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

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#211

Post by dwaite »

int_19h wrote: post #152
dwaite wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Apple could try, sure, and you wouldn't have something like the Apache 2 license to point to in order to attempt to resolve things quicker.

Any number of people could try to sue you for any number of things. Thats unfortunately how lawsuits work.

You could also attempt to get another license from Apple for your work. They might not be willing to do this unless you somehow could guarantee all patent licensees for your version of Swift would be unmotivated (by some legal clause or agreement) to sue them as well.

I doubt Apple would go through the work of getting a patent for something that they already openly give out licenses for people to use (via Apache 2) unless it was meant purely for defensive purposes. So I'd be shocked if they went after a from-scratch Swift implementation except for trademark purposes (aka, you can't call name it Swift if it is a partial implementation)

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#212

Post by shmerl »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #143
shmerl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patent law that allows software patents is already seriously messed up and urgently needs fixing. When it allows patenting programming languages, it's outright sick.

Software based inventions aren't special, they are just new to the game.

They are special enough to cause serious harm to progress if patented. This was demonstrated many times. Since the whole point of patents is to promote progress, software patents should not exist.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#214

Post by fnord123 »

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…

> 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.

This is wrong. The license says:

>3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.

'Each Contributor heareby grants to you, ... licence ... to use ... the Work ....'

However, I am very much not a lawyer. Like Chris, I do talk to IP lawyers as part of my work.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#215

Post by bdowling »

fnord123 wrote: post #214
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…

> 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. This is wrong. The license says: >3. Grant…

The license is irrelevant. Apple doesn't need a license because it owns the patent. Also, the license that Apple grants to others to use its invention doesn't take away any of its own rights to the patented invention.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#216

Post by lmilcin »

fnord123 wrote: post #214
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…

> 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. This is wrong. The license says: >3. Grant…

The issue is you cannot make a language that uses the feature. It doesn't matter if you are user of Swift or not. The license only grants you the ability to use the patented feature as long as you are using it as part of the licensed software.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#217

Post by coolreader18 »

saagarjha wrote: post #200
dom96 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is one very real reason to avoid languages owned by huge companies like Google's Go and Apple's Swift. They can and will do evil things, instead of supporting them please consider supporting smaller languages which are often just as good or better as Swift/Go.

Such as? Many of the newer languages I’m seeing, notably Swift and Go, but also TypeScript, ReasonML, and Rust have their development backed by one corporation.

dom96 was probably thinking of Nim[0], as they're one of the developers in the project.

[0] https://nim-lang.org

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#218

Post by nimmer »

coolreader18 wrote: post #217
saagarjha wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as? Many of the newer languages I’m seeing, notably Swift and Go, but also TypeScript, ReasonML, and Rust have their development backed by one corporation.

dom96 was probably thinking of Nim[0], as they're one of the developers in the project. [0] https://nim-lang.org

Yes, as well as libraries, tools, applications that are not in the hands of one or few companies only.

Plenty of technologies get hyped up by companies and later on bent out of shape or dropped.

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#219

Post by ConceptJunkie »

naringas wrote: post #41
solarkraft wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Patents were meant to protect the person who invented a particular physical object or physical process.

Patenting software amounts to patenting algorithms, which is basically patenting math. It's far broader in scope by its very nature. On top of that, it's not hard to get software patents on things that are obvious, often by simply patenting "$well_established_process, but in software".

Re: Apple is patenting Swift features

#220

Post by ConceptJunkie »

thekingofh wrote: post #9
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?

--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…

This sounds like defensive patenting, which is what Microsoft used to do: patenting things to keep them out of the hands of the patent trolls, but not to restrict people from actually using the idea against them.

This is not, by itself, a bad thing. In fact, it's good.

However, is there any way Apple could change their minds in the future and start wielding the patent against others? To me, that is the danger of granting patents even to people who appear to be acting as a good guy.

Post reply on HN