SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Apple's mobile phone language Swift has some sort of "optionals chaining" that Apple finds novel enough to patent.
From the discussion, it appears Apple is intentionally using an Apache 2 license to ensure that access to this feature remains freely available. (Insert obligatory IANAL disclaimer.) Any Soylentils care to weigh in?
https://forums.swift.org/t/apple-is-indeed-patenting-swift-features/19779
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Patents Programming Language Feature
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 19 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"Elves and Dragons!" I says to him. "Cabbages and potatoes are better
for you and me."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Monday January 28 2019, @09:22AM (2 children)
Note that software patents are invalid in the USA and the EU.
USA: Software patents under United States patent law [wikipedia.org]
EU (European Patent Convention, which covers more countries than members of the European Union): Software patents under the European Patent Convention [wikipedia.org]
That said, the law does not stop anything with a legal personality from applying for a patent, and patent examiners don't always get application of the law correct*. Unfortunately, getting a patent struck down (for ineligibility) takes time and money that many people and companies don't have: it is cheaper to pay off a 'patent troll' than to to get the patent invalidated. The 'patent trolls' rely on this as a way of making money.
So, it can be argued that this is a defensive move from Apple: obtaining a patent (that should not have been granted) prevents someone else from obtaining a patent (that should not be granted) on the same thing, then attempting to shake down Apple, or other people/organisations.
The only way I can see this improving is if organisations that assert patents that are later shown to be invalid pay triple damages** to anyone they have extorted money from - i.e. refund three time all legal fees incurred by the victim and repay three times however much they obtained in 'licensing' from the victim. After all, the 'should have known' their patent was invalid.
*The patent agencies are under a lot of political pressure to allow software patents.
**Or something like that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Monday January 28 2019, @12:27PM
Apple has enough money and clout to actually do something about software patents. That they behave in a so utilitarian way tells me they are just another brand in the system.
Apple rested on its laurels three times already, a pretty lucky company in a world where the first big mistake is usually also the last.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2019, @10:56PM
Yeah, well, both The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the US Patent Office disagree with you on that. The former keep disagreeing with Supreme Court decisions as well. Good luck getting any of it to stick, and in the mean time look forward to hugely expensive and lengthy court cases.