rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (11/27/90)
In a questionnaire sent to USENIX members, there's some exploration of what activities USENIX might spend money on. Among these is mention of the possibility of activity against software patents (to which I say "yes, and get going on it!":-) with a cryptic note about the idea of an include file having recently been granted a patent, after the application pending for 15 years. I'm perplexed about this "include patent". There are obvious replies like "BUT...(sputter)...wait!... that can't be!...", knowing that the idea of an include file is a lot older than 15 years, but I'd rather rail against something concrete--which I can't do without knowing what was patented. Can anyone shed light on this? Conjecture won't help; please don't follow up with what you "heard someone who knows somebody who knows someone..." say. (In fact, if you'll email info, I'll gladly summarize it ASAP.) What was patented; who owns the patent? -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."
bukovins@motcid.UUCP (Dave Bukovinsky) (11/29/90)
On the issue of the patent for the include file - I'm wondering whether or not the 'League for Programming Freedom' has any information on it. This League is discussed in a very informative article in "Dr. Dobb's Journal", November 1990, pp. 56-73. This article discusses the history and current status of software patents, and what part the League for Programming Freedom is playing. If anyone receives information on the patent mentioned previously )for #include files) please post it - I think this is a topic we all need to be aware of. -- Dave Bukovinsky Motorola Inc. phone: (708) 632-4753 uucp: uunet!motcid!bukovins
friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Stephen J. Friedl) (12/03/90)
In article <5495@berry17.UUCP>, bukovins@motcid.UUCP (Dave Bukovinsky) writes: > > This League is discussed in a very informative article in > "Dr. Dobb's Journal", November 1990, pp. 56-73. This article discusses > the history and current status of software patents, and what part the > League for Programming Freedom is playing. I need to kick in a few cents here. I have generally not been in the RMS/GNU camp on how software should be free and all that, and I suppose I have always considered them to be a bunch of idealistic college kids. Not any more. LPF's paper on software patents was *very* well done, and it really woke me up -- software patents are A Bad Idea. Example: patent 4,197,590 covers using XOR to move a cursor across a screen, and the patent's owner is apparently getting active on enforcement. *Everybody* should read this. Write to league@prep.ai.mit.edu for more info. Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / 3B2-kind-of-guy / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl "If it doesn't core dump, ship it" - Gary W. Keefe, on product development