Yesterday, Microsoft filed a patent application.


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.

I can't stop laughing...
Posted on 2004-11-19 09:37:39 by Kdr Kane
Don't laugh, somebody could actually write a BASIC compiler, steal their IsNot operator and start making big cash! :roll:
Posted on 2004-11-19 09:50:19 by C0D1F1ED
Get ready to be sued. If we perform the same basic operation in code, we are by method violating their patent. And I don't have money or lawyers enough to argue it in court.

My only hope is someone in the patent office will see through this.

BTW, If this works for them, maybe we can patent stuff M$ is using and get money from them.

Regards, P1 8)
Posted on 2004-11-19 10:41:48 by Pone
Who think patent over software are good_
Posted on 2004-11-19 11:02:40 by rea
By the way, here is a little list for what I think that software patents are the most stupid thing (whit others) but this shine much between them.

The other day I been talking with a profesor about knowledge adquisition and that I when I was child draing the sun with his ray of light (lines), but I was watching a separation of lines and I was thinking for iluminate more far the light must be partitioned, but because the sun is the source, the light can not be partitioned, and I some times draw the light of the sun like expansive circles, anyway, the point is that peraphs I have watched what some call the duality of the light at a very short age.

We continue talking and I say that we are so intelligents but some times we let pass things, some times we see things but dosent take care of them, say me How many people have falled a apple over their heads and how many of them see it... only one, Sr Isaac Newton, much people before have watched it and pheraphs have thinked about, but havent taked it.

The profesor say me that there is a way when diferent people can reach a certain knowledge in a variety of ways, some people would need invert his entire life, others no, some people will study, others have a coomon feel, etc.

Aplied that to programming we see that we can reach the same objetive (even in mathematics whit the discover of diferential calculus) or knowledge, programming is some thing like maths is about imagination and mind, because there are people that can invert much time trying find some and there are others that not.

Is for that I think software patents are the most stupid thing I have watched in the last years...

For example the other day I was thinking that the problem of computers is that the electricity and the flow is not much, but what if I develop logic components that are based on ligh... after doing a little research I have watched that the idea is there, but before I read I where developing my own idea about the concept, you see diferent paths, I dont need read a book for know that I can do some, and If I can do it my self, I really will not like that a patent stop my learning, knowledge and imagination.

Whant another example... is suposed that only the mass is atracted by the force of gravity, but there exist a thing that dosent have a mass but is deformet by such force...... the time, pheraphs the sound is a deformation of the time in the space and not the other....

There are a lot of interesting things for think a little, there are alot of interesting things that I have constructed over the time, there are a lot of things that I have watched already out there, but not patent will stop me.

sorry, but when I read such type of things I become near to sad, because is a direct atack to the freedom of thinking, not only the freedom of speech, is a atack tobeing creative, is a atak to my person.
Posted on 2004-11-19 11:30:30 by rea
I don't believe patents are necessary for innovation in software. They are only necessary for monopoly-like protection. Think about it, until the first software patent in the early 80's (1983?), there was so much "innovation" and exploration and sharing of ideas. Nothing was preventing people's creativity and coroporations ability to produce something useful.

But somehow corporations would have us believe that patents are necessary to foster innovation. I don't buy it for a moment. It might be necessary for their interests, but it is not necessary in general. If there were no patent protections on software IP than those same companies would probably being doing just fine or competition would be more rampant. But with patents, you pretty much crush any competition.

At the very least, in my opinion, if a patent must be granted for software, than it should be capped at, say, 5 years. 17 years is too long.

There are only so many ways to solve a problem with software and if they are all patented than how does that help society? I'm not an Open Source advocate, per se, but if a closed-source, proprietary vendor patents and actively controls an idea (read: not an implementation), than progress is at the speed and approval at that company. How does that benefit society?

I'm glad there are other country's that don't honor US patents. And I believe patents will be the ultimate demise of a good thing, in the long run. Never underestimate corporate greed.

Posted on 2004-11-19 13:24:00 by _Shawn
in a sense patents are ok but they should not be ownable by corporations, only person(s) (group limit?), with a limit to the number of patents one can have and their time should be limited to 4-5 years something. (non-prolonguable). Also the governing office that turns out patents should be vigilant and strive to grant as less patents as possible, vicariously checking wether it's applicable or not.

