|> Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
|> :  Once the standard was complete then some of us active in
|> : the work left the company and became "employed in our field". AT&T
|> : Bell Laboratories filed suit against Jerrold General Instruments
|> : and obtained restraining orders preventing their ex-employees from
|> : working on the technology. Those employees who had helped write the
|> : standard, who helped the Murray Hill legal department to write the
|> : "patent" applications, and who helped AT&T "marketing" to promote
|> : the work, found they could not work in their field.

That sounds like pretty standard stuff.  They probably signed some
IP agreements and AT&T thought they were violating them.  Happens all
the time in many industries.
--

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Business: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com               Home: BillSeurer@aol.com

In article <3l1sv3$fj6@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:
|> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
|>
[stuff deleted]
|>
|> Some companies have patented things related to C++. For example,
|> Microsoft has patented some aspects of C++ object layout.  HP
|> has patented some aspects of STL.
|> --
|> Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

   Microsoft patented *one* C++ object layout.  A different object
layout is described in Stroustrup's writing and as such represents
prior art for that *one* object layout.

--
John.

John J. Barton        jjb@watson.ibm.com            (914)784-6645
 <http://www.research.ibm.com/xw-SoftwareTechnology>
H1-C13 IBM Watson Research Center P.O. Box 704 Hawthorne NY 10598

In article <3lhuh7$int@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, <jjb@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>    Microsoft patented *one* C++ object layout.  A different object
> layout is described in Stroustrup's writing and as such represents
> prior art for that *one* object layout.
>
> --
> John.
>
> John J. Barton        jjb@watson.ibm.com            (914)784-6645

let me understand this. Are you saying that 'there is only way to layout
objects in C++ and as BS has written about it, so there is prior art to
MS's patent' ? If BS has written about a different object layout scheme,
I don't understand how it can be prior art to MS's scheme, if it is indeed
different.

Also why don't you talk about all those thousands of software patents IBM
get every year ?

Muzaffer

standard disclaimer

In article <MATT.95Mar30113425@physics2.berkeley.edu>,
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu says...
>
>In article <D69MGK.DBr@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max
Skaller) writes:
>
>>       AFAIK the committee has a written release from both HP
>> and AT&T (which owns the copyright to the ARM).
>
>Which raises an interesting question.
>
>If anyone can truly be called the "owner" of C++ (the word "owner" is
>more than a little bit ambiguous), it's the organization that will
>hold the copyright to the C++ standard.  What organization will that
>be?  ISO, ANSI, or someone else?
>

I am not sure who will hold that copyright, but a similar question
will be, what companies or individuals will benfit financially the
most when the standard is complete.

This question not only extends to the C++ language standard but also
items such as standard class libraries. Even though everyone seems to
be saying, "let's focus on the language and worry about class libraries
later", what they may really be saying is, "please give me a standard
language to improve the market for my class libraries which are shipped
from Hawaii and marketed via editorial positions with magazines".

Maybe the standards effort is really just a "smoke screen" for the people
that are preparing the offerings behind the scenes.

Note, I do not think there is anything wrong with this. If we were working
on an ANSI standard for wheel chair ramps, I would expect that companies
that build such ramps would want to be a part of the "standards" process.
The minute the standard is complete, I would expect them to slap a big
flourescent logo on their product which says, meets ANSI standard XWC-9000.
Any company that did not do this would probably be left out of the
purchasing cycle because they clearly would be prey to the competitors
sales person who would clearly point out the lack of this label.

If there is anything wrong here, it is a general reluctance for all of
the "people" involved to step forward and say, "of course we plan to
make a killing here, I have agreed with Joe that Bill will handle libraries
and Leon will handle trade shows and the rest of the crumbs will be
tossed to the "others".

Someone recently sent me mail pointing out that if there are a million
people interested in the hot topics debated here, there are several
hundred million on the rest of the planet who could care less.

