Breakpoints have now been patented

An anonymous reader noted that apparently Breakpoints have now been patented. From the link "A method for debugging including the steps of receiving code having a software breakpoint function therein, running the code for the purpose of debugging, monitoring the code to detect the presence of the software breakpoint function, recognizing the software breakpoint function, determining an action to be performed based on the software breakpoint function, and implementing the action. The present invention also includes an apparatus for implementing the method for debugging and a medium embodying a program of instructions for execution by a device to perform the method for debugging."

Comments

Could someone please patent code comments?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to have this as an excuse for not doing them. Thanks.

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[LordSnooty]

In that spirit, I hereby copyright the phrase "THIS IS A KLUDGE"

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[SL Baur]

No that's not what they've patented. They've patented source level debugging with static break points. Apparently the developer litters the source code with SOFTWARE_BREAKPOINT; calls which turn into do-nothing statements if there is no debugger running the code. The target environment appears to be an embedded system like a cellphone.

They have not patented hardware breakpoints, gdb, etc. and a huge advantage of their system is that you could apparently debug and selectively enable/disable breakpoints in a production ROM executable image.

I know noone reads these patents when these kinds of articles go by, this is /., but is it too much to ask that the article submitter or the editor read them first?

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[keird]

Visual Basic has had this for years. It's called Stop. When running in the IDE execution breaks at the Stop command just as if you had a breakpoint defined. The command does nothing when running outside of the IDE.

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[SL Baur]

No, they're not preprocessor statements. They are calls to actual nop functions (the patent calls them "void" functions which is highly misleading). Some example code:

static void sw_break1(void)
{
}
static void sw_break2(void)
{
}
extern void do_something_with_side_effects(void);
extern int some_function(int, int, int);
void some_buggy_function(int a, b, c)
{
  int d;
 
  do_something_with_side_effects();
  sw_break1();
  d = some_function(a, b, c);
  sw_break2();
}

Now, if you declare the functions sw_break1 and sw_break2 as software breakpoint functions to the debugger and not the function do_something_with_side_effects, the debugger will recognize that the nop calls to sw_break? should do something special and trap them. Since they are nop functions, obviously if the program is not being run under a debugger, nothing special happens and the program doesn't crash.

The way the description is worded, the debugger is expected to be doing the equivalent of single stepping through the program at a source code level looking for calls to special nop functions. When it detects some such, it can perform some (debugger) user defined operation. Because these are specifically software breakpoints, they are built into the program at compile time and are always present whether or not the program is being debugged.

The patent goes on to claim various methods of describing which void functions should be considered special by the debugger, including a broad all parameterless void functions are special. Any required special debug code is linked from a library and hence, this method of debugging allows one to enable and disable breakpoints dynamically in an read-only image executing directly off a ROM.

I'm a programmer not a lawyer and I've never done embedded programming so I haven't much of a clue whether or not there's prior art, but I am certain that gdb or any debugger that modifies the executable image in any way are not within the claims of this patent.

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[SL Baur]

So a macro of something like #define SOFTWARE_BREAK asm { int 3; } which I have been using for years is now patented? That's laughable. No, that's not what they patented. The patent covers portable software breakpoints which are detected by mapping a special (void) function called to an action. The patent also covers a variety of methods of describing which void function calls should be trapped by the debugger and a variety of methods by which the name of the special void function call can be mapped into an action to perform.

No assembly is involved, the method is processor agnostic. No open inline code is involved either as the breakpoints must be detectable by software looking for function calls.

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[Almost-Retired]

if that's the case....I think I can find old code that I wrote back in the mid-90's that I did that...

How in 104ee+99 kinds of hell can this patent stand? I was doing that in the late 70's, on an 1802 board called the Cosmac Super Elf, and 6 months later on a pair of z80 boards called the micro-professor. And in both cases I was doing it without an assembler! I was poor, so I looked the hex code up in the manual and entered it with the same hex editor I was using for the debugging, by inserting a breakpoint that took it back to the monitor and captured the machine state for a leasurely inspection. How the hell else did one debug machine code in those days?

Hell and damnation, I'll bet Grace Hopper even used this technique. And I'd bet that same 6-pack she learned it from somebody that had been doing it for 5 years then...