Same for copyright really: 4-5 years is enough IMO. The fact that "steamboat willy" isn't public domain yet is pretty unsettling :|

BTW I thought a patent could only be gotten on a specific IMPLEMENTATION, not an idea, am I wrong?
Posted on 2004-11-19 15:27:44 by Hiroshimator
what the?! What happens when I need to use something like this in my code?
man, see what this world has become ...
Posted on 2004-11-19 19:28:31 by x86asm
The real funny thing is not that they filed for a patent ,but the fact that a patent might actually eventually be granted for such a thing :roll:
Posted on 2004-11-20 05:12:19 by clippy

the fact this particular example is utterly ridiculous has nothing to do with the debate on patents.

the abuse sure is a problem preventing others from using similar things they did, too.

okay okay, you might have had great ideas yourself before discovering others have had them before, so what?
its in no way a mean of reducing your so called freedom, if you feel attacked isnt it your way of seeing it because you think they havent go the right to protect their work?

maybe if you designed a groundbreaking car or compu you would be happy to give the idea for free? well, maybe indeed, and thats great, but some ppl dont and who are you to tell they should? if youre not happy, hey they might aswell shut up and then noone could benefit from it, i dont really see why software sould be different (although its true that in a sense, its hard to define when some idea or algo is so trivial that it cannot be the property of someone, and this point is, i m afraid, very important).
Posted on 2004-11-20 11:14:09 by HeLLoWorld
I am not an expert, but have you read about the little demand that exist from Kodak to SUN :), they are I guess ideas, I havent read much, but think if big companies can demand others for the idea???, we can have the same idea and implement it? or they will come if they see that they can get some money and put over a demand?... saying that what I use was patented before.

OK, is nice that they protect his work, but if you havent watched it, or you havent inverted the time and money, and you get a shine in your mind, for what they will claim that you have affected his work or what they will arguee?, what you think, is not their work and that is true because is your thinking. Not their work, sorry if they invert much time, but if you havent violated directly (ie still the source and the investigations) for what they can have control over your work?

although its true that in a sense, its hard to define when some idea or algo is so trivial that it cannot be the property of someone, and this point is, i m afraid, very important

All the algos are trivial in the sense that you can obtain them from a specific language.... ie, already there exist all the programms because there exist the base language, we the programmers only need to see what are the correct order of this items, but the algos are already there. Example, you can put a machine that output combinations of the items in a language, give some rules, and obtain some algos, altought the majority of them will have no sense. Ie, invent a machine that generate strings of not more than certain lenght, give some rules for discard some strings also some rules for the languages to be generated (context, impact of instructions, etc...), put the machine to work, obtain the not discarded strings, and patent them!!! :P, you will get a lot of money arguin that was your work when onyl was a correct order of a given language.

Altough the correct order of a solution in a given language for a human cost much, like you know the capabilities of human can some times over pass others (you can see even from your self trying understand a new thing) and pheraphs you can surprise yourself understanding a thing more easy that other times.

In the anterior paragraph I have talked about correct order of items for give a solution, that solution is a answer to the idea.

I think that correct orders should not be patented and less the ideas.

Languages are for comunication, but pheraphs some one think that they are only for get money, languages are for communication of ideas. Ideas transmited to a thing that aparently dosent understand ideas but we see our ideas in front of us now.

Is nice to have some money from do programms but remember that lenguages are for communication
Posted on 2004-11-20 14:21:10 by rea
there is no such a thing,
i won't pay a dime for using double clicking in my program.

who's the shitter patented that.

patent everything they wrote larger than 1 Mbytes so noone will write such garbage code like those dlls, but no more, they think they own everything.
Posted on 2004-11-20 22:51:08 by >Matrix<
I am not a legal expert, but I was under the impression that a patent cannot be granted unless the applicant can prove that "prior art" does not exist. That basically translates as "if nobody else is already using or has used it in the past, and no current patent exists".
According to that logic, this patent clearly should not be granted.
Posted on 2004-11-29 09:25:00 by Homer