4 ms·

I don't quite understand. The patent (9,952,841) seems to be about the language swift. There is mention about language features describing the language, but I

I don't quite understand. The patent (9,952,841) seems to be about the language swift. There is mention about language features describing the language, but I don't see a specific claim to any of them. "optionals chaining" (the feature that everyone is alarmed about) is just one of the features listed. Other features mentioned include an "IDE" and "unicode" as well as support for "functions". Am I missing something? Where is the claim on an specific language characteristic?

anonuser123456 8y ago
This is how I interpreted it. It doesn't seem to patent a feature in as much as Swift itself. This actually seems quite legitimate from a 'patentability' standpoint. The precise mix of features coupled with syntax would definitely be patentable under existing law. This does make it risky to implement a competing compiler however.
- 3JPLW 8y ago
  > This does make it risky to implement a competing compiler however. Unless, of course, you can satisfy the terms of the license and include the copyright/license and a list of changes (which is indeed a little strange if it's actually a fresh implementation). That said, if you're needing to provide the same license, then you might as well fork it and not worry about starting from scratch.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Remember that each claim stands by itself, unless it explicitly evokes another claim.
DannyBee 8y ago
IP lawyer here. You should ignore everything but the claims, and see what the claims say. So stare at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9952841B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9952841B2/en and look only at the claims. To me, that set of claims is ... worrying
- zamalek 8y ago
  IANAL, but those claims seem to describe .Net (multiple languages targeting a common IR?), so there's prior art.
  - cestith 8y ago
    p-code?
    - zamalek 8y ago
      The key "innovation" that Apple seems to be claiming is that multiple languages are intended to be compiled down to a single p-code (in this case, LLVM). .Net does this in two ways: * Projects in different languages (originally, C#, VB and curiously Eiffel) compile to the same p-code/IR and are dynamically linked into an application. * A single project contains multiple languages (C#, ASPX, Razor) compile to the same p-code/IR and are statically linked into an application. .Net may not be the first that did this intentionally, but it does cover all the scenarios.
- 2_listerine_pls 8y ago
  Could you recomend me a book or course on how to file an utility patent? I took a mooc explaining the overall process but it lacks details.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    Filing your own patent pro se is one of the best ways to both waste your money and lose your rights. edit: word order
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    You really really really don't want to do this if you can avoid it. It's not because there is magic here, it's because the set of rules, regulations, and interpretations to follow is voluminous. The document you want is called the MPEP. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html This covers the rules/regulations/interpretations/etc that they will expect you to know/follow, and examiners to know/follow. In that sense, it literally does cover everything you'd need to know to do this right, and how the examiner/etc will look at your patent application, etc. It's even understandable by normal human beings and goes to great lengths to explain its reasoning and the case law that supports their views. However, it's also thousands of pages. Now, it's definitely possible and in my experience, examiners are fairly nice to pro-se applicants and try to be helpful. But this would really be a thing you'd want to have to spend a significant amount of time doing. For the vast majority of people, it's much more effective to hire someone who will charge a fixed fee. (for a single person filing a patent for the firs time, you'd qualify as a micro-entity, so most of your fees would be the lawyer/agent for sure) But, if you decide to do it, that's the document you want. (And just as a disclaimer: i don't make a living patenting stuff and think patents in general hurt a lot more than they help. So i'm really not the type to tell you to go spend money on a patent lawyer if i can avoid it)

anonuser123456 8y ago

This is how I interpreted it. It doesn't seem to patent a feature in as much as Swift itself. This actually seems quite legitimate from a 'patentability' standpoint. The precise mix of features coupled with syntax would definitely be patentable under existing law. This does make it risky to implement a competing compiler however.

3JPLW 8y ago
> This does make it risky to implement a competing compiler however. Unless, of course, you can satisfy the terms of the license and include the copyright/license and a list of changes (which is indeed a little strange if it's actually a fresh implementation). That said, if you're needing to provide the same license, then you might as well fork it and not worry about starting from scratch.
int_19h 8y ago
Remember that each claim stands by itself, unless it explicitly evokes another claim.

DannyBee 8y ago

IP lawyer here. You should ignore everything but the claims, and see what the claims say. So stare at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9952841B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9952841B2/en and look only at the claims. To me, that set of claims is ... worrying

zamalek 8y ago
IANAL, but those claims seem to describe .Net (multiple languages targeting a common IR?), so there's prior art.
- cestith 8y ago
  p-code?
  - zamalek 8y ago
    The key "innovation" that Apple seems to be claiming is that multiple languages are intended to be compiled down to a single p-code (in this case, LLVM). .Net does this in two ways: * Projects in different languages (originally, C#, VB and curiously Eiffel) compile to the same p-code/IR and are dynamically linked into an application. * A single project contains multiple languages (C#, ASPX, Razor) compile to the same p-code/IR and are statically linked into an application. .Net may not be the first that did this intentionally, but it does cover all the scenarios.
2_listerine_pls 8y ago
Could you recomend me a book or course on how to file an utility patent? I took a mooc explaining the overall process but it lacks details.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Filing your own patent pro se is one of the best ways to both waste your money and lose your rights. edit: word order
- DannyBee 8y ago
  You really really really don't want to do this if you can avoid it. It's not because there is magic here, it's because the set of rules, regulations, and interpretations to follow is voluminous. The document you want is called the MPEP. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html This covers the rules/regulations/interpretations/etc that they will expect you to know/follow, and examiners to know/follow. In that sense, it literally does cover everything you'd need to know to do this right, and how the examiner/etc will look at your patent application, etc. It's even understandable by normal human beings and goes to great lengths to explain its reasoning and the case law that supports their views. However, it's also thousands of pages. Now, it's definitely possible and in my experience, examiners are fairly nice to pro-se applicants and try to be helpful. But this would really be a thing you'd want to have to spend a significant amount of time doing. For the vast majority of people, it's much more effective to hire someone who will charge a fixed fee. (for a single person filing a patent for the firs time, you'd qualify as a micro-entity, so most of your fees would be the lawyer/agent for sure) But, if you decide to do it, that's the document you want. (And just as a disclaimer: i don't make a living patenting stuff and think patents in general hurt a lot more than they help. So i'm really not the type to tell you to go spend money on a patent lawyer if i can avoid it)