"BCS" <n...@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ff1582d8cce06addc4d...@news.digitalmars.com... > Hello Nick, > >> "BCS" <n...@anon.com> wrote in message >> news:a6268ff157f28cce05385dcf...@news.digitalmars.com... >> >>> Hello Nick, >>> >>>> Seems a weak reason. A programmer that's worried about infringing >>>> software patents can't write anything more useful than "Hello >>>> World". I'm seriously not convinced at all that it's even possible >>>> to write useful code that doesn't technically infringe on some >>>> software patent. As a programmer, either you accept the fact that >>>> what you do is inevitably going to trample software patents, or you >>>> just simply don't be a programmer. That's all there is. >>>> >>> Or keep an eye on what people have actually been sued over and don't >>> do that. >>> >>> In this case I'd be surprised if it could stand up in court. >>> >> Especially since the Plaintiff would apperently be the modern-day >> Borland. Do they even exist anymore? If they do, would they even be >> able to afford a lawyer? > > Yes they could, MS bought it (I'm not sure if that's the patent or the > company, but MS has it now). >
Hmm. That means the LLVM devs themselves would be safe, but companies using it would get extorted ( http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1953&blogid=14 and http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html ). >>> Unless SEH is insanely convoluted to implement I can't see how the >>> patent passes the non-obviousness criteria. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness >>> >>> I wonder if you can get a patent thrown out as invalid without >>> someone infringing on it? >> >> I've wondered that, too. Actually, I've wondered that about US laws in >> general. Being a US citizen (and having passed the manditory "American >> Government" class in high school) I probably *should* know... :/ >> > > In the US we have two kinds of laws; the kind nobody should need and the > kind nobody understands. ;) > Heh :)