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

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:36:30 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:28:17 UTC, monarch_dodra 
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:20:49 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 09:08:24 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>>> Of course, the whole lot of them! I only wonder who they're 
>>>> trying to attack here? It must be some sort of strategy to 
>>>> put someone they deem dangerous off his stride. Probably the 
>>>> open source community and / or a competitor. I don't know 
>>>> the laws in the US and don't know how serious this is. It 
>>>> probably can't just be ignored. Is there some other big 
>>>> company they're trying to get at with this? Maybe they're 
>>>> preparing a counter strike.
>>>
>>> Yeah, IMO these patents can't be a coincidence.
>>
>> Big companies file patents. All of them do. That's just the 
>> way it is. I wouldn't see anything more to it than that. It's 
>> not some conspiracy or corporate war.
>>
>> That's the way the game is played. We just need to make sure 
>> we don't become the losers here. It would help to have input 
>> from Walter here though: It's his language, and, AFAIK, he 
>> also happens to be savvy with this kind of stuff.
>
> Their brand new type qualifier is the same as D's one. They 
> even copied the name "immutable". Maybe it's part of a 
> strategy, maybe not. In any case it's a "thief", I don't like 
> this word because you can't steal an idea, but they took 
> ownership of it.

 From a linguistic point of view it is only logical one should 
come up with the word "immutable" in this context. If something 
(data, objects) are not "mutable" they are "immutable" (this may 
sound trivial but it is not). I suppose they filed the patent, 
because concurrency, thread safety and multi core programming 
have become so important over the last couple of years, and 
because it has become clear that some sort of "immutable" type is 
needed. Thus, they seek to get ownership of the word/idea/concept 
(which is ridiculous of course) to (pre-emptively) knock out 
others (or get money for it by licensing it to others, including 
those they stole it from). A shame, really.