At 12:06 PM 12/7/98 -0600, Justin Lee wrote:
>Ernst de Haan wrote:
>
>>
>> What is the idea of Java? Portable code. If that part of Java will be
>> removed, the Java Platform idea is dead, what remains is the Java
>> programming language, with a modified API (ClassLoader etc). Downward
>> compatiblity nil.
>>
>> Take a look at the future-oriented API's of Java: Jini, JavaSpaces, etc.
>> All gone. Combination of XML and Java is suddenly not that promising
>> anymore. And what about things like network computers, Lotus eSuite,
>> Domino, Java WebServer etc.
>>
>> Don't underestimate the impact. :-(
>>
>
>Yet, surely the concept of portable code can't be contained within that
patent.
>Portable, interpreted code has been around far longer than that patent.
For an
>example, pick any form of BASIC. Isn't Java just another multiplatform
>interpreted language? The only difference is the source code is compiled
into a
>binary format rather than the engligh-esque nature of other intrepreted
>languages.
>
>--
>Justin Lee | Does is really matter how far you go?
>JEDI | Can you get some sleep, now, standing on so many toes?
Compiled Java looks a lot like the Pascal p-code did 18 years ago. Any new
attempt to patent that would have major problems with prior art. Running an
app or applet from a browser may also be likened to using exec to run a system
utility in Unix. I find it hard to believe that there is no prior art here.
After all Perl just made it simpler; many programmers have been doing it for
years.
I would also like to know if the courts have validated the idea of patenting
software yet? It appears to me that this has no hardware component at all.
Bob McConnell
N2SPP