My bottom line point is, that of the million that are awaiting a C++
standard, there are about 10 people who will benefit financially more
than the remaining 999,990. I am amazed that people working hard to make
this all happen, do not know who those people are. Maybe they don't care.


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3l4lm5$cc6@news1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>In article <3l4bkm$nkr@epicycle.lm.com>, kanak@telerama.lm.com says...
>>
>>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>>
>>> This is a very simple question.
>>> Hopefully, we can clear this one up with a minimal amount of discussion.
>>
>>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>>
>>Nobody owns a language.  Hope that's simple enough for ya!!!!
>>--
>>
>
>The majority of people that have sent me e-mail claim that
>Novell bought the language when they bought UNIX.

They bought C Front the C++ compiler but not the language in itself.

>
>Some have also claimed that AT&T owns the language.

Not true. AT&T has no patent or copyright for C++.

>Others have said that AT&T has no right to sell the language.
> This implied they own it, but can not "sell" it.



>A few have sent mail saying that *each* implementor owns their
>implementation. Therefore there is one owner for each "dialect".

Absolutly true. All implementors owns the right to their compiler.

>
>It is not clear to me that there is a consensus on this, yet.
>
>Do any of the C++ experts know the answer?

No. :-)

Basically NO ONE owns C++. Since there is nothing to own... There is
nothing called C++. C++ is just like an imagination of your mind. Like
ISO 9000 and the Adromeda galaxy. C++ is just a combination of characters
that some people thinks stand for something.

However as soon as the standard evolves there will 'hopefully' exist
compilers that conform to a standard that will, in the commons tounges,
of be talked about as 'C++'. Just like Ethernet is really an IEEE standard
with a specific number (which is only used in techno-speak).

As far as I know there is nothing that prevents you from selling a compiler
and say that it is a valid C++ compiler even though everyone else thinks it
just is a C compiler... except the wraith of the odd customer that buys it.

Anders

In article <3lajh9$r13@epicycle.lm.com>,
   kanak@telerama.lm.com (Jim Kownacki) wrote:
:And I think it's getting kind of obvious why Mr. Fleming isn't on
:the committee...

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but isn't the only
qualification for committee membership forking over the $'s to ISO?

BTW, does anyone here know what the price is for observer status?
I've been thinking it would be nice to get the drafts.


 --Paul J. Ste. Marie, pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network claims that they capture every
public posting that has their name ("FinCEN") in it.  I wish them good hunting.

pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie) writes:

>I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but isn't the only
>qualification for committee membership forking over the $'s to ISO?

That is approximately correct. I'm fond of saying that anyone can
join, but in fact you have to provide a statement about why it is
reasonable for you to be on the committee. I've never heard of
anyone being rejected on the basis of an inadequate statement,
probably because no one would bother to join unless they had a
strong interest in C++. (The statement is an ANSI requirement,
and they provide some sample answers on the form.) (And I can't
imagine paying for the priviledge of wading though hundreds of
pages of technobabble 6 times per year unless the babble was
near and dear to your heart.)

>BTW, does anyone here know what the price is for observer status?
>I've been thinking it would be nice to get the drafts.

The annual dues are the same no matter what your status: $300/year,
plus another $300 for "international participation". I believe it
is possible to get the second $300 waived, but I'm not sure of
the criteria.

If all you care about is the draft standard, you will be able to ftp a
postscript copy of the version which will be put out for public comment.
To find out how to get a copy, and how to submit comments
for consideration by the ANSI C++ Committee X3J16, send email to
 c++std-notify@research.att.com
(If not yet established, this address will be available soon.)

You will be placed on a mailing list, and will be notified automatically
when the draft is available and where to get it, along with instructions
for submitting comments.

The "notify" address serves only to place you on a notification mailing
list. The contents of your email will not be read or saved.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

In article <3l7uvq$q6q@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>
>Why would a company like HP go to all of the trouble and expense of
>obtaining "patents" if they have already stated that they are going to
>grant unlimited rights without charge?

