Apple is patenting Swift features • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#41

Post by naringas » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #30

riskable wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

it wouldn't be quite the same because software does not have physical material properties. IMO this difference is crucial.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#42

Post by openloop » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

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…

Agree.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#43

Post by thekingofh » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

riskable wrote: post #21

thekingofh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

--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.

I believe there is a flaw in the Apache License 2.0 here. If the patent grant only covers the code in question. If this is true, then it not only reinforces software patents, but reinforces implementations too.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#44

Post by kevin_b_er » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

carterschonwald wrote: post #3

Monads and do notation as prior art. Boring

I wish you the best of luck at defending against Apple's lawyers backed by a patent system that no longer promotes the progress of science or useful arts.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#45

Post by judge2020 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

Patent text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9952841/en

I don't see how options chaining is specifically reserved, it's a patent on the entirety of Swift by the looks of it.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#46

Post by anonuser123456 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

uberman wrote: post #40

I don't quite understand. The patent (9,952,841) seems to be about the language swift. There is mention about language features describing the language, but I don't see a specific claim to any of them. "optionals chaining" (the feature that everyone is alarmed about) is just one of the features listed. Other features mentioned include an "IDE" and "unicode" as well as support for "functions". Am I missing something?…

This is how I interpreted it. It doesn't seem to patent a feature in as much as Swift itself.

This actually seems quite legitimate from a 'patentability' standpoint. The precise mix of features coupled with syntax would definitely be patentable under existing law.

This does make it risky to implement a competing compiler however.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#47

Post by dep_b » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

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.

I'm also pretty sure I had it in C# before Swift was introduced.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#48

Post by criddell » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #29

bad_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Judges don't typically fall for stuff like that. Just because you created something by using the fork process, the end result after your giant purge isn't recognizable as a fork of Swift.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#49

Post by Semaphor » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

thekingofh wrote: post #43

riskable wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe there is a flaw in the Apache License 2.0 here. If the patent grant only covers the code in question. If this is true, then it not only reinforces software patents, but reinforces implementations too.

My understanding is, that the point is to make sure the users of the code don't have to care about patents. It's a license for the code, not for the patents.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#50

Post by thekingofh » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

It looks like there is an unintended consequence of the Apache License 2.0 of allowing a company to patent some functionality, and the only way to acquire that patent is to keep your implementation as a close fork of the original derived work. The question is, whether or not the patent grant for just using swift (downloading and running it), can cover other development work that is not associated with swift. If not then Apache License 2.0 actually seems to paradoxically reinforce the situation it is trying to avoid by tying implementation and copyright directly to patents, thereby boosting patents as a way to squash other open source projects. Any comment by an Apache person would be greatly appreciated.