In article <Cn8CC5.1KM@cbnewse.cb.att.com> grumpy@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Paul J Lucas) writes:
>From article <tsw-230394181227@cypher.apple.com>, by tsw@cypher.apple.com (Tom Watson):
>> I can see it now...
>> A patent on the call structure using stacks to pass arguments, and using
>> frame pointers.  The patent office doesn't seem to be worried about the
>> fact just about every C/C++ compiler is using this technique.  Perhaps I
>> should apply.
>
> I don't know the full story behind the alleged Microsoft patent,
> but it is a fact that you can't patent something that has
> already existed, aka "prior art"; another way: patents can not
> be retroactive.

Yes, you can. If the patent office doesn't catch it (and there are an awful lot
of examples of patents in the computer industry that are obvious, prior art,
etc. but the patent office doesn't have the personnel or background to catch
it), then you've got yourself a patent. Now - it's up to the other guys to
spend a lot of time and money to prove that your patent was not deserved. Even
if somebody does, by the time they have gone through channels you've bought
yourself at least a year's worth of market share at a real bargain.

This is called a "marketing breakthrough". It's a lot easier than engineering.
It seems like a lot of the big companies are dropping engineers (or not hiring
as many new ones) so they can afford more lawyers.

And, of course, it isn't restricted to the computer industry. Some engineer
"invented" and patented the time-delayed windshield wiper (which is about a
freshman level EE experiment in any community college) and made millions of
dollars. The fact that it was a "little guy" screwing a "big corporation"
doesn't help - everyone who buys a car will have to pay that guy for a concept
and implementation that is both obvious and prior art.

--
Bill Fulton                (Home Alone) |    I always wanted to be someone ...
bill@wafbox.gwinnett.com                |    I should have been more specific.

[John Max Skaller]

|   If you don't like it, change your country's laws, or reform the justice
|   system so small players have a fair chance.  Don't blame Microsoft for
|   playing by the rules.

they're not playing by the rules.  they're exploiting them.  just because
somebody else is also exploiting them does not make exploiting the rules
into "playing by the rules".

when will the FSF issue a boycott call against them?  if I understand this
patent correctly, it means the GNU C++ compiler is in danger.

best regards,
</erik>
--
Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> <SGML@ifi.uio.no>  |  memento, terrigena.
ISO 8879 SGML, ISO 10744 HyTime, ISO 10646 UCS  |  memento, vita brevis.

for information on SGML and HyTime, try ftp.ifi.uio.no:/pub/SGML first.

In article <19940402.1681@naggum.no> Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> writes:
>when will the FSF issue a boycott call against them?  if I understand this
>patent correctly, it means the GNU C++ compiler is in danger.

I've let RMS know what's been posted here.  We'll see what happens.

pardon my ignorance, but can someone explain what is going on here?
and while you are at it, do give RMS my regards...:).
Thanks.

karl@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:

>In article <19940402.1681@naggum.no> Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> writes:
>>when will the FSF issue a boycott call against them?  if I understand this
>>patent correctly, it means the GNU C++ compiler is in danger.

>I've let RMS know what's been posted here.  We'll see what happens.
--
Sanjay Bhatia ::= sbhati86@ursa.calvin.edu
"I'd like to teach the world UNIX"
CCCC

John Max Skaller wrote:

    Don't blame Microsoft for playing by the rules.

The authors of a patent application must sign a statement indicating
that they are the inventors of the claimed ideas and that the
application is truthful and complete.  Leaving out relevant prior art
known to the authors is not "playing by the rules" -- it is illegal.

I have no idea what the Microsoft patent says (but I've ordered a copy).

Hi!

In article <2nc24e$7qt@Tandem.CAM.ORG>, Hendrik Boom writes:

> Ronald F. Guilmette (rfg@netcom.com) wrote:

> : I think the basic idea driving the U.S. patent office these days in that
> : large corporations (and their highly paid lawyers) should eventually rule
> : the world

> rule the U.S, maybe, but most of the world does not recognise
> patents on software, even when disguised as patents on hardware.