 Simple. They patent things automatically. If their
researcher advise something is novel and potentially valuable,
the law department takes over and obtains a patent if possible.

 It was HP which cast the invoking spell to raise up
the spirit of ANSI and get C++ Standardised. Clearly they
did that for commercial reasons.

 If STL greatly enhance C++ and at the same time
allow C++ to be Standardised quickly, then the advantage
to HP may far outweigh any advantage obtained from
applying the force of law of a patent on a minor algorithm.

>My point? Get it in writing.

 AFAIK the committee has a written release from both HP
and AT&T (which owns the copyright to the ARM).

 The issue _has_ been raised on the committee.
--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

In article <D69MGK.DBr@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:

>  AFAIK the committee has a written release from both HP
> and AT&T (which owns the copyright to the ARM).

Which raises an interesting question.

If anyone can truly be called the "owner" of C++ (the word "owner" is
more than a little bit ambiguous), it's the organization that will
hold the copyright to the C++ standard.  What organization will that
be?  ISO, ANSI, or someone else?

--

                               --matt

In article <3ld1a5$mla@news.erinet.com>, pstemari@erinet.com says...
>
>In article <3lajh9$r13@epicycle.lm.com>,
>   kanak@telerama.lm.com (Jim Kownacki) wrote:
>:And I think it's getting kind of obvious why Mr. Fleming isn't on
>:the committee...
>
>I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but isn't the only
>qualification for committee membership forking over the $'s to ISO?
>
>BTW, does anyone here know what the price is for observer status?
>I've been thinking it would be nice to get the drafts.
>
>
>        --Paul J. Ste. Marie, pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com
>
>The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network claims that they capture every
>public posting that has their name ("FinCEN") in it.  I wish them good
hunting.


I have been told that you are not supposed to discuss any of these
sorts of questions in this newsgroup. Also, several people have written
and said that the ANSI committee is trying to reduce the traffic in this
newsgroup. If you post questions like this, then someone, like me, may
feel a social obligation to respond.

Most of these discussions have now moved to the OuterNet where they
are welcomed. This Internet and Usenet facility is part of the Information
Superhighway and is only to be used for "important", pre-approved, and
sanctioned postings. We must all start abiding by the wishes of the ANSI
committee members who have told each other to stop posting here so as
not to give "endorsement" to any of these postings....

Using the Information Superhighway metaphor, the above comments are similar
to saying, we have an 8 lane highway and the left-most lane on either
side is reserved for police, emergency vehicles and buses...from what
people are telling me, that is the spirit of comp.std.c++, if you are
not part of the police (gestapo or otherwise) or you do not have an
emergency OR you are not in the ANSI "bus", you can not drive here...

I suggest you try the OuterNet for better cruising lanes...


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3l7uvq$q6q@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>In article <3l7m12$hdb@cello.hpl.hp.com>, stepanov@cello.hpl.hp.com says...
...
>Why would a company like HP go to all of the trouble and expense of
>obtaining "patents" if they have already stated that they are going to
>grant unlimited rights without charge?

HP did drop all of the patent applications pertaining to STL.

Alex Stepanov

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
: In article <3l7m12$hdb@cello.hpl.hp.com>, stepanov@cello.hpl.hp.com says...
: >
: >In article <3l7a8p$r4g@mother.qds.com>, John DiCamillo <milo@qds.com>
: >wrote:
: >>
: >> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:
: >> >In article <3l1sv3$fj6@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM
: says...
: >>

: Why would a company like HP go to all of the trouble and expense of
: obtaining "patents" if they have already stated that they are going to
: grant unlimited rights without charge?

Why don't you address this to somebody at HP, and not here?

: In the case of AT&T, I can tell you that when I was on an ANSI
: committe (X3.110)

Ah, so now it becomes clear.

