Breakpoints Patented
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Frankly, I find it infuriating.
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
you should see the list on atomic access from multiple-threads. You begin to realize why it took so long to go multi-core, because everything to control synchronization from true MP environments is patented.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Full text of the application[^]. It appears that their 'invention' is that the debugger somehow looks for the function name in some symbolic debugging information and sets hardware breakpoints or otherwise edits the code to call into the debugger wherever that function name has been used. I don't see that being a million miles away from what all symbolic debuggers have ever done (and you can easily type
bp kernel32!CloseHandleinto WinDbg although that sets the breakpoint on the first instruction of the function, via code editing to insert a software interrupt, rather than editing all the call sites). Windows also hasDebugBreakwhich is a routine that simply contains a breakpoint instruction, and some compilers spot that as an intrinsic to insert the breakpoint instruction directly. The reason, I believe, for the existence of patents was that in return for exclusivity of the idea, the inventor would disclose his invention in a publicly-searchable library, so that people did not need to reinvent such things in their own research to develop something else on top of the existing invention. The system has been perverted to prevent people making enhancements; should they take the trouble to search the patent database, and conclude that their design does not infringe, they can be hit with triple damage for wilful infringement if a court decides otherwise. It's actually better not to know, which means that the patent details are simply wasting storage space.Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
One can only hope that the method is sufficiently complex enough that you don't infringe on it by accident.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
One can only hope that the method is sufficiently complex enough that you don't infringe on it by accident.
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
hey you know please don't think i'm hounding you here or anything but i don't think i've seen a sensible comment by you all day ... are you some kind of corporate mouthpiece or something? you think drm and the dcma is great you seem to support ridiculous patents i don't doubt you think copyright infringement should be a federal offence do you not realize what these things are heading towards? :wtf: [edit] if you were being sarcastic please forgive me :) [/edit]
"there is no spoon" {me}
-
hey you know please don't think i'm hounding you here or anything but i don't think i've seen a sensible comment by you all day ... are you some kind of corporate mouthpiece or something? you think drm and the dcma is great you seem to support ridiculous patents i don't doubt you think copyright infringement should be a federal offence do you not realize what these things are heading towards? :wtf: [edit] if you were being sarcastic please forgive me :) [/edit]
"there is no spoon" {me}
l a u r e n wrote:
you seem to support ridiculous patents
:~ I think he was being sarcastic. I mean, all software patents are somewhat silly... but breakpoints? No one could take that seriously... ...with the obvious exception of whoever filed that application...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Full text of the application[^]. It appears that their 'invention' is that the debugger somehow looks for the function name in some symbolic debugging information and sets hardware breakpoints or otherwise edits the code to call into the debugger wherever that function name has been used. I don't see that being a million miles away from what all symbolic debuggers have ever done (and you can easily type
bp kernel32!CloseHandleinto WinDbg although that sets the breakpoint on the first instruction of the function, via code editing to insert a software interrupt, rather than editing all the call sites). Windows also hasDebugBreakwhich is a routine that simply contains a breakpoint instruction, and some compilers spot that as an intrinsic to insert the breakpoint instruction directly. The reason, I believe, for the existence of patents was that in return for exclusivity of the idea, the inventor would disclose his invention in a publicly-searchable library, so that people did not need to reinvent such things in their own research to develop something else on top of the existing invention. The system has been perverted to prevent people making enhancements; should they take the trouble to search the patent database, and conclude that their design does not infringe, they can be hit with triple damage for wilful infringement if a court decides otherwise. It's actually better not to know, which means that the patent details are simply wasting storage space.Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Mike Dimmick wrote:
I don't see that being a million miles away from what all symbolic debuggers have ever done
Also sounds reasonably close to a number of dynamic linking / thunking / patching techniques, although of course with a different purpose. And conceptually close to what happens in various script debuggers. I need to patent the phrase "ludicrous waste of time", and then sue everyone who bothers to read the filing...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
From the application:
The traditional method of implementing a breakpoint has another disadvantage. The particular special processor instruction that is invoked by the breakpoint is unique to the central processing unit ("CPU"). In other words, a breakpoint that works with an INTEL.RTM. processor will probably not work with a MOTOROLA.RTM. or IBM.RTM. processor because the processors have different software interrupt instructions. This limits the portability of the software.
Yeah. That's what makes software unportable. Breakpoints. Good grief! :wtf: The rest of it is, if possible, even more brain-dead. Unless i'm reading it incorrectly, this is essentially describing an overly-elaborate
assert()implementation... :doh:----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
hey you know please don't think i'm hounding you here or anything but i don't think i've seen a sensible comment by you all day ... are you some kind of corporate mouthpiece or something? you think drm and the dcma is great you seem to support ridiculous patents i don't doubt you think copyright infringement should be a federal offence do you not realize what these things are heading towards? :wtf: [edit] if you were being sarcastic please forgive me :) [/edit]
"there is no spoon" {me}
Thanks for the opportunity for dialog. I'm not quite sure how you heard what I said to conclude that I support this patent. This was my thought process: There are so many people patenting so many pieces of software, that I became afraid that I might infringe some obscure patent purely by accident. If I come up with my own fairly clever code construction, how can I be sure that I'm not in hot water even though I "invented" it independently? That's what I meant. I apologize for any personal affront I may have caused earlier, but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property. If there is a better way to stop piracy, other than DRM, then don't keep it a secret, let's hear about it. I think the subject can be discussed without animosity. Considering that copyright laws are federal laws, copyright infringement already is a federal offense. :)
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
I don't believe in patending but as this world is filling up with thieves and opportunists, patending has become a valuable service / concept. However things might appear though, it has always been my understanding that patents play little role in courts as their legal basis leaves many things 'assumed' and conflicting with freedom issues or common sense. IMHO, a patent is more like a fence rather than a brick wall ..... you can choose to go thru it but it's gonna hurt ...