OTOH, many big companies are likely not to develop software which would
be illegal in the US, no matter what laws of other countries say.

First, the US make up a big part of the software market, and second,
many important software companies have their head in the US, and will
probably not pay that much attention to foreign markets.
Thus, the goal of blocking out competitors may be reached.

--                  __                        __
Arno Eigenwillig __/// Usenet (preferred)  __/// FIDO (casually)
++49-2225-5870   \XX/  arno@yaps.dinoco.de \XX/   2:2453/30.99

Those were the days, when sex was dirty
and the air was clean! [Conny Koenig]

In article <2npqs6$437@news.parc.xerox.com> ellis@parc.xerox.com (John Ellis) writes:
>I have no idea what the Microsoft patent says (but I've ordered a copy).

I would appreciate your posting it, unless there's something illegal about
_that_!  (And shouldn't this thread be moved to c.s.c.politics?)
danny


--
Danny Smith      |   408/992-2365    |  danny@uts.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corp.     |   Sunnyvale, CA   |  Compu$erve: 71672,1602
     [ Disclaimer - the above opinions are mine, and do not ]
     [ reflect Amdahl policy. (They made me say that.)     ]

maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) writes:

>In article <rfgCn5216.GGn@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>>I am more than a little bit disgusted by what I have read in the following
>>message.

> [Microsoft patents virtual tables]

>Patents offices are not reponsible for establishing invention,
>only for establishing correct form of application, registration.
>Generally, proof of newness is down to failure of a search of
>existing patents.

>However, just because a Patent is granted does NOT mean the
>holder has any rights: a Patent is only a claim.
>It means the claimant is ABLE to take legal
>action, at which point proof of prior invention is sufficient
>to get the claim thrown out of court.

>Since the ARM clearly details virtual table techniques,
>Microsoft is simply gaining the ability to bring
>others to court and obtain damaging restraining orders
>against smaller organisations which have less ability
>to sustain court actions.

Is this somehow a justification of Microsoft's patent?

>Microsoft would loose any such action, and they know it.
>They're not obtaining the patent for the purpose of royalty
>collection, but for litigational warfare.

Would Microsoft necessarily lose any such action?  Only if you
believe that money (for lawyers and to survive an injunction
that could cut off some of your business) has no effect on
the outcome of a legal case.   In this country, at least,
that's blatently untrue.  Lawsuits are  a bit  like poker -
if your opponent raises the stakes and you don't have enough
to meet  the raise, it doesn't matter how good your hand is.
(The difference is that, in the law, your opponent can keep
raising the stakes unilaterally.)

>I dont blame them, they'd be mad not to stock their armoury
>with lots of potential or real weapons, with opponents
>like Apple and IBM to do battle with. And with a legal system
>like Americas.

Unlikely.  IBM typically cross-licenses its patents with other
companies that have a worthwhile portfolio of patents.  I
suspect that Microsoft is more interested in putting the squeeze
on David's rather than fellow Goliaths - companies like Borland
and Stacker.

>If you dont like it, change your countries laws, or reform
>the justice system so small players have a fair chance.
>Dont blame Microsoft for playing by the rules.

>--
>        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
> Maxtal Pty Ltd,      CSERVE:10236.1703
>        6 MacKay St ASHFIELD,     Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
>        NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA

From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Microsoft is awarded a questionable OO software patent
Message-ID: <CnIIpp.6yC@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 04:49:01 GMT
Lines: 42

     The following patent was recently issued to Microsoft.  It doesn't seem
very novel, though it doesn't stand out in the class of semi-questionable
software patents.  However, in recent days a lot of people have asked me
about it, so I figure it is worth passing on.

Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service
(for subscription info, send 'help' to   patents@world.std.com)
(for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to patents@world.std.com)


==============================================================================


 PATENT NUMBER = 5297284
  TITLE = Method and system for implementing virtual functions and virtual base
 classes and setting a this pointer for an object-oriented programming
  language
  ISSUE DATE = 03-22-94
  INVENTOR = Jones; David T.
  INVENTOR = O'Riordan; Martin J.
  INVENTOR = Zbikowski; Mark J.

  ABSTRACT :
  A method for a computer compiler for an object-oriented programming
   language for implementing virtual functions and virtual base classes is
   provided. In preferred embodiments of the present invention, the data
   structure layout of an object includes a virtual function table pointer, a
   virtual base table pointer, occurrences of each non-virtual base class,
   the data members of the class, and occurrences of each virtual base class.
   If a class introduces a virtual function member and the class has a
   non-virtual base class with a virtual function table pointer, then the
   class shares the virtual function table pointer of the non-virtual base
   class that is first visited in a depth-first, left-to-right traversal of
   the inheritance tree. In preferred embodiments of the present invention,
   each instance of a given class shares a set of virtual function tables and
   virtual base tables for that class. In preferred embodiments, adjusters
   are used when a function member in a derived class overrides a function
   member that is defined in more than one base class, and when a derived
   class has a base class that overrides a function member in a virtual base
   class of that class and the derived class itself does not override the
   function member.

In article <1994Apr5.133911.2572@ccc.amdahl.com> das90@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Danny Smith) writes:
>In article <2npqs6$437@news.parc.xerox.com> ellis@parc.xerox.com (John Ellis) writes:
>>I have no idea what the Microsoft patent says (but I've ordered a copy).
>
>I would appreciate your posting it, unless there's something illegal about
>_that_!  (And shouldn't this thread be moved to c.s.c.politics?)

Patents are by definition public domain, so there should be nothing illegal
about distributing it electronically.  The complete text of the patent
(excluding figures) was posted a week ago to misc.int-property, which I
think is a more appropriate forum.  I've put it up for FTP in
ftp.think.com:/public/users/barmar/patent-5297284.text.

Note that the summary section of the patent says that it is intended "to
provide improved methods of implementing virtual functions".  From my
limited understanding of C++ implementation technique and a cursory reading
of the patent I couldn't see what significant improvements it provides.

--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

[NOTE FOLLOWUPS-TO LINE.]

I put a "followups-to: rec.gambling" in that last post, but for some
reason it seems to have evaporated. Don't know what happened. I don't want
to start a poker rules thread here, honest.

  - Dave

My curiosity is getting the better of me. Could someone please post
a short summary for those of us who missed the start of this thread?
Who patented what?

  Thanks,
  -- Dave

In article <2o42l6INN6c4@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
|> In article <1994Apr5.133911.2572@ccc.amdahl.com> das90@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Danny Smith) writes:
|> >In article <2npqs6$437@news.parc.xerox.com> ellis@parc.xerox.com (John Ellis) writes:
|> >>I have no idea what the Microsoft patent says (but I've ordered a copy).
|> >
|> >I would appreciate your posting it, unless there's something illegal about
|> >_that_!  (And shouldn't this thread be moved to c.s.c.politics?)
|>
|> Patents are by definition public domain, so there should be nothing illegal
|> about distributing it electronically.  The complete text of the patent
|> (excluding figures) was posted a week ago to misc.int-property, which I
|> think is a more appropriate forum.  I've put it up for FTP in
|> ftp.think.com:/public/users/barmar/patent-5297284.text.
|>
|> Note that the summary section of the patent says that it is intended "to
|> provide improved methods of implementing virtual functions".  From my
|> limited understanding of C++ implementation technique and a cursory reading
|> of the patent I couldn't see what significant improvements it provides.
|>

The patent of Jones, O'Riordan, and Zbikowski details a technique for
implementing C++ objects having virtual base subobjects and virtual
functions that reduces the space required to store the objects at
runtime.  Their method replaces some of the virtual base pointers used
in the method outlined in ARM with a single pointer that pointers to a
virtual base table containing constant offsets.

