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

21–30 of 223 posts

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#21

Post by riskable »

thekingofh wrote: post #9
hdra wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

--edit-- see below comments.. this may not be so simple. No. The Apache License 2.0 does not work that way. You are allowed to copy and use everything in the Swift language to your own liking in a similar manner to the MIT and BSD permissive licenses. However if you then try and begin a lawsuit against Apple for anything in what you copied, your rights are terminated, therefore invalidating your suit. The Apache Lice…

The patent hasn't been granted to the world via the Apache license. The Apache license only covers the code in the Swift language.

So if you implement the claims of the patent in something that isn't derived from the Swift code you are not covered under The Apache license.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#22

Post by coldtea »

>This is very disturbing. It's like Apple has gone insane. Computer languages are not supposed to be owned by any company. We learned this mistake with Java and APIs. Computer languages are supposed to be a part of the Commons, owned by everyone for the benefit of humanity, not the benefit of a greedy corporation.

Who "learned that"? The public (devs, etc) already knew and wanted that.

Companies however, have been patenting their languages and techniques since OS/360 or earlier (IBM, Oracle, MS, Google, and so on). So it's not as if "Apple has gone insane" at all, all big players do it. And not because they want to sue either -- you also need them to not be sued yourself oftentimes... (if Apple doesn't patent e.g. their "Optionals chaining" technique mentioning, what's to stop e.g. Oracle doing it and suing them?)

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#23

Post by [deleted] »

bad_user wrote: post #8
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?

The Apache license covers derived works. So if you fork Swift, you’re covered. If you don’t form Swift, then you’re not covered. Note that the Apache license is much stronger / better than the PATENTS.txt files accompanying projects like those from Microsoft / Facebook, because those usually don’t cover forks and are designed to protect the parent company.

[deleted]

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#24

Post by thekingofh »

solomatov wrote: post #20
thekingofh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know what. I looked again at the license. I think this is the first time I've noticed a flaw in the Apache 2.0 license. I think you are right. Derived works is described as: "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof."

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#25

Post by maxxxxx »

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.

Just publish all your findings and establish prior art and you should be ok. Or is there more to it?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#26

Post by mathnmusic »

coldtea wrote: post #22

> This is very disturbing. It's like Apple has gone insane. Computer languages are not supposed to be owned by any company. We learned this mistake with Java and APIs. Computer languages are supposed to be a part of the Commons, owned by everyone for the benefit of humanity, not the benefit of a greedy corporation. Who "learned that"? The public (devs, etc) already knew and wanted that. Companies however, have been p…

> all big players do it

I don't know of any instances of Amazon, Google or Facebook trying to patent programming languages. Microsoft definitely did try this.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#27

Post by solarkraft »

coldtea wrote: post #22

> This is very disturbing. It's like Apple has gone insane. Computer languages are not supposed to be owned by any company. We learned this mistake with Java and APIs. Computer languages are supposed to be a part of the Commons, owned by everyone for the benefit of humanity, not the benefit of a greedy corporation. Who "learned that"? The public (devs, etc) already knew and wanted that. Companies however, have been p…

> what's to stop e.g. Oracle doing it and suing them?

Proof that they had it before it was patented.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#28

Post by roblabla »

save_ferris wrote: post #16
subb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the point. The idea of having a "defensive patent" is to avoid having trolls patenting the same thing and then going after small companies with no means to defend themselves in a patent suit. For instance: https://www.x-plane.com/2015/12/patent-troll-update/.

Anyone would be free to use the patent. But trolls can't sue with it.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#29

Post by solarkraft »

bad_user wrote: post #8
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?

The Apache license covers derived works. So if you fork Swift, you’re covered. If you don’t form Swift, then you’re not covered. Note that the Apache license is much stronger / better than the PATENTS.txt files accompanying projects like those from Microsoft / Facebook, because those usually don’t cover forks and are designed to protect the parent company.

This is interesting because it raises questions about what is a fork. Can I fork Swift and throw out everything except for the patented part and then merge it with my project?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#30

Post by solarkraft »

riskable wrote: post #15
hdra wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clai…

Can't you make a pretty similar argument about all types of patents?
Post reply on HN