[OT] Microsoft filled patent applications for scoped and immutable types

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 28 August 2014 at 17:34:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/28/2014 2:53 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
>> 	I should have said that in D it is used when declaring an 
>> instance
>> (i.e. at the place of the instance declaration) whereas in the
>> patent it is used when declaring the type. For a patent 
>> lawyer, this
>> will be enough to say that the patent is new.
>
> Um,
>
>    alias immutable(char)[] string;
>
> is declaring a type. It is not used in this case as a storage 
> class, and there is no instance being declared. String is 
> indeed a type.
>
>
>> 	Aliases are not really prior art either since they do not 
>> allow
>> creating an immutable type without also creating the 
>> corresponding
>> mutable type.
>
> This seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. And how does the 
> patent say an immutable T is to be created without saying T 
> anywhere?
>
>
>> PS: The above does not mean that I think the patent is valid 
>> (as a
>> matter of fact I don't). It only means that the "immutable" 
>> keyword
>> in D is not enough to invalidate it IMO.
>
> It's more than immutable, you're right. D also has transitive 
> immunity, which is a feature of the patent, and also relaxed 
> immutability during construction, which is also a point in the 
> patent.
>


> In fact, the patent looks like an explanation of how 
> immutability works in D.

This is why I don't believe in "coincidence". This could be 
either an attempt to crush D or some people might have realized 
that D's way of handling immutability is the way to go and they 
want to own it (or both). Where I'm from this is called 
"rip-off", "theft" or just "being a c**t".


H.S. Teoh:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by 
incompetence."

I never liked this quote. What appears to be outright 
incompetence can more often than not be attributed to malice.

But I agree, we should take this issue seriously. Even if the 
patent seems ridiculous, chances are that it will get through 
(exactly because it is so ridiculous). We should start to raise 
funds :-)