech · · Score: 5, Informative

    I like how the submitter conveniently left out Paul's blog entry on the subject:

    http://www.panopticoncentral.net/archive/2004/11 /2 0/2321.aspx

    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)
  5. I'm all for it! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. All we need now by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    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); }
  7. Re:Ridiculous IP claims have been the death of SCO by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


    > 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
  8. What about Europe? by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  9. Re:Thats nothing! by chrisvdb · · Score: 5, Funny

    "X like the letter, or like the word"

    But not both?