Microsoft finally patents isNot -- do we owe them royalties on
#~~ ?
Marcus Denker
denker at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Nov 25 08:13:31 UTC 2004
Am 25.11.2004 um 07:41 schrieb Ned Konz:
> I wonder if we'll have to pay royalties on #~~ now...
>
>
No.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived
programming language compiler.
If you language is not basic-derived, you are save. The "invention"
isn't "isNot" but "isNot" for BASIC.
And the best:
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the source code comprises at least
one statement, and the statement comprises a keyword representing the
operator, the keyword recognized by the scanner.
So even if you have a isNot in your BASIC, just change your compiler to
not recognize it in the Scanner as an Operator, but add it to the
Grammar
and let the parser do the work. Puff, not in the scope of the patent
any more.
This patent is not only evil, trivial so on, but *very* *very* badly
written, as it takes only a second to find a workaround.
Marcus
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|