Their patent is written using thunks for the implementation of
multiple inheritance pointers, but since every claim in the patent
refers (indirectly) to the use of the virtual base table, it is not
clear to me that they claim anything specific about thunks.  Since
they directly cite ARM it is obvious that there was no intent to
patent the method detailed in ARM.  ARM also speculates about thunk
implementation of multiple derivation, but is it prior art? (Don't
answer; I don't care).

It is unfortunate that the pioneering work of Jones et al. took three
years to be published.

|> --
|> Barry Margolin
|> System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
|>
|> barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

--
John.

John J. Barton        jjb@watson.ibm.com            (914)784-6645
H1-C13 IBM Watson Research Center P.O. Box 704 Hawthorne NY 10598

In article <Cnzw5E.Jt3@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>,
jjb@watson.ibm.com (John Barton) writes:

|> The patent of Jones, O'Riordan, and Zbikowski details a technique for
|> implementing C++ objects having virtual base subobjects and virtual
|> functions that reduces the space required to store the objects at
|> runtime.  Their method replaces some of the virtual base pointers used
|> in the method outlined in ARM with a single pointer that pointers to a
|> virtual base table containing constant offsets.

This sounds like the scheme described on page 266 of Design and Evolution.

In article <CnB8B0.Fso@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) writes:
>Since the ARM clearly details virtual table techniques,
>Microsoft is simply gaining the ability to bring
>others to court and obtain damaging restraining orders
>against smaller organisations which have less ability
>to sustain court actions.

The method in the ARM isn't quite the same as in the patent.  In the ARM,
when an overridden virtual function is called the "this" pointer points to
the sub-object of the class whose overriding function is being called.  In
the patent, the "this" pointer points to the sub-object of the base class
that introduced the virtual function.  This difference impacts the contents
of virtual function tables and the way adjustor thunks are implemented.

Personally, I'm not sure that this difference is enough to make the
patented method "unobvious" given this prior art (which is directly
referenced in the patent).

Please continue this discussion in misc.int-property and comp.lang.c++,
where I've already started another thread about this patent.  It doesn't
seem to pertain to the C or C++ standards.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

In article <konigsba.765593537@cambridge> konigsba@cambridge.mitchell.com (Dan Konigsbach) writes:
>maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) writes:
>
>>In article <rfgCn5216.GGn@netcom.com> rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>>>I am more than a little bit disgusted by what I have read in the following
>>>message.
>
>> [Microsoft patents virtual tables]

{munch}

>Is this somehow a justification of Microsoft's patent?

 In what way does a patent need justification?
Either the patent is properly granted according to law or
it isnt. If it is granted according to law and the
application is honest, then if you dislike the action
taken you are disliking the Patent laws themselves and
not the legitimate use of them by one company. A company
FAILING to patent one of its inventions would probably
mean its directors were in breach of they legal
duty to protect the interests of the shareholders.

>
>>Microsoft would loose any such action, and they know it.
>>They're not obtaining the patent for the purpose of royalty
>>collection, but for litigational warfare.
>
>Would Microsoft necessarily lose any such action?

 Well, actually, maybe not -- I concede you have a point.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,      CSERVE:10236.1703
        6 MacKay St ASHFIELD,     Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA

Seems it was ark@tempel.research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) who said:
>In article <Cn8CC5.1KM@cbnewse.cb.att.com> grumpy@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Paul J Lucas) writes:
>
>>  I don't know the full story behind the alleged Microsoft patent,
>>  but it is a fact that you can't patent something that has
>>  already existed, aka "prior art"; another way: patents can not
>>  be retroactive.
>
>...and since Martin O'Riordan is far from stupid, I strongly doubt
>that the patent is for anything obviously in the prior art.