:                    in the late 70's the management of AT&T decided
: to do exactly what HP is doing more or less with AT&T Bell Laboratories'
: blessing. Once the standard was complete then some of us active in
: the work left the company and became "employed in our field". AT&T
: Bell Laboratories filed suit against Jerrold General Instruments
: and obtained restraining orders preventing their ex-employees from
: working on the technology. Those employees who had helped write the
: standard, who helped the Murray Hill legal department to write the
: "patent" applications, and who helped AT&T "marketing" to promote
: the work, found they could not work in their field.

: AT&T Bell Laboratories dropped the suit after AT&T shuffled a couple
: of "agressive" Bell Labs executives to retirement and other "special
: projects". As a result of these activities, anyone in the industry
: would not go near ANSI X3.110 with a ten foot pole. Fortunately some
: of the stigma diminished, but the patents remain (some in my name)
: and no one will forget those events.

Translation for those who do not wish to read Mr. Fleming's helpful, insightful
comments into his lurid history: Mr. Fleming is bitter that he's not on the
committee this time around, too.

: My point? Get it in writing. Make sure the right hand knows what
: the left hand is doing, and be very careful, a change in management
: in these areas can change the rules.

: I suggest that HP publish a written statement of their STL position
: in other than the software and also publish a written explanation of
: why they are seeking patent "protection". What are they protecting?

I suggest that you quit raising silly, controversy-provoking questions that
lead to no good results. I fully support those who seek to "Question
Authority" because I think that these questions do, sometimes, yield positive
results. But I have yet to find one positive result that comes out of Mr.
Fleming's random rhetorical flames. In fact, I have yet to see him "break
even" considering the amount of bandwidth that is wasted everytime "Jim Fleming"
appears in the "Author" column of my favorite newsreader. Mr. Fleming, I
doubt that you pose these questions in the pursuit of honesty and fair play;
I strongly suspect you simply have to be the center of attention to the world
around you, and the idea that a newsgroup could entertain meaningful discussion
without your presence and your rapier-sharp wit is simply more than you can
bear.

Maybe your message is a good one. But quite frankly, sir, given all the other
garbage that has originated from "Techno-Cat I", it's hard to sift through
the waste to find the gem.

Ted Neward
: --
: Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
: %Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
: Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
: East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
: British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
:                  \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
: Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3l74jtINNoie@kauai.summit.novell.com>, jls@summit.novell.com
says...
>
>In article <3l1fq5$lsr@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>>In article <JASON.95Mar25014342@phydeaux.cygnus.com>, jason@cygnus.com
>>says...
>>>Cfront, however, was sold with UNIX to Novell, or so I hear.
>>
>>Have you confirmed that Novell owns Cfront?
>
>Yes, Novell owns the C++ Language System (the official name of cfront).
>I think AT&T Bell Laboratories retains some rights for internal research
>usage as well, but I'm not positive.
>
>However, Cfront no longer has an active role in the language definition or
>evolution, so who owns it is immaterial in the context of this thread
(which
>seems to be about who "owns" or "controls" C++).
>
>--
>Jonathan Schilling      Novell, UNIX Systems Group
jls@summit.novell.com

Does that mean that Novell "no longer has an active role in the language
definition"?

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D64852.CA3@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au says...
>
>In article <3l4lm5$cc6@News1.mcs.com>,
>Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>>In article <3l4bkm$nkr@epicycle.lm.com>, kanak@telerama.lm.com says...
>>>
>>>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>>Do any of the C++ experts know the answer?
>
>        When the ARM was published, C++ became public domain.
>That's exactly because the ARM is copyright. At least this
>is the intent of the USA constitution.
>
>--
>        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
>        Maxtal Pty Ltd,
>        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
>        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA         Phone: 61-2-566-2189


Since some of these replys are packaged and sent to:

  president@whitehouse.gov,

I am sure that both "bills" will be glad to hear that the U.S. Constitution
is being considered in these matters.

