8 ms·

Thats not the only thing, no? Doesn't it also prevent e.g. other people/company from including that feature in their own programming language that doesn't use S

by hdra 8y ago

Thats not the only thing, no? Doesn't it also prevent e.g. other people/company from including that feature in their own programming language that doesn't use Swift at all?

hopler 8y ago
Only if those people compete with Apple's profits.
thekingofh 8y ago
--edit-- see below comments.. this may not be so simple. No. The Apache License 2.0 does not work that way. You are allowed to copy and use everything in the Swift language to your own liking in a similar manner to the MIT and BSD permissive licenses. However if you then try and begin a lawsuit against Apple for anything in what you copied, your rights are terminated, therefore invalidating your suit. The Apache License also gives you access to the patents in the language. It's a bit of a hack like GPL is, except that you are allowed to do just about anything with the code except sue. The license, at least the way I see it, is a signal that Apple isn't in the business of patenting language features. In fact, in a way, Apple is using their resources to gobble up space that patent trolls can never again exploit. Once a patented feature is released under Apache 2.0, I know of no way that it can be undone.
- riskable 8y ago
  The patent hasn't been granted to the world via the Apache license. The Apache license only covers the code in the Swift language. So if you implement the claims of the patent in something that isn't derived from the Swift code you are not covered under The Apache license.
  - thekingofh 8y ago
    I believe there is a flaw in the Apache License 2.0 here. If the patent grant only covers the code in question. If this is true, then it not only reinforces software patents, but reinforces implementations too.
    - Semaphor 8y ago
      My understanding is, that the point is to make sure the users of the code don't have to care about patents. It's a license for the code, not for the patents.
  - dwaite 8y ago
    Yes, but this is also the case for say features in Swift that IBM contributes to the code base. It is a purposeful limitation of the Apache 2.0 license that the "patent pool" effect is limited to the project.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      So, to make it clear - since that's a question that was unanswered in the linked discussion. If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Or does AL prevent this?
      - reboog711 8y ago
        Speaking as a PMC of Apache Flex, but not as a lawyer... > If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Yes, Apple can sue you for making use of their patents w/o a formal license in place! > Or does AL prevent this? No! The Apache License protects users who use code from the project in question, but does not allow you to use those patents for other purposes. To give a parallel example: I license a photograph of two kids in overalls to put it on a poster and sell it. That does not give me permission to use that image on playing cards, porcelain dolls, or other avenues. https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-famous-poster/512071.html https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-fa...
      - dwaite 8y ago
        Apple could try, sure, and you wouldn't have something like the Apache 2 license to point to in order to attempt to resolve things quicker. Any number of people could try to sue you for any number of things. Thats unfortunately how lawsuits work. You could also attempt to get another license from Apple for your work. They might not be willing to do this unless you somehow could guarantee all patent licensees for your version of Swift would be unmotivated (by some legal clause or agreement) to sue them as well. I doubt Apple would go through the work of getting a patent for something that they already openly give out licenses for people to use (via Apache 2) unless it was meant purely for defensive purposes. So I'd be shocked if they went after a from-scratch Swift implementation except for trademark purposes (aka, you can't call name it Swift if it is a partial implementation)
- pmontra 8y ago