This implies that Mr. O'Riordan has at least veto power over his
patent disclosure process at Microsoft.  I doubt this.  Can you as
an employee of AT&T refuse to disclose an "invention" because you
feel that it is obvious or prior art?  In most large companies the
decision to pursue a patent application is not left up to the
inventor.

Since many companies offer a bonus of $1000 or more to an employee
inventor upon granting of a patent, and since employees are regularly urged
to disclose things that "might be patentable," there are no grounds other
than perhaps belief, underestimation or sloth for someone not to disclose
something that seems a little clever.

--
Joseph Nathan Hall | Joseph's Law of Interface Design: Never give your users
Software Architect | a choice between the easy way and the right way.
Gorca Systems Inc. |                 joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (home)
(on assignment)    | (602) 732-2549 (work)  Joseph_Hall-SC052C@email.mot.com

djones@megatest.com (Dave Jones) writes:

 >[NOTE FOLLOWUPS-TO LINE.]

 >From article <konigsba.765593537@cambridge>, by konigsba@cambridge.mitchell.com (Dan Konigsbach):
 >> Lawsuits are  a bit  like poker -
 >> if your opponent raises the stakes and you don't have enough
 >> to meet  the raise, it doesn't matter how good your hand is.

 >That scenario is a myth, invented by movie makers, or maybe pulp fiction
 >writers. I invariably get irritated when I seen the scenario played out
 >on screen. If you think about it a bit you will see that such a rule could
 >not possibly work. The person with the most money would win every hand.
 >[...]

Time for today's Poker history and terminology lesson...  :-)

I also find it irritating to see Poker depicted this way in movies and
on TV, but it isn't a "myth".  No-Limit Poker does not necessarily imply
Table Stakes.

Many years ago, is was customary to play No-Limit Poker just as the name
says -- with no upper limit.  If an opponent made a bet beyond the size
of your stack, you were customarily given 24 hours to raise the cash to
meet that bet, or lose...  The stupidity of this situation *gradually*
became apparent to the big stakes players, and the Freeze-Out or Table
Stakes conventions became the norm.

Now if Hollywood would just catch up to the 20th century, they could
avoid all those illogical scenarios -- but since when do they care if
their plot lines are logical or realistic?  :-)

      Cheers,  - Darse.
--
  Go is better than Chess.  Poker is more lucrative.  Sex is more fun.

 Darse Billings, 7 kyu; 2065 CFC; meaningless IRC sb/hand ratios (hands):
 Hold'em +0.21 (5000), HiLo Omaha +0.37 (300), +99 Pot-Limit Hold'em (350).

Ronald F. Guilmette (rfg@netcom.com) wrote:
: I am more than a little bit disgusted by what I have read in the following
: message.

: I think the basic idea driving the U.S. patent office these days in that
: large corporations (and their highly paid lawyers) should eventually rule
: the world, and that any creative individuals who haven't yet been swallowed
: up by these large corporations deserve to be squashed like bugs.

rule the U.S, maybe, but most of the world does not recognise
patents on software, even when disguised as patents on hardware.
Most of said world (insofar as it recognises intellectual property at
all) does recognise copyrights on software.

In article <Cn8CC5.1KM@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, grumpy@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Paul
J Lucas) wrote:

> From article <tsw-230394181227@cypher.apple.com>, by tsw@cypher.apple.com (Tom Watson):
> > I can see it now...
> > A patent on the call structure using stacks to pass arguments, and using
> > frame pointers.  The patent office doesn't seem to be worried about the
> > fact just about every C/C++ compiler is using this technique.  Perhaps I
> > should apply.
>
>  I don't know the full story behind the alleged Microsoft patent,
>  but it is a fact that you can't patent something that has
>  already existed, aka "prior art"; another way: patents can not
>  be retroactive.