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3l7a8p$r4g@mother.qds.com>, John DiCamillo <milo@qds.com>
wrote:
>
> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:
> >In article <3l1sv3$fj6@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>
> >>"Can be patented" is not the same as "has been patented". I don't
> >>know whether a programming language can be patented, but I strongly
> >>doubt it.  In any case, the C++ language was never patented.
> >>
> >>Some companies have patented things related to C++. For example,
> >>Microsoft has patented some aspects of C++ object layout.  HP
> >>has patented some aspects of STL.

HP released all of STL code into the public domain. Anybody can use,
modify, enhance, distribute and sell any of the algorithms and data
structures contained in it, as far as HP is concerned. (Of course, HP
cannot guarantee that some of the algorithms in STL have not been
patented by other companies. But HP makes a good faith representation
that it is not aware of any such patents.)

> >>--
> >>Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
>
> >Regarding STL, what does this mean. I thought that STL had been placed
> >in the "public domain". Are you now saying that usage could incur some
> >patent licensing and/or royalty fees to HP?
> >--
> >Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
>
>
> *sigh*  And I promised myself that I wouldn't rise to the bait
> anymore.
>
> The STL specification (much like the C++ programming language
> specification) has been placed in the public domain.  Anyone
> can implement a library (or a compiler) that conforms to the
> specification without incurring licensing fees or royalties to
> anyone.  However, any particular implementation of the speci-
> fication is potentially a new invention, and therefore subject
> to patent law.  It has been suggested that HP has patented (or
> applied for patent on) some aspects of their implementation of
> the STL specification.
>
> Once again, and using small words this time: usage of the STL
> can not result in licensing fees to HP, unless you buy HP's
> implementation of the STL.

You cannot buy the HP implementation. It is free. HP did declare to
ISO that if it obtains any patents, it will grant everybody the right
to use the technology.

>
>
>
>     ciao,
>     milo
> ================================================================
>     John DiCamillo                        Pinin' for the fjords?
>     milod@netcom.com                  What kind of talk is that?
>


Alexander A. Stepanov
Manager, Generic Programming Project

HP Labs
1501 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304

In article <3l7m12$hdb@cello.hpl.hp.com>, stepanov@cello.hpl.hp.com says...
>
>In article <3l7a8p$r4g@mother.qds.com>, John DiCamillo <milo@qds.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:
>> >In article <3l1sv3$fj6@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM
says...
>>
>> >>"Can be patented" is not the same as "has been patented". I don't
>> >>know whether a programming language can be patented, but I strongly
>> >>doubt it.  In any case, the C++ language was never patented.
>> >>
>> >>Some companies have patented things related to C++. For example,
>> >>Microsoft has patented some aspects of C++ object layout.  HP
>> >>has patented some aspects of STL.
>
>HP released all of STL code into the public domain. Anybody can use,
>modify, enhance, distribute and sell any of the algorithms and data
>structures contained in it, as far as HP is concerned. (Of course, HP
>cannot guarantee that some of the algorithms in STL have not been
>patented by other companies. But HP makes a good faith representation
>that it is not aware of any such patents.)
>
>> >>--
>> >>Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
>>
>> >Regarding STL, what does this mean. I thought that STL had been placed
>> >in the "public domain". Are you now saying that usage could incur some
>> >patent licensing and/or royalty fees to HP?
>> >--
>> >Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology,
Inc.
>>
>>
>> *sigh*  And I promised myself that I wouldn't rise to the bait
>> anymore.
>>
>> The STL specification (much like the C++ programming language
>> specification) has been placed in the public domain.  Anyone
>> can implement a library (or a compiler) that conforms to the
>> specification without incurring licensing fees or royalties to
>> anyone.  However, any particular implementation of the speci-
>> fication is potentially a new invention, and therefore subject
>> to patent law.  It has been suggested that HP has patented (or
>> applied for patent on) some aspects of their implementation of
>> the STL specification.
>>
>> Once again, and using small words this time: usage of the STL
>> can not result in licensing fees to HP, unless you buy HP's
>> implementation of the STL.
>
>You cannot buy the HP implementation. It is free. HP did declare to
>ISO that if it obtains any patents, it will grant everybody the right
>to use the technology.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ciao,
>>     milo
>> ================================================================
>>     John DiCamillo                        Pinin' for the fjords?
>>     milod@netcom.com                  What kind of talk is that?
>>
>
>
>Alexander A. Stepanov
>Manager, Generic Programming Project
>
>HP Labs
>1501 Page Mill Rd.
>Palo Alto, CA 94304

