Apple is patenting Swift features • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#151

Post by pnw_hazor » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #144

Lisps that return nil for (car nil) are implementing "optional chaining". yes, it chains: (cadar nil) -> nil ;; the nil object doesn't have a "car" (cadar '((b c))) -> c ;; i.e. (car (cdr (car '((b c))))) -> c This is exactly like, in Swift-like syntax, doing '((b c)).car?.cdr?.car? where the ? indicates "don't blow up if it's nil", except the "don't blow up" is built into car and cdr . This freedom was introduced in…

You are talking about language features.

The patent protects how a compiler implements some features in a multi-target environment. Nothing to do with optional chaining.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#152

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

dwaite wrote: post #85

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.

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.

So, to make it clear - since that's a question that was unanswered in the linked discussion.

If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Or does AL prevent this?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#153

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

dotuser wrote: post #117

pnw_hazor wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Technically speaking, C# does not have optionals so I don't think it can be argued that C# violates the patent unless it's generalized to include null propagation which operates on reference types.

C# Nullable is optional for all purposes (a struct with .Value and .HasValue), it's just restricted to value types.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#154

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

anonuser123456 wrote: post #46

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.

Remember that each claim stands by itself, unless it explicitly evokes another claim.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#155

Post by smaddox » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #121

oflannabhra wrote: post #101

Chris Lattner has commented on the OP: ----- Disclaimer: I'm not an apple employee and not am not lawyer, this is just my understanding of the situation having spent lots of time talking to lawyers and other experts about this: I agree with much of the sentiment that software patents are often silly and the system is broken in many ways. This patent is a reasonable example of that (patenting syntactic sugar for monad…

What you misread is that the patent is awarded to Apple, not Swift. Apple is not being released under Apache 2 license and Apple is not restricted to using the patent only for Swift. If they decide tomorrow to have another language that is not being released under Apache 2 license then there is nothing stopping them from using this feature as the patent is already theirs. Also, has anybody noticed that every single l…

Exactly! Apache 2 may protect users of Swift from suits for use of Swift itself, but it does not protect everyone else from suits for use of the concept elsewhere.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#156

Post by cestith » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #93

cestith wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, but there's nothing distinct or original about the design elements. All sorts of products including electronics products already contained the obvious and practical elements.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#157

Post by saagarjha » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

I'm having a hard time getting a clear picture what this actually entails. I am in violation if I reimplement Swift without forking the project (i.e. a "clean room reimplementation")? If I'm designing my own language, am I no longer allowed to include optional chaining? If so, I'm pretty disappointed with this direction, since it runs counter to the entire point of accessible programming languages, including many of the ideas that Swift itself uses. Imagine if there were patents on C: software development would be far further behind than it is today, because nobody would be able to make a compiler for it or reuse its syntax or features in any new programming languages. I'm not seeing any benefits aside from a vague "it protects Swift users from patent trolls", but I'm not sure I understand how this argument works.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#158

Post by maxdesiatov » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

smaddox wrote: post #155

lmilcin wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you misread is that the patent is awarded to Apple, not Swift. Apple is not being released under Apache 2 license and Apple is not restricted to using the patent only for Swift. If they decide tomorrow to have another language that is not being released under Apache 2 license then there is nothing stopping them from using this feature as the patent is already theirs. Also, has anybody noticed that every single l…

Exactly! Apache 2 may protect users of Swift from suits for use of Swift itself, but it does not protect everyone else from suits for use of the concept elsewhere.

Including from suits from Apple itself for using concepts of Swift elsewhere in projects that were developed from scratch, not forked from Apple's projects, right?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#159

Post by sixstringtheory » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

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

It's really interesting. They're describing the entire apparatus that's been built up to switch from ObjC to Swift and allow them to coexist using multistage compilation, and the recompilation of IR code to target newer devices (or for a few other enumerated reasons).

As someone who's been working on the platform for several years before Swift was announced and got to watch it all unfold, it's pretty incredible to see it described so succinctly. And definitely worrying as to the future direction of the work I've done.

Could you help us know any similar software development ecosystems that have been similarly patented, or anything else that might indicate how it could play out?

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#160

Post by AsyncAwait » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

maxdesiatov wrote: post #158

smaddox wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! Apache 2 may protect users of Swift from suits for use of Swift itself, but it does not protect everyone else from suits for use of the concept elsewhere.

Including from suits from Apple itself for using concepts of Swift elsewhere in projects that were developed from scratch, not forked from Apple's projects, right?

Yes, that is my understanding.