4 ms·
That sounds bizarre. So this means that parents are potentially holding back programming language innovation? I hope I don’t have to consult with a lawyer every
by justusw 4y ago
That sounds bizarre. So this means that parents are potentially holding back programming language innovation? I hope I don’t have to consult with a lawyer every time I invent a new variation on the for loop. (I anticipate that someone will then tell me that there already is a patent for that…)
- TheDong 4y agoWhy would it be bizarre? It's not exactly a fringe belief that patents in all software are holding back innovation. I don't think programmers often consult 20 year old "inventions", so it seems pretty obvious on its face that the supposed benefit of patents, that something is _only_ locked up for 20 years, is quite pointless in software. Anyway, for loops are safe, unless the for loop is over the elements of a linked list. Then you need to wait until next year: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7028023B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US7028023B2
- planede 4y agoDoesn't that patent's claims cover doubly-linked lists? The "auxilary order" could very well be reverse order. Seems like an obvious prior art.