Why would a company like HP go to all of the trouble and expense of
obtaining "patents" if they have already stated that they are going to
grant unlimited rights without charge?

In the case of AT&T, I can tell you that when I was on an ANSI
committe (X3.110) in the late 70's the management of AT&T decided
to do exactly what HP is doing more or less with AT&T Bell Laboratories'
blessing. Once the standard was complete then some of us active in
the work left the company and became "employed in our field". AT&T
Bell Laboratories filed suit against Jerrold General Instruments
and obtained restraining orders preventing their ex-employees from
working on the technology. Those employees who had helped write the
standard, who helped the Murray Hill legal department to write the
"patent" applications, and who helped AT&T "marketing" to promote
the work, found they could not work in their field.

AT&T Bell Laboratories dropped the suit after AT&T shuffled a couple
of "agressive" Bell Labs executives to retirement and other "special
projects". As a result of these activities, anyone in the industry
would not go near ANSI X3.110 with a ten foot pole. Fortunately some
of the stigma diminished, but the patents remain (some in my name)
and no one will forget those events.

My point? Get it in writing. Make sure the right hand knows what
the left hand is doing, and be very careful, a change in management
in these areas can change the rules.

I suggest that HP publish a written statement of their STL position
in other than the software and also publish a written explanation of
why they are seeking patent "protection". What are they protecting?

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:
>In article <3l1sv3$fj6@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...

>>"Can be patented" is not the same as "has been patented". I don't
>>know whether a programming language can be patented, but I strongly
>>doubt it.  In any case, the C++ language was never patented.
>>
>>Some companies have patented things related to C++. For example,
>>Microsoft has patented some aspects of C++ object layout.  HP
>>has patented some aspects of STL.
>>--
>>Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

>Regarding STL, what does this mean. I thought that STL had been placed
>in the "public domain". Are you now saying that usage could incur some
>patent licensing and/or royalty fees to HP?
>--
>Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.


*sigh*  And I promised myself that I wouldn't rise to the bait
anymore.

The STL specification (much like the C++ programming language
specification) has been placed in the public domain.  Anyone
can implement a library (or a compiler) that conforms to the
specification without incurring licensing fees or royalties to
anyone.  However, any particular implementation of the speci-
fication is potentially a new invention, and therefore subject
to patent law.  It has been suggested that HP has patented (or
applied for patent on) some aspects of their implementation of
the STL specification.

Once again, and using small words this time: usage of the STL
can not result in licensing fees to HP, unless you buy HP's
implementation of the STL.



    ciao,
    milo
================================================================
    John DiCamillo                        Pinin' for the fjords?
    milod@netcom.com                  What kind of talk is that?

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) wrote:
>In article <3l4bkm$nkr@epicycle.lm.com>, kanak@telerama.lm.com says...
>>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>>
>>> This is a very simple question.
>>> Hopefully, we can clear this one up with a minimal amount of discussion.
>>
>>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>>
>>Nobody owns a language.  Hope that's simple enough for ya!!!!

>The majority of people that have sent me e-mail claim that
>Novell bought the language when they bought UNIX.

I have not read your e-mail, but the people posting to this
newsgroup claim that Novell bought AT&T's C++ *compiler* along
with USL.  I have no idea whether this is true or otherwise.
In any event, Novell does *not* own C++.

>Some have also claimed that AT&T owns the language.

AT&T does *not* own C++.
Learn it. Know it. Live it.

>Others have said that AT&T has no right to sell the language.
> This implied they own it, but can not "sell" it.

A new plateau in deduction, Mr. Fleming.  You never cease to amaze.

>A few have sent mail saying that *each* implementor owns their
>implementation.

This at least, is correct.

>Therefore there is one owner for each "dialect".

What makes you think that there are "dialects"?  In any case, it is
completely irrelevant to the question of whether AT&T, or any other
person or company, "owns" the C++ programming language.

>It is not clear to me that there is a consensus on this, yet.

Well, let's make it clear for you then:  No one owns the C++ programming
language.  It has been placed in the public domain.  Anyone can write a
compiler or interpreter for the language without paying royalties to any-
one else.



    ciao,
    milo
================================================================
    John DiCamillo                        Pinin' for the fjords?
    milod@netcom.com                  What kind of talk is that?

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

:Then, who created C++?
:Was it invented?
:Or, was it discovered?

It was discovered in 1868, by Carl P. Lusplus. He found it hidden behind
an binary search tree on the Isle of Man.

Eric Meijer

In article <3kveqj$kmg@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

> This is a very simple question.
> Hopefully, we can clear this one up with a minimal amount of discussion.
>
> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?

Nobody.  Languages aren't subject to copyright; I don't have to buy
rights from anyone if I want to write my own C++ compiler.

Particular implementations of a language can be copyrighted ("owned"),
of course.  I can think of more than a dozen different organizations
that hold the rights to one C++ compiler or another.

Language reference manuals, like any other books, are also subject to
copyright.  Most ANSI standards are copyrighted by ANSI; I doubt if
that will be the case with the C++ standard, though, since it will be
a joint ANSI/ISO document.

--

                               --matt

>>>>> Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:

> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?

Nobody.  It was not AT&T's to sell.

Cfront, however, was sold with UNIX to Novell, or so I hear.

Jason

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

>In article <JASON.95Mar25014342@phydeaux.cygnus.com>, jason@cygnus.com
>says...
>>
>>>>>>> Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
>>
>>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>>
>>Nobody.  It was not AT&T's to sell.

>Then, who created C++?
>Was it invented?
>Or, was it discovered?

That question, and almost every question I have seen you post,
is answered in Stroustrup's, "The Design and Evolution of C++".

It would take you less time to read that book than what you must
spend arguing in this newsgroup about non-issues.

>From what I understand, inventions can be patented, discoveries can not.
>For instance, oil was discovered, not invented.

"Can be patented" is not the same as "has been patented". I don't
know whether a programming language can be patented, but I strongly
doubt it.  In any case, the C++ language was never patented.

Some companies have patented things related to C++. For example,
Microsoft has patented some aspects of C++ object layout.  HP
has patented some aspects of STL.
--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:

>In article <JASON.95Mar25014342@phydeaux.cygnus.com>, jason@cygnus.com
>says...
>>
>>>>>>> Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
>>
>>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>>
>>Nobody.  It was not AT&T's to sell.
>>

>Then, who created C++?
>Was it invented?
>Or, was it discovered?

If you have to ask this question, then you are in the wrong conference. The
C++ Language was created by Bjarne Stroustrup, at ATT Bell Labs.

My I suggest that you read the following material before posting any further
questions on the topic of C++:

"The C++ Programming Language", Bjarne Stroustrup, Addison Wesley
"C++ Primer", Stanley Lippman, Addison Wesley
"The C++ Annotated Reference Manual" (ARM), Margret Ellis & Bjarne Stroustrup
"The Design and Evolution of C++", Bjarne Stroustrup, Addison Wesley
"The C++ FAQ", Marshall Cline, Posted on this conference each month.
etc...