I can't fscking believe this, its only one step more complex than the (in)famous xor patent for moving the curser.

Will someone Please deliver us from the insanity that is our patent system?

--
No Cheers this time, Gene

Next up...

[CdrGlork]

Next to be patented will be the GOTO statement, so ALL YOU LAZY PROGGERS WILL STOP USING IT!

Re:Next up...

[jimstapleton]

ok, if you do that, can I patent a system whereby human-readable text is converted into machine instructions?

Re:Next up...

[Vihai]

I DO use gotos heavily.

If you know where and how to use them, they actually are a sensible choice.

They are very good in implementing the function rollback code, that is code which has to undo everything the function has done in case of an error.

For example:

int allocstuff(void)
{
        char *a = malloc(100);
        if (!a)
                goto err_malloc_a;

        char *b = malloc(100);
        if (!b)
                goto err_malloc_b;

        return 0;

        free(b);
err_malloc_b:
        free(a);
err_malloc_a:

        return -1;
}

Re:Next up...

[Jarjarthejedi]

Patent Application 297641286876b

A method by which a specific unbound sequence of comparisons are performed with the program being instructed to perform differing operation based on the results. Should none of the comparisons result in the machine determining that the variable being compared fits the condition a "default" condition shall be allowed. Using this system a large number of such Improved Jumps can be performed with less code and processing power.

((For those without programming knowledge, or sense of humor, the parent wants to post If-Then statements, this is a Switch statement. That is all))

Re:Next up...

[Dachannien]

Your code makes me want to throw up.

Re:Next up...

[teslar]

There's no try/catch in C, I'm afraid.... you're thinking C++.

Re:Next up...

[gyranthir]

Cobol already exists!!!

Re:Next up...

[Feyr]

he did say human readable

Re:Next up...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you know where and how to use them, [gotos] actually are a sensible choice.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

10 PRINT "YOU'RE A DICK..."
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Re:Next up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now add ten more ifs there and see how readable it becomes vs. the goto solution with ten more labels and gotos

What on earth is wrong with people? Doesn't anyone ever actually sit back and THINK about how to write readable, maintainable procedural code?! First of all, any half-sensible person would put these things into a structure, containing pointers to such allocated memory. Then you just have functions that initialize and destroy that structure.

But, if you're hell-bent on allocating a bunch of memory in separate pointers, try this on for size:

int allocstuff(void)
{
            int return_val = 0;

            char *a = malloc(100);
            if (!a) {
                        return -1;
            }

            char *b = malloc(100);
            if (!b) {
                        free(a);
                        return -2;
            }

            char *c = malloc(100);
            if (!c) {
                        free(a);
                        free(b);
                        return -3;
            }

            char *d = malloc(100);
            if (!d) {
                        free(a);
                        free(b);
                        free(c);
                        return -4;
            }
.
.
.
            return return_val;
}

Advantages:
1) This way, it's very easy to read and follow the code. Any error causes you to abort immediately.
2) It makes it very easy to assign different return codes for different errors.
3) There's no complicated and messy multiply-nested control blocks here.

Disadvantages:
1) Later failure clauses can have a long list of free() statements. BUT, this way the code is simple to follow, and it's easy to verify any oversight.
2) Potentially, you have code bloat, from lots of redundant free() statements. Only a problem if you're writing for some tiny-ass embedded system. In my experience, the number of people who THINK they need to worry about code bloat is a lot larger than the number of people who actually DO need to worry about code bloat.

I can't count the number of times I've come across code that looks like the grandparent poster's, and re-wrote it. If you're writing for anything larger than a cellphone, and you think nested goto statements are the best way to handle this problem, you're not qualified to write procedural C code. Go learn OOP and use some higher-level language with a garbage collector.

      -D

USPTO Link

[MECC]

Here.

Got there from a search at their site...

Err, prior art?

[RingDev]

Filing Date: 05/01/2002
Publication Date: 11/06/2003

Now, I'm pretty sure there is a whole slew of prior are on this, especially since it sounds like they are describing the method Visual Studio uses for break points and debugging. Heck even the debugging tools in VB5 and VB6 fit this description and that's from back in the mid/late 90's.