That is true, but our wonderful patent office has very little knowledge of
"prior art" in the field of computer programming, and doesn't seem willing
to learn.  Other countries put patent applications out for public review (I
think there is a waiting period, like a year) so EVERYONE can comment on
"prior art", and eliminate the big mess at the patent office.  That is why
people looking to "bust" a patent need to find "prior art" older that the
date of invention (governing date for patents in the US) to kill them.
Look at the "invention" of the microporcessor that is now in the hands of
some group of lawyers.  It was tied up in rewiew by the patent office for
many years, and still got issued.  It was noted that most of the stuff
claimed wasn't available at the "time of invention", but the patent was
issued anyway.

Patents aren't as obvious as they were in Telsa's day when 3-phase power
and induction motors were issued almost without challange because there was
NO prior art, and they were really "new and novel" inventions.  That was a
few (4,000,000) patents ago if I remember my numbers correctly.
------
Tom Watson    Not much simpler!!
tsw@cypher.apple.com

ark@tempel.research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>In article <Cn8CC5.1KM@cbnewse.cb.att.com> grumpy@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Paul J Lucas) writes:
>>  I don't know the full story behind the alleged Microsoft patent,
[...]
>More than that I can't say without having seen the patent itself.
[...]
>I suggest that people who want to discuss the patent, and especially
>those who want to flame about it, would probably do well to read it first.

Can anyone post / mail a more detailed version of the patent ?

--
                            /-----------------------------------------------\
Dirk Henrich                | DISCLAIMER: Opinions presented here are MINE, |
henrich.muc@sni.de (Eunet)  | possibly *NOT* those of Siemens Nixdorf !!!!! |
henrich.muc@sni-usa.com     | Indeed, I didn't even ask them for theirs ;-) |
                            \-----------------------------------------------/

matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>In article <Cn8CC5.1KM@cbnewse.cb.att.com> grumpy@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Paul J Lucas) writes:

>>  I don't know the full story behind the alleged Microsoft patent,
>>  but it is a fact that you can't patent something that has
>>  already existed, aka "prior art"; another way: patents can not
>>  be retroactive.

>A slight correction: you can't patent something that has already exist
>and has already been described in the open literature.  If an idea has
>not been published, then it's fair game, even if you're not the first
>person to have thought of it.

Even this is not quite right. You can patent anything as long as you get
it through the patent office. It will harm your opponents as they are
forbidden to use the absurdly patented idea until it is thrown out again.

If you are a big company, you have no problems going from revision to revision
until your patent is finally thrown out for good. Until then, your opponents
are effectively crippled. This delay might well be worth the money you have
to invest for lawyers, court cases... Especially smaller firms might
refrain from using an idea and possibly being sued by a big firm as they might
go broke on attorney costs when being sued by the patent holder, which has
the right to sue as long as his patent is not thrown out, even if the latter
is just a case of time.

The above patent is such an example: while it will never hold under closer
investigation, it effectively prohibits sensible C++ compiler development.
Of course you can develop, paying licence fees (IFF you can afford them),
then later reclaim them as the patent is renounced.

This is all madness, especially as it is an expensive venture to go to court
against a patent. Even if you have a sure case, you still need to put the
money on the table. It might very well be the case that a lot of illegal
patents persist because nobody with enough money has an interest, or nobody
with enough interest has the money to fight a sure battle.
--
 David Kastrup        dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
 Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502
 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen

In article <Cn8CC5.1KM@cbnewse.cb.att.com> grumpy@cbnewse.cb.att.com (Paul J Lucas) writes:

>  I don't know the full story behind the alleged Microsoft patent,
>  but it is a fact that you can't patent something that has
>  already existed, aka "prior art"; another way: patents can not
>  be retroactive.

...and since Martin O'Riordan is far from stupid, I strongly doubt
that the patent is for anything obviously in the prior art.

More than that I can't say without having seen the patent itself.
The brief description posted in this newsgroup conveys little if any
useful information aside from that the patent has something to do with
virtual functions -- at least not to me.

I suggest that people who want to discuss the patent, and especially
those who want to flame about it, would probably do well to read it first.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

I am more than a little bit disgusted by what I have read in the following
message.

I think the basic idea driving the U.S. patent office these days in that
large corporations (and their highly paid lawyers) should eventually rule
the world, and that any creative individuals who haven't yet been swallowed
up by these large corporations deserve to be squashed like bugs.

I don't understand why they haven't yet issued a patent to someone for the
concept of returning from a (software) subroutine.  Why don't they just
get it over with and put us out of our misery?

Seriously, what's next?  Is someone going to get a patent on the idea of
using tables of addresses to implement `switch' statements??

-- rfg

P.S.  I'm not one of your standard LPF/FSF fanatics, and I *do* think that
copyrighting software is often a reasonable thing to do, but this patent
stuff (and the U.S. patent office) is obviously WAY WAY out of control.


==========================================================================
>From: axb@defender.dcrl.nd.edu (Arindam Banerji)
>Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
>Subject: Virtual function & virtual base class implementations PATENTED ?
>Date: 23 Mar 1994 15:22:12 GMT
>Organization: University of Notre Dame
>Lines: 48
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <2mpmr4$4hn@news.nd.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: defender.dcrl.nd.edu
>
>The following patent was issued to Microsoft yesterday. Does anybody have more
>complete information on the contents and details of this patent ?
>
>
>
>PATENT NUMBER = 5297284
>TITLE = Method and system for implementing virtual functions and virtual base
> classes and setting a this pointer for an object-oriented programming
> language
>ISSUE DATE = 03-22-94
>INVENTOR = Jones; David T.
>INVENTOR = O'Riordan; Martin J.
>INVENTOR = Zbikowski; Mark J.
>ASSIGNEE = Microsoft Corporation
>CLASS=395/700     TYPE=  395
>CROSS REFERENCE CLASS=364/DIG.1   364/255.1   364/255.8   364/261.4
>364/DIG.2   364/938.3   364/955   364/955.6
>ABSTRACT :
>A method for a computer compiler for an object-oriented programming
> language for implementing virtual functions and virtual base classes is
> provided. In preferred embodiments of the present invention, the data
> structure layout of an object includes a virtual function table pointer, a
> virtual base table pointer, occurrences of each non-virtual base class,
> the data members of the class, and occurrences of each virtual base class.
> If a class introduces a virtual function member and the class has a
> non-virtual base class with a virtual function table pointer, then the
> class shares the virtual function table pointer of the non-virtual base
> class that is first visited in a depth-first, left-to-right traversal of
> the inheritance tree. In preferred embodiments of the present invention,
> each instance of a given class shares a set of virtual function tables and
> virtual base tables for that class. In preferred embodiments, adjusters
> are used when a function member in a derived class overrides a function
> member that is defined in more than one base class, and when a derived
> class has a base class that overrides a function member in a virtual base
> class of that class and the derived class itself does not override the
> function member.
>
>
>-thanx
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Arindam Banerji                              (219)-631-5273 (Voice)
>384 FitzPatrick Hall                         (219)-631-5772 (Voice)
>Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering    (219)-273-0862 (Voice)
>University of Notre Dame                     (219)-631-9260 (FAX)
>Notre Dame, IN 46556                         axb@cse.nd.edu (E-mail)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA ---------- RG Consulting -------------------
---- domain addr: rfg@netcom.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test ----
---- uucp addr: ...!uunet!netcom!rfg ------- Suites and Bullet-Proof Shoes -

I can see it now...
A patent on the call structure using stacks to pass arguments, and using
frame pointers.  The patent office doesn't seem to be worried about the
fact just about every C/C++ compiler is using this technique.  Perhaps I
should apply.

Yeah, that's the ticket, MAKE MONEY FAST :-) :-) :-)
------
Tom Watson    Not much simpler!!
tsw@cypher.apple.com