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

61–70 of 223 posts

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#61

Post by jofer »

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?

A key difference is that software is already covered by copyright. Identical copies violate copyright for software. For a mechanical device, identical copies generally don't violate copyright (trademarks, text, etc aside).

Mechanical devices need patents for the design, as a competitor can easily re-implement an absolutely identical design. It's often clear by inspection how it's made. A different device that accomplishes the same task in a slightly different way doesn't infringe on the patent.

Software already has protection against identical copies through copyright. The key difference is that software patents go farther; they claim to cover the concept. Any implementation of the concept violates the patent. Re-implementing software to accomplish the same mathematical concept in a different way still violates the patent.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#62

Post by basil-rash »

judge2020 wrote: post #45

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.

Yes... I really don't understand what all the FUD is about. I don't think most people here have read the actual text. Otherwise we'd have people complaining that Apple is trying to patent things like two stage compilation.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#63

Post by _bxg1 »

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.

And what about languages like JavaScript and Kotlin which have already integrated the optional-chaining operator themselves?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#64

Post by tasubotadas »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #32
kbsletten wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Groovy had null (optional) chaining https://therealdanvega.com/blog/2013/08/20/groovys-null-safe...

and Kotlin https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/null-safety.html

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#65

Post by skrowl »

As if Apple isn't a big enough threat to tech by designing their software to be incompatible with everyone else's hardware, now they want to spam technology patents on a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. This is a horrible idea and only serves to stifle innovation.

Please keep it in mind next time you purchase a laptop, smartphone or tablet!

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#66

Post by Cyph0n »

klq wrote: post #55
naringas wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To me software patents and patents for, for example, real world engines are the same. It's okay not to like patents, but separating software patents from the rest makes no sense.

Ah, but you are overlooking the key difference: you cannot commercialize an engine without building it. With software, commercialization costs "nothing" [1].

A smaller company could come up with a unique engine design, but without patent protection, a bigger company could just drop by and take the design and build it themselves. In other words, the larger company would get R&D "for free". In the engineering world, only by "building" the design can you make money (in general).

So without patents, there would be no reason for smaller companies to exist, simply because such companies would have no counter-measure for their lack of financial resources.

[1]: Nothing here means "no physical resources". The big costs would be labor and compute (depending on the idea). But I would argue that labor is a bigger cost for a company that would like to build an engine at scale (initial design, manufacturing, testing, supply chain, and so on).

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#67

Post by mikece »

Let's see if I have this right: Apple is patenting concepts in Swift then licensing it under Apache 2 in order to protect users of the language from patent trolls.

So they are patenting something for our protection?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#68

Post by black-tea »

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?

Someone could even implement the feature in a dynamic language like Python or Lisp for a particular application. Does that mean the application is infringing the patent because they didn't use Swift?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#69

Post by DannyBee »

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?…

IP lawyer here. You should ignore everything but the claims, and see what the claims say.

So stare at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9952841B2/en

and look only at the claims.

To me, that set of claims is ... worrying

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#70

Post by subb »

maxxxxx wrote: post #25
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.

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

Indeed, that could do it I think.
Post reply on HN