-Rick

That's it.

[Manos_Of_Fate]

I'm applying for a patent on "A system of tubes, that carries information globally, so as to assist the procurement of pr0n."

Re:That's it.

[blantonl]

I'd love to see the prior "art" for this one.

I think this is a bit different

[AKAImBatman]

I'm not up on my patent-ese, but I think this is describing a specific type of breakpoint technology based on virtual functions. Since we've been talking about Javascript so much lately, and it's so easy to do virtual functions in JS, here's an example in JS code:

Debugger.breakPoint = function()
{
//do nothing
};

Now if you put the function in your code, nothing happens:

Debugger.breakPoint();

But if you have the debugger initialized, it will replace the virtual function like this:

Debugger.breakPoint = function()
{
    Debugger.runDebuggerAndStopTheWorld();
};

Thus you end up with software breakpoints that can trigger the debugger based on optional listeners. At least, that's how I understand it. I could be wrong about the actual implementation.

Re:I think this is a bit different

[Mr. Underbridge]

Thus you end up with software breakpoints that can trigger the debugger based on optional listeners. At least, that's how I understand it. I could be wrong about the actual implementation.

You've just observed the slashdot patent attention span deficiency. Because most posters on this site don't have the slightest clue how to read a patent, they interpret a patent that claims to improve technology X by using method Y a synonymous to patenting X. Sure, this is obviously wrong to a moderately intelligent Orangutan, but nevertheless, it happens a lot here.

Re:I think this is a bit different

[escay]

From what I understand (read the invention background section in the patent) This is a patent about the implementation of a breakpoint handling mechanism, not the idea of using breakpoints to debug itself. specifically, conventional breakpoint sends a software interrupt that is either caught by (a) the debugger, pausing/halting program execution or (b) the OS, in case no debugger is present, resulting in a system hang or crash. Also the assembly halt code may vary for different processors.

The patented breakpoint function catches interrupts and handles them in a specific way, irrespective of whether a debugger is running or not, and also issues CPU-indepedent halt codes, marking an improvement over existing techniques.

Karma whoring, you say? I just have a fascination for patents.

I have a ton of prior art on this one

[bherman]

Take any of my code....it has a ton of breakpoints. Usually any function with an input breaks at that point.

What's a breakpoint?

[seniorcoder]

I assisted in the hiring of a mid-level developer for our team.
One week into his new job, I suggested he set a breakpoint in his code to quickly determine the cause of a problem. He said: "What's a breakpoint?"
A month later he was fired.

How does a developer manage to work for a few years without knowing what a breakpoint is?

Re:What's a breakpoint?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> How does a developer manage to work for a few years without knowing what a breakpoint is?

His code always worked first time?

How Patents Work

[rilister]

Hey people - I read TFA and there's no detail whatsoever attached.

Before y'all get real excited about insane patents:

1) This is a patent application, NOT a granted patent. Hence the serial number beginning 2003 - this means the application was submitted in 2003. It should have been processed now. I'll take a look if I get a spare moment.

2) This is a snippet from the patent abstract, I'd say. It doesn't mean much at all - abstracts are pretty irrelevant to the content of a patent. We have no idea what they are actually patenting from this: it could be an entirely new mechanism for doing this, new code, a genetically engineered cow with the capability of implementing breakpoints.

The abstract means NOTHING - it's often not supposed to. Don't have a cow, guys.

Re:How Patents Work

[karolgajewski]

If you look up the application number in the USPTO, you will see that it has indeed matured to patent: US 7,055,140

The enforcability of this patent, however, is left to the discretion of the patent owner.

hardware debugger

[Anonymous Coward]

its a hardware debugger or so it appears, not a software one, they specifically address pitfalls with software debuggers and why they did this method.

while hardware ones arent totally new, they arent that common either. gdb is immune from this for example since its software only.

the abstract isnt the patent, the title isnt the patent, the claims are the patent. Readers are encouraged to read the claims and not spread FUD because they can.

Re:hardware debugger

[richie2000]

I had a hardware breakpoint debugger in The Final Cartridge II on the Commodore 64. That was, what - 20-25 years ago? This patent was issued last year.

