Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is patenting Swift features

forums.swift.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 223 posts

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#11

Post by duncanawoods »

Can we setup the equivalent of https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ for programming language design?

If the patents are to defend the language then they should have no issue donating them to a dedidicated org which gives transparent and iron clad guarantee that they can never be used aggressively. If not, I expect them to pop in the next Apple vs. X thermonuclear ligigation where any and every bit of IP gets used as a weapon.

If we can't fix software patents in the courts then it might come down to us the devs to reject any language or API that doesn't sign up to into the appropriate non-agression pact. We need something similar for API copyright too. We are on a bad path right now where the big orgs have every incentive to be less open and more litigious.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#12

Post by snissn »

subb wrote: post #10
dmos62 wrote: post #2

These patents seem to be a countermeasure against patent trolls, since the code uses the Apache license. Quoting from link: > Apache license gives the right to use patents required to use the code (assuming the original author had those rights), and the code implementing optional chaining in the compiler is Apache licensed. So, the only thing Apple having a patent on optional chaining does is to stop frivolous suits…

I'm not too knowledgeable about patents, but maybe we need a "liberal" patent? Something that can't be used to sue other people, but protects you from being sued.

theoretically publishing an explanation of the methods and not patenting it is sufficient

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#13

Post by masklinn »

kbsletten wrote: post #6
skohan wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To echo a comment in the linked thread: what does the Apache license say about other implementations? If I want to create my own implementation of the Swift compiler, or create another language with optional chaining, would this license protect me? Or does it only protect the use of this implementation?

Well, given that Rust and C# also have these features I think the likelihood that the patent is upheld is unlikely. I guess they could threaten you with it since lawyers are expensive, but it seems silly to me.

FWIW Rust does not have optionals chaining, except in the monadic sense (in which case ML and Haskell have optionals chaining).

That is, in Rust you'd use Option::map or Option::and_then, there is no equivalent to the `?.` and `?[]` operators, the `?` operator (or `try!` macro) is a shortcut for an "unwrapping guard".

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#14

Post by thekingofh »

duncanawoods wrote: post #11

Can we setup the equivalent of https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ for programming language design? If the patents are to defend the language then they should have no issue donating them to a dedidicated org which gives transparent and iron clad guarantee that they can never be used aggressively. If not, I expect them to pop in the next Apple vs. X thermonuclear ligigation where any and every bit of IP gets used as…

Apache License 2.0 is as good as donating it. Just now, nobody can sue anyone else for that design feature.

Edit: actually, see below.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#15

Post by riskable »

hdra wrote: post #5
dmos62 wrote: post #2

These patents seem to be a countermeasure against patent trolls, since the code uses the Apache license. Quoting from link: > Apache license gives the right to use patents required to use the code (assuming the original author had those rights), and the code implementing optional chaining in the compiler is Apache licensed. So, the only thing Apple having a patent on optional chaining does is to stop frivolous suits…

Thats not the only thing, no? Doesn't it also prevent e.g. other people/company from including that feature in their own programming language that doesn't use Swift at all?

Yes. This, exactly.

By patenting this language feature Apple has very clearly stated that they are "making a claim of ownership" as it were of this feature across all languages and non-derivative implementations.

...which is a perfect example of why software patents shouldn't exist in the first place. One could implement this feature in any number of novel, unique ways therefore the patent is nothing more than a claim on a broad concept rather than a specific implementation (which is what patents are supposed to cover).

The paradox of patents on software is this: If the patent covers what it's supposed to cover (a specific implementation) the patent will be useless because anyone could implement what amounts to the same thing using different methods, languages, whatever. If the patent covers a broad concept it will prevent anyone from using it or innovating in that entire domain until the patent expires. Completely defeating the purpose of having patents in the first place. It will also likely (after millions upon millions of dollars wasted in lawsuits) be ruled invalid as being overly broad.

Software patents are inherently a bad idea and should be done away with.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#16

Post by save_ferris »

subb wrote: post #10
dmos62 wrote: post #2

These patents seem to be a countermeasure against patent trolls, since the code uses the Apache license. Quoting from link: > Apache license gives the right to use patents required to use the code (assuming the original author had those rights), and the code implementing optional chaining in the compiler is Apache licensed. So, the only thing Apple having a patent on optional chaining does is to stop frivolous suits…

I'm not too knowledgeable about patents, but maybe we need a "liberal" patent? Something that can't be used to sue other people, but protects you from being sued.

How would that work? If company A receives a "defensive" patent on a technology design, and company B decides to use that patented design without a license, seems like they'd be able to without any recourse. In which case, does the patent system even make sense anymore? I think that's the bigger question in the context of software.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#20

Post by solomatov »

thekingofh wrote: post #14
duncanawoods wrote: post #11

Can we setup the equivalent of https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ for programming language design? If the patents are to defend the language then they should have no issue donating them to a dedidicated org which gives transparent and iron clad guarantee that they can never be used aggressively. If not, I expect them to pop in the next Apple vs. X thermonuclear ligigation where any and every bit of IP gets used as…

Apache License 2.0 is as good as donating it. Just now, nobody can sue anyone else for that design feature. Edit: actually, see below.

IANAL, but as far as I understand Apache 2.0, it grants patent license only in cases which were used in the original code, not universally.
Post reply on HN