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

81–90 of 223 posts

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#81

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

snissn wrote: post #12
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.

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

Not since the US changed to first-to-file. A patent can be issued to another party and you can be sued for using your own invention. If an examiner never finds your prior art you're still on the hook to deal with the expensive legal process of defense and invalidation.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#82

Post by fabianhjr »

Just to bring clarity on what has been patented on one of the patents:

    Monad Maybe where
        Nothing  >>= _ = Nothing
        (Just x) >>= f = f x
Those three lines, implementing the Maybe Monad/bind operation, are commonplace in all functional languages. (They just called it Optional instead of Maybe and "chaining" instead of "bind"/>>=)

( https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/OptionalChai... )

EDIT:

The second one linked is a package manager — https://patents.google.com/patent/US9329841B2/en?oq=9%2c329%...

The third one is "a programing language that combines elements from C and Objective-C", sounds like a broad claim on swift — https://patents.google.com/patent/US9329844B2/

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#83

Post by 2_listerine_pls »

DannyBee wrote: post #69
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

Could you recomend me a book or course on how to file an utility patent? I took a mooc explaining the overall process but it lacks details.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#84

Post by pnw_hazor »

jofer wrote: post #61
solarkraft wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accompl…

Patents protect how something is done. Copyrights protect what you make (e.g.,. expression of idea).

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#85

Post by dwaite »

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.

Yes, but this is also the case for say features in Swift that IBM contributes to the code base.

It is a purposeful limitation of the Apache 2.0 license that the "patent pool" effect is limited to the project.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#86

Post by stochastic_monk »

fabianhjr wrote: post #82

Just to bring clarity on what has been patented on one of the patents: Monad Maybe where Nothing >>= _ = Nothing (Just x) >>= f = f x Those three lines, implementing the Maybe Monad/bind operation, are commonplace in all functional languages. (They just called it Optional instead of Maybe and "chaining" instead of "bind"/>>=) ( https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/OptionalChai... ) EDIT: The second one lin…

Rust does this as a core idiom. I don’t think this will work.

Edit wrt edit in parent: all three of these claims apply to Rust.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#87

Post by lern_too_spel »

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…

> These patents seem to be a countermeasure against patent trolls.

Nope. Prior art is the only protection against patent trolls. Patents are no protection at all against trolls because patent trolls are unlikely to infringe any of your patents, due to their sole business being patent litigation.

There are two reasons for Apple to get these patents: defensive and offensive patent litigation against other companies in the industry. Apple has a history of using offensive patent litigation, going so far as using it as a weapon to keep industry wages low. https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-threatened-palm-with-pa...

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#88

Post by cestith »

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?

It also prevents any fully independent implementation of a compatible Swift since it wouldn't be from the Apache-licensed source.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#90

Post by klrr »

willio58 wrote: post #79
nonsince wrote: post #19

This feature wasn’t even invented in Swift, the fact that a patent was granted on it shows the sorry state of technical policy making

Out of curiosity, which language would you say first implemented optionals?

I don't know which specific language, but there been around since at least 80s I would guess.
Post reply on HN