That said, the first 13 claims pertain to software only (curio: the word "software" appears no less than 17 times in the first claim, "hardware" scores a big fat zero). Subsequent claims seem to revolve around a device reading a medium where the debug code is stored, ie RAM, some kind of ROM or even a CD with reader would fit this description.
It's so vaguely stated as to be totally useless. Useless, that is, if someone were to actually use this patent to implement something useful. You know, like the patent system was supposed to do. Very useful if it's to be used to threaten competitors and stifle innovation.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts", my ass.

Re:Good and sad at the same time

[RingDev]

"It's good to see that this patent is (or appears to be) registered as a free patent that can be used by anyone."

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion. The patent has been published, but I don't see anything in the link stating that the company has a non-enforcement vow.

-Rick

are you kidding?

[nanosquid]

"Free patents online" is a service that lets you search for patents on-line for free; the patents themselves aren't "free".

I just patented CODE WITHOUT COMMENTS

[giafly]

to prevent horrors like OP. Did you notice how the "free(b)" call was after an unconditional return? Somebody didn't.

Re:I think this is a bit different - Not Really

[evought]

Yeah, except that debugging, breakpoints, and "virtual functions" or closures, interpreted code, or whatnot have been around for so long, that there is essentially nothing new under the sun. Smalltalk implementations were able to call into the debugger through an assert-like mechanism. You could then enter the debugger, change values around, and continue execution. Made things much easier when you were in the middle of a multi-day simulation test run and hit a problem. You could note the problem, fix it, and continue. Various Lisp, Scheme, ProLog and so forth variants have done some very neat things with debugging support through assertions, exceptions, traps, and all kinds of mechanisms. Essentially, any time you have an interpretive runtime, people play with different ways to do debugging.

Another way to look at it is that many runtimes will automatically enter the debugger on an exception or trap of some kind. An assertion failure generates an exception or trap. Assertions are generally controlled by DEBUG variables of some kind. Viola! Configurable code-side breakpoints. Different languages handle resumption from exceptions in different ways.

The problem is that people who write patents think that the mere act of putting two things together is innovative, even if the first thing is a tool, and the second is a logical extension of the tool's purpose, like adding "on the Internet" to something and calling it an invention. In this case, they did not even bother to see if it was done before, probably because they have no knowledge of languages outside the mainstream.

Well? Make a point!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Prior art never seems to be much of an obstacle to getting patents. This keeps the patent industry active, which of course appeals greatly to the patent lawyers.

I recently had a look at the area in which I have one of my patents and found no less than five patents which have claims that mine had. One of them even cited my patent in the search list and still made conflicting claims that were allowed.

This situation is of course ridiculous. There is no accountability in the patent system. That is, there is no feedback in the system that ensures the USPTO provides high quality patents. The USPTO does not get sued if they give out stupid patents. No, you need to hire a patent lawyer and go sort it out in court. There are even some patent lawyers that specialise in mining the patents for prior art conflicts and solicite business that way.

This situation wiill not fix itself because those in the system really like it the way it is. The USPTO keeps cranking out money for Uncle Sam by essentially selling the same property many times over. The lawyers love it. They get to charge fees to apply for a patent, then get to charge even more to fix the mess caused by broken patents. So why would it change?

The only way it will change is if the practitioners become accountable for their actions. If they issue a bad patent then USPTO should pay for fixing the mess. USPTO would not like that, but it would soon improve patent quality. That would reduce patent disputes too, so the lawyers would not like it either.

Step 2?

[fishdan]

Step 1: Patent commenting
Step 2: ???????????
Step 3: Profit!!!!

The problem is there will be no profit because no one comments. On the other hand, at least there is no prior art to rule against your patent.

Re:Step 2?

[sunwukong]

If you really want to make money, patent not commenting code.

Re:Step 2?

[MindKata]

"patent this, patent that etc.."

Ok, I've just patented The Big Bang ... now you all have to pay up or I can exclude you from my reality.

Why reading patents is bad for you

[nitecoder]

IANAL, but from what I understand there is a reason people don't read patents, at least in the US. If you violate a patent knowingly, you are liable for triple damages, whereas is you violate it unknowingly, only single damages.