--
Rick Stanley                         |              RSI
stanleyr@acf4.nyu.edu                |         (212) 740-6600
Information Technologies Institute   |        C++ & C Language
New York University   NYC, NY  USA   | Programming, Training, Consulting

In article <JASON.95Mar25014342@phydeaux.cygnus.com>, jason@cygnus.com
says...
>
>>>>>> Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
>
>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>
>Nobody.  It was not AT&T's to sell.
>

Then, who created C++?
Was it invented?
Or, was it discovered?

This is a very simple question.
Hopefully, we can clear this one up with a minimal amount of discussion.

Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology,
Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd.
#100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL
60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801
1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12
<-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the
OuterNet_|

In article <3l1sv3$fj6@engnews1.eng.sun.com>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM says...
>
>jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>
>>In article <JASON.95Mar25014342@phydeaux.cygnus.com>, jason@cygnus.com
>>says...
>>>
>>>>>>>> Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>>>
>>>Nobody.  It was not AT&T's to sell.
>
>>Then, who created C++?
>>Was it invented?
>>Or, was it discovered?
>
>That question, and almost every question I have seen you post,
>is answered in Stroustrup's, "The Design and Evolution of C++".
>
>It would take you less time to read that book than what you must
>spend arguing in this newsgroup about non-issues.
>
>>From what I understand, inventions can be patented, discoveries can not.
>>For instance, oil was discovered, not invented.
>
>"Can be patented" is not the same as "has been patented". I don't
>know whether a programming language can be patented, but I strongly
>doubt it.  In any case, the C++ language was never patented.
>
>Some companies have patented things related to C++. For example,
>Microsoft has patented some aspects of C++ object layout.  HP
>has patented some aspects of STL.
>--
>Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

Regarding STL, what does this mean. I thought that STL had been placed
in the "public domain". Are you now saying that usage could incur some
patent licensing and/or royalty fees to HP?


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:

> This is a very simple question.
> Hopefully, we can clear this one up with a minimal amount of discussion.

> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?

Nobody owns a language.  Hope that's simple enough for ya!!!!
--

In article <3l4bkm$nkr@epicycle.lm.com>, kanak@telerama.lm.com says...
>
>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>
>> This is a very simple question.
>> Hopefully, we can clear this one up with a minimal amount of discussion.
>
>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>
>Nobody owns a language.  Hope that's simple enough for ya!!!!
>--
>

The majority of people that have sent me e-mail claim that
Novell bought the language when they bought UNIX.

Some have also claimed that AT&T owns the language.

Others have said that AT&T has no right to sell the language.
 This implied they own it, but can not "sell" it.

A few have sent mail saying that *each* implementor owns their
implementation. Therefore there is one owner for each "dialect".

It is not clear to me that there is a consensus on this, yet.

Do any of the C++ experts know the answer?

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3l1fq5$lsr@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>In article <JASON.95Mar25014342@phydeaux.cygnus.com>, jason@cygnus.com
>says...
>>Cfront, however, was sold with UNIX to Novell, or so I hear.
>
>Have you confirmed that Novell owns Cfront?

Yes, Novell owns the C++ Language System (the official name of cfront).
I think AT&T Bell Laboratories retains some rights for internal research
usage as well, but I'm not positive.

However, Cfront no longer has an active role in the language definition or
evolution, so who owns it is immaterial in the context of this thread (which
seems to be about who "owns" or "controls" C++).

--
Jonathan Schilling Novell, UNIX Systems Group jls@summit.novell.com

In article <3l4lm5$cc6@News1.mcs.com>,
Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> wrote:
>In article <3l4bkm$nkr@epicycle.lm.com>, kanak@telerama.lm.com says...
>>
>>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Q: Who currently owns C++? Was it sold with UNIX to Novell?
>Do any of the C++ experts know the answer?

 When the ARM was published, C++ became public domain.
That's exactly because the ARM is copyright. At least this
is the intent of the USA constitution.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189