  How about Apple switching to a different patent holder friendly license for a future version of Swift? Older versions would be safe, but they could ask money to use the new ones. And maybe they decide who to go after first.
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  This sounds like defensive patenting, which is what Microsoft used to do: patenting things to keep them out of the hands of the patent trolls, but not to restrict people from actually using the idea against them. This is not, by itself, a bad thing. In fact, it's good. However, is there any way Apple could change their minds in the future and start wielding the patent against others? To me, that is the danger of granting patents even to people who appear to be acting as a good guy.
riskable 8y ago
Yes. This, exactly. By patenting this language feature Apple has very clearly stated that they are "making a claim of ownership" as it were of this feature across all languages and non-derivative implementations. ...which is a perfect example of why software patents shouldn't exist in the first place. One could implement this feature in any number of novel, unique ways therefore the patent is nothing more than a claim on a broad concept rather than a specific implementation (which is what patents are supposed to cover). The paradox of patents on software is this: If the patent covers what it's supposed to cover (a specific implementation) the patent will be useless because anyone could implement what amounts to the same thing using different methods, languages, whatever. If the patent covers a broad concept it will prevent anyone from using it or innovating in that entire domain until the patent expires. Completely defeating the purpose of having patents in the first place. It will also likely (after millions upon millions of dollars wasted in lawsuits) be ruled invalid as being overly broad. Software patents are inherently a bad idea and should be done away with.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Can't you make a pretty similar argument about all types of patents?
  - naringas 8y ago
    it wouldn't be quite the same because software does not have physical material properties. IMO this difference is crucial.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - klq 8y ago
      To me software patents and patents for, for example, real world engines are the same. It's okay not to like patents, but separating software patents from the rest makes no sense.
black-tea 8y ago
Someone could even implement the feature in a dynamic language like Python or Lisp for a particular application. Does that mean the application is infringing the patent because they didn't use Swift?
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  no.
  - maxdesiatov 8y ago
    Could you please elaborate on this? Is there any direct confirmation of this? There wasn't any single answer from anyone affiliated with the Swift core team on this specific point. Or from any lawyer for that matter.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Patent claims define the legal scope: if "using Swift" isn't in the claims then using another language, provided it fits the language of the claims, is also covered by the patent.
      - maxdesiatov 8y ago
        ok, does it mean that if you implement only parts of the patent (say only a single feature) there's no infringement because then it doesn't "fit the language of the claims"? Also, "using Swift" isn't in the claims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
        pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        If you look at the main claims (any that don't add to a previous claim, ie don't include "the invention of claim X wherein ...") then you need to be doing something that matches all clauses in the claim to infringe. When drafting the claims writer (patent attorney or agent usually) will add clauses to work around prior art. You can't just add unrelated features though, the features need to have synergy to represent a single invention. [I've read a lot on USA patents but only worked directly with UK and EU patents. This is not legal advice.]
cestith 8y ago
It also prevents any fully independent implementation of a compatible Swift since it wouldn't be from the Apache-licensed source.

