Re: overloaded function handles

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Robert T.
Short<address@hidden> wrote:
> Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Robert T.
> Short<address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> John W. Eaton wrote:
>
>
> On 27-Jul-2009, John Swensen wrote:
>
> | I think patent number 6,857,118 is the more applicable one: "Function  |
> values in computer programming languages having dynamic types and  |
> overloading."
>
> Yes, sorry.  I pasted the wrong number in.
>
> |  That being said, I find it ridiculous that the ability  | to overload a
> function by string name is actually patentable.  There  | has got to be gobs
> of languages that did the same thing before this  | patent was issued,
> right?
>
> Yes,  I agree that the claims for using '@' and 'feval' seem to go too
> far, and I don't see how they could hold up, but they could.
>
> However, if I understand it correctly, that's not the major point of
> this patent.  Instead, the point is that you can create a function
> handle in one context, and then use that handle in another context to
> call a function, and the dispatch will be determined by the arguments
> given and information about which functions are available at the point
> where the funtion handle was created, not where it is used.  Do you
> know of prior art for that?  Is there a way to implement this feature
> in a way that does not use the method described in the patent?  The
> language of claim 1 seems fairly broad.
>
> jwe
>
>
>
>
>
> Just glancing through the patent, I don't see how it is possible to avoid
> infringing.  I also don't see how a patent like that ever issued, but that
> is really beside the point.
>
>
> I second that. While I haven't read the patent, what John sketched
> seems simply (and obviously) necessary for any reasonable
> implementation of the mere idea of taking a handle from an overloaded
> function.
>
>
>
> Since the patent has issued it has already been
> evaluated for obviousness and prior art.  Even if you know of prior art,
> challenging an issued patent is not likely to be a pleasant or cheap
> endeavor.
>
> I am not a member of any patent bar so this certainly can't be taken as
> advice.  I have, however,  spent an absurd amount of time in the patent
> infringement world.  I will take a look.  It will take some weeks though.  I
> am seriously over committed at the moment.  For the time being, I would say
> not to worry about it, but we do need to recognize that all the Mathworks
> has to do is file a lawsuit and we will have to react - probably just by
> immediately pulling contested features out of the language (or maybe pulling
> octave from all U.S. distribution sites?) while we examine the problem.
>  Since there is no profit involved, there won't be any royalty issues, or at
> least I don't think so.
>
>
>
> Although I agree that some action would be desirable in the case of
> infringement threat, probably reverting the relevant changes, I would
> also plead for a way to keep the useful feature working for those of
> us not (yet, at least) affected by this patent. The idea of forking a
> "patent-safe" branch of Octave is not very nice, though. Hmm - does
> the mere fact that I uploaded those changes create problems for anyone
> in USA? What if they use Octave, but don't use overloaded handles?
> What if there's a global flag to disable it, i.e. turn the infringing
> code into dead code? Is that acceptable? Better consult a lawyer, I
> guess.
>
>
>
> I will talk to my patent attorney this evening.  I don't believe that the
> *user* has any liability.  The octave developers are probably the liable
> parties, but I don't really know nor do I really know what the ramifications
> or penalties are.

I believe you must be mistaken at this. If working around a software
patent was as simple as outsourcing its development abroad (say, to
the EU), all software companies in the US would be doing it. Also,
when Microsoft launched its FUD campaign against the Linux kernel, I
remember clearly that they threatened end users to be charged (which
is what upset many people; since certain things are just unfair, no
matter what laws say :). Also, in Czech law, using the invention
counts (although non-commercial use is free).

> I like the idea of turning off the feature so that those of you not in the
> U.S. can continue to use the feature in case of disaster.  I am not sure we
> need a whole patent-safe branch.  Maybe just a patch that non-U.S. users can
> apply that turns the code on.

Well, obviously if there are going to be more such issues, eventually
they will form a branch anyway.

>
> Keep in mind that this is a tempest in a teapot at the moment.  Let me do
> some "due diligence" before we put any real effort into this.  It would,
> however, be worth thinking about the turn-off mechanism now but first I
> should find out what is acceptable.
>

It is no problem providing a flag that disables the feature, ensuring
the relevant code will never be executed.

> I will chat with Matt and report back.
>
> Bob
>
>



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz