On Friday, 29 August 2014 at 12:27:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 29 August 2014 10:32, Chris via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
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".
This is just FUD.
Nevertheless, it should be taken seriously. Dismissing it as
irrelevant could be a terrible mistake. Better safe than sorry.
Big companies go to the rain forests in Latin America to get a
patent on herbs and plants used as medicine, only to sue the
medicine men who've been using the same herbs and plants for
thousands of years. Speaking of not wanting to live on this
planet anymore ...
Software patents in practice are now not only of generally poor
quality, they are totally opposed to their original reason for
existence.
From my observation (newspapers, mostly), having a software
patent is
utterly useless, and not being tied to any particular network or
device just doesn't hold water nowadays in court (in varying
degrees
across countries).
Iain
I hope you're right.
