Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Oct 2012 12:03 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "With the permission of IBM, the Computer History Museum is pleased to make available the source code to the 1969-1972 'XM6' version of APL for the System/360 for non-commercial use." This is great: we need to make sure material like this is preserved. We can learn from it.
Order by: Score:
Find some hidden prior art?
by bram on Fri 12th Oct 2012 16:29 UTC
bram
Member since:
2009-04-03

And hopefully we can even find some techniques that qualify as prior art to subvert some patent trolls.

But then again, patent system is going from first-to-invent towards first-to-file, so it may not do that much good.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Find some hidden prior art?
by shmerl on Fri 12th Oct 2012 17:34 UTC in reply to "Find some hidden prior art?"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

First-to-file doesn't negate the idea of prior art.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Find some hidden prior art?
by bhtooefr on Mon 15th Oct 2012 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Find some hidden prior art?"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

To clarify, what it basically means is...

First-to-invent means, if five people invent the same thing within a year, and they all file the patent, the first to invent gets the patent. (Others may initially get it, and then it gets invalidated due to the earlier invention existing, and eventually the first to invent gets it.)

First-to-file means, if five people invent the same thing within a year, it depends on who files first. If the first to invent was the first to file, they get it. If a later inventor files first, then they may initially get it, and then their patent gets invalidated due to the earlier invention existing. Nobody gets the patent, the idea is in the public domain.

(That said, a better revocation method for patents would be useful.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Find some hidden prior art?
by unclefester on Sat 13th Oct 2012 04:02 UTC in reply to "Find some hidden prior art?"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

But then again, patent system is going from first-to-invent towards first-to-file, so it may not do that much good.


This has always been the case in Australia.

Reply Score: 2

saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

Just as a minor point, programming languages don't have source code. It's the interpreters and/or development environments that do.

Just sayin'

Edited 2012-10-12 17:03 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

It's the interpreters and/or development environments that do.


Or if you're using a real language; a compiler.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Nah, if you're using a real language you'd be using an assembler.

Reply Score: 4

Broken link to source code
by theosib on Fri 12th Oct 2012 18:20 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

Well, I thought I'd download the source, just to poke around, but their "Agree" link goes nowhere. Hopefully they'll fix this soