Apple is patenting Swift features • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#91

Post by cestith » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #87

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…

Indeed. They sued Samsung for making a phone that was a rectangle with rounded corners as if every maker of watches, wallets, tables, beds, couches, previous cell phones, cafeteria trays, cars seats, coffee cups with handles, axe handles, power tools, sports rackets, three-ring binders, televisions, remote controls, radios, messenger bags, and briefcases didn't realize sharp pointy edges are uncomfortable.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#92

Post by cestith » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #73

DannyBee wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IANAL, but those claims seem to describe .Net (multiple languages targeting a common IR?), so there's prior art.

p-code?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#93

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

cestith wrote: post #91

lern_too_spel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Indeed. They sued Samsung for making a phone that was a rectangle with rounded corners as if every maker of watches, wallets, tables, beds, couches, previous cell phones, cafeteria trays, cars seats, coffee cups with handles, axe handles, power tools, sports rackets, three-ring binders, televisions, remote controls, radios, messenger bags, and briefcases didn't realize sharp pointy edges are uncomfortable.

That was a design patent, not a utility patent; the former are more like trademarks in purpose than they are like utility patents.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#94

Post by davidgrenier » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

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?

This is a specialisation of algebraic datatypes, it has to go at least as far back as SML.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#95

Post by pnw_hazor » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

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…

Your example can be implemented in many different ways. This patent claims one or more ways but not all of them.

1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored therein, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:

receiving a first request to compile a first set of program instructions coded in a first high-level language, the first high-level language a C language based object-oriented programming language;

receiving a second request to compile a second set of program instructions related to the first set of program instructions, the second set of program instructions coded in a second high-level language including object-oriented elements and procedural elements, wherein the second set of program instructions includes a data type provided by the second high-level language to indicate absence of a value of any type;

compiling the first set of program instructions and the second set of program instructions using a modular compilation system including multiple front-end compilers, the first set of program instructions compiled into a first intermediate representation of the first set of program instructions and the second set of program instructions compiled into a second intermediate representation of the second set of program instructions;

linking the first and second intermediate representations; and

compiling the first and second intermediate representations using a back-end compiler that is specific to a target processor.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#96

Post by pnw_hazor » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 6:00 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.

Do Rust and C# implement these features the same exact way as Apple claims in this patent?

Patents protect how you something, not what you do.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#97

Post by pnw_hazor » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

2_listerine_pls wrote: post #83

DannyBee wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Filing your own patent pro se is one of the best ways to both waste your money and lose your rights.

edit: word order

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#98

Post by my_username_is_ » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 6:07 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?

>Can't you make a pretty similar argument about all types of patents?

Yes, yes you can.

While I'm sure that you can find examples of software patents that have patented a specific implementation of a given idea, you can also find mechanical patents that claim a broad concept. These patents exist for two main reasons: 1) They discourage competitors from attempting anything within the broad concept. Even if a judge would probably rule a patent unenforceable, the risk of litigation is enough to make legal departments recommend against doing things that are covered by the patent. 2) They give companies ammo when they do get to litigation. If Company A sues Company B for infringement on one of its patents, Company B can come back and countersue because it holds a large war chest of other broad patents. Even if most of them are unenforceable, each one poses its own risk that some part of it is held up and the infringing party is liable for damages. The quantity of patents involved (and the legal costs for litigating such a case) help push companies into a quicker out-of-court settlement.

The problem as I see it is not with software patents versus mechanical patents. It's with broad patents versus specific patents. There needs to be a mechanism for easily challenging the validity of a patent after it is issued.

Edit: For context, I'm a mechanical engineer who's worked on design & development of technical consumer products.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#99

Post by Hupriene » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

roblabla wrote: post #28

save_ferris wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The way the system is supposed to work is that simply publishing should be sufficient to prevent anyone else from registering future patents on anything that you've published. After all, publishing creates prior art which should invalidate any future patents covering your technology.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#100

Post by Someone » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #66

klq wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, on…

”With software, commercialization costs "nothing””

So, I invent a method that dramatically improves search engines. How do I commercialize it for “nothing”, if I’m not one of the few companies with access to a huge data set, and cannot protect my invention with patents?