by hdra 8y ago

Thats not the only thing, no? Doesn't it also prevent e.g. other people/company from including that feature in their own programming language that doesn't use Swift at all?

hopler 8y ago

Only if those people compete with Apple's profits.

thekingofh 8y ago

--edit-- see below comments.. this may not be so simple. No. The Apache License 2.0 does not work that way. You are allowed to copy and use everything in the Swift language to your own liking in a similar manner to the MIT and BSD permissive licenses. However if you then try and begin a lawsuit against Apple for anything in what you copied, your rights are terminated, therefore invalidating your suit. The Apache License also gives you access to the patents in the language. It's a bit of a hack like GPL is, except that you are allowed to do just about anything with the code except sue. The license, at least the way I see it, is a signal that Apple isn't in the business of patenting language features. In fact, in a way, Apple is using their resources to gobble up space that patent trolls can never again exploit. Once a patented feature is released under Apache 2.0, I know of no way that it can be undone.

riskable 8y ago
The patent hasn't been granted to the world via the Apache license. The Apache license only covers the code in the Swift language. So if you implement the claims of the patent in something that isn't derived from the Swift code you are not covered under The Apache license.
- thekingofh 8y ago
  I believe there is a flaw in the Apache License 2.0 here. If the patent grant only covers the code in question. If this is true, then it not only reinforces software patents, but reinforces implementations too.
  - Semaphor 8y ago
    My understanding is, that the point is to make sure the users of the code don't have to care about patents. It's a license for the code, not for the patents.
- dwaite 8y ago
  Yes, but this is also the case for say features in Swift that IBM contributes to the code base. It is a purposeful limitation of the Apache 2.0 license that the "patent pool" effect is limited to the project.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    So, to make it clear - since that's a question that was unanswered in the linked discussion. If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Or does AL prevent this?
    - reboog711 8y ago
      Speaking as a PMC of Apache Flex, but not as a lawyer... > If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Yes, Apple can sue you for making use of their patents w/o a formal license in place! > Or does AL prevent this? No! The Apache License protects users who use code from the project in question, but does not allow you to use those patents for other purposes. To give a parallel example: I license a photograph of two kids in overalls to put it on a poster and sell it. That does not give me permission to use that image on playing cards, porcelain dolls, or other avenues. https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-famous-poster/512071.html https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-fa...
    - dwaite 8y ago
      Apple could try, sure, and you wouldn't have something like the Apache 2 license to point to in order to attempt to resolve things quicker. Any number of people could try to sue you for any number of things. Thats unfortunately how lawsuits work. You could also attempt to get another license from Apple for your work. They might not be willing to do this unless you somehow could guarantee all patent licensees for your version of Swift would be unmotivated (by some legal clause or agreement) to sue them as well. I doubt Apple would go through the work of getting a patent for something that they already openly give out licenses for people to use (via Apache 2) unless it was meant purely for defensive purposes. So I'd be shocked if they went after a from-scratch Swift implementation except for trademark purposes (aka, you can't call name it Swift if it is a partial implementation)
pmontra 8y ago
How about Apple switching to a different patent holder friendly license for a future version of Swift? Older versions would be safe, but they could ask money to use the new ones. And maybe they decide who to go after first.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
This sounds like defensive patenting, which is what Microsoft used to do: patenting things to keep them out of the hands of the patent trolls, but not to restrict people from actually using the idea against them. This is not, by itself, a bad thing. In fact, it's good. However, is there any way Apple could change their minds in the future and start wielding the patent against others? To me, that is the danger of granting patents even to people who appear to be acting as a good guy.

riskable 8y ago

Yes. This, exactly. By patenting this language feature Apple has very clearly stated that they are "making a claim of ownership" as it were of this feature across all languages and non-derivative implementations. ...which is a perfect example of why software patents shouldn't exist in the first place. One could implement this feature in any number of novel, unique ways therefore the patent is nothing more than a claim on a broad concept rather than a specific implementation (which is what patents are supposed to cover). The paradox of patents on software is this: If the patent covers what it's supposed to cover (a specific implementation) the patent will be useless because anyone could implement what amounts to the same thing using different methods, languages, whatever. If the patent covers a broad concept it will prevent anyone from using it or innovating in that entire domain until the patent expires. Completely defeating the purpose of having patents in the first place. It will also likely (after millions upon millions of dollars wasted in lawsuits) be ruled invalid as being overly broad. Software patents are inherently a bad idea and should be done away with.

solarkraft 8y ago
Can't you make a pretty similar argument about all types of patents?
- naringas 8y ago
  it wouldn't be quite the same because software does not have physical material properties. IMO this difference is crucial.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - klq 8y ago
    To me software patents and patents for, for example, real world engines are the same. It's okay not to like patents, but separating software patents from the rest makes no sense.

black-tea 8y ago

Someone could even implement the feature in a dynamic language like Python or Lisp for a particular application. Does that mean the application is infringing the patent because they didn't use Swift?

pnw_hazor 8y ago
no.
- maxdesiatov 8y ago
  Could you please elaborate on this? Is there any direct confirmation of this? There wasn't any single answer from anyone affiliated with the Swift core team on this specific point. Or from any lawyer for that matter.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Patent claims define the legal scope: if "using Swift" isn't in the claims then using another language, provided it fits the language of the claims, is also covered by the patent.
    - maxdesiatov 8y ago
      ok, does it mean that if you implement only parts of the patent (say only a single feature) there's no infringement because then it doesn't "fit the language of the claims"? Also, "using Swift" isn't in the claims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        If you look at the main claims (any that don't add to a previous claim, ie don't include "the invention of claim X wherein ...") then you need to be doing something that matches all clauses in the claim to infringe. When drafting the claims writer (patent attorney or agent usually) will add clauses to work around prior art. You can't just add unrelated features though, the features need to have synergy to represent a single invention. [I've read a lot on USA patents but only worked directly with UK and EU patents. This is not legal advice.]

cestith 8y ago

It also prevents any fully independent implementation of a compatible Swift since it wouldn't be from the Apache-licensed source.