-
Mike Dimmick wrote:
I don't see that being a million miles away from what all symbolic debuggers have ever done
Also sounds reasonably close to a number of dynamic linking / thunking / patching techniques, although of course with a different purpose. And conceptually close to what happens in various script debuggers. I need to patent the phrase "ludicrous waste of time", and then sue everyone who bothers to read the filing...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Thanks for the opportunity for dialog. I'm not quite sure how you heard what I said to conclude that I support this patent. This was my thought process: There are so many people patenting so many pieces of software, that I became afraid that I might infringe some obscure patent purely by accident. If I come up with my own fairly clever code construction, how can I be sure that I'm not in hot water even though I "invented" it independently? That's what I meant. I apologize for any personal affront I may have caused earlier, but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property. If there is a better way to stop piracy, other than DRM, then don't keep it a secret, let's hear about it. I think the subject can be discussed without animosity. Considering that copyright laws are federal laws, copyright infringement already is a federal offense. :)
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
DRM isn't the answer to piracy... protecting one's content and just charging for the same song over and over everytime you decide to change your system of protection are completely different things!! Too many competing DRM's, too many reason's why DRM is not good for the consumer. Copyright infringement isn't piracy, copyright infringement is copyright infringement!! Piracy is when you seek financial gain from it... Copyright infringment can't be stopped now, it's too widely accepted. The music industry has two choices... move to a subscription/music-tax model for music (DRM free btw) and charge for value added products like CD's. The second choice is to sell music like they do now but DRM free and at resonable cost... because if they all accept one DRM model, I guaranty it will be broken within a year and they will be back to square one! As for software patents, I'm in Europe and luckily we haven't been silly enough to introduce them here.... yet! Let's hope they stay smart and keep them out. I'm not sure if I can be sued in Europe from a US held patent though?! :confused:
-
Thanks for the opportunity for dialog. I'm not quite sure how you heard what I said to conclude that I support this patent. This was my thought process: There are so many people patenting so many pieces of software, that I became afraid that I might infringe some obscure patent purely by accident. If I come up with my own fairly clever code construction, how can I be sure that I'm not in hot water even though I "invented" it independently? That's what I meant. I apologize for any personal affront I may have caused earlier, but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property. If there is a better way to stop piracy, other than DRM, then don't keep it a secret, let's hear about it. I think the subject can be discussed without animosity. Considering that copyright laws are federal laws, copyright infringement already is a federal offense. :)
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property
Sure, but DRM won't help with that. If I can see it or hear it, I can copy it. It's as simple as that. All DRM does is increasing the price of the product for the people who actually pays. And then give them an inferior product that might not play in all their players, and they can't copy to their next computer. Ever since music was first delivered as recordings, it has been legal to make copies for family and close friends. And after some number of years, the recording will be free to use by the public. That's how the laws have been made. DRM is therefore also an attempt at stopping legal copying. IOW (if we limit this to the US, as you apparently are from that country, but other countries might have laws with similar effect, my country, Norway, has), DRM and DMCA prevents legal use and legal copying of copyrighted material. While the people already breaking laws (unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material) won't be affected. So, why is DRM a good thing? M.
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
This is why the 'first to file' approach of the US patent office is wrong, it should follow the 'prior art' approach.
-
Mike Dimmick wrote:
I don't see that being a million miles away from what all symbolic debuggers have ever done
Also sounds reasonably close to a number of dynamic linking / thunking / patching techniques, although of course with a different purpose. And conceptually close to what happens in various script debuggers. I need to patent the phrase "ludicrous waste of time", and then sue everyone who bothers to read the filing...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Actually, I think you would copyright that phrase, rather than patent it. After all, it was invented a long time ago (probably by Ook-ook's best friend, when Ook-ook was inventing the wheel).
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This is why the 'first to file' approach of the US patent office is wrong, it should follow the 'prior art' approach.
From my (admittedly miniscule) understanding, the 'first to file' rule grants a patent, but demonstrating prior art is the first line of defense when responding to a patent infringement claim.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This is why the 'first to file' approach of the US patent office is wrong, it should follow the 'prior art' approach.
But what about 'simultaneous art'? Surely the fact that you independently came up with the same, or similar, solution should be a defence to infringing on the patent (indeed it would prove that the patent was in fact obvious to one skilled in the art)? This would remove the unintentional infringement part, leaving only wilful infringement - you read the patent and went ahead and used the patented feature anyway, without negotiating a royalty payment with the patent holder. The patent is supposed to reward the inventor for their invention being reused, but it's now used to harm people who've already expended hard work, time and money researching the same problem. It's meant to give people a leg up in producing their own solutions, but it's used to cut their legs from under them. I'd like to take it further and suggest that the patent holder have to prove that the infringement was knowing and deliberate, but I realise that it would be hard to prove either way.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Actually, I think you would copyright that phrase, rather than patent it. After all, it was invented a long time ago (probably by Ook-ook's best friend, when Ook-ook was inventing the wheel).
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Wonder if it would hold up in court? Its like patenting a hammer. You might be able to do it but you'd get your brains beat out in court. BTW here is the link to the USPTO version. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=136163.APN.&OS=APN/136163&RS=APN/136163[^] The number listed is the USPTO application number.
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Notice that this application was submitted to the US Patent Office in 2002 and no patent has issued. (You can search it at www.uspto.gov) Perhaps you're not the only one who found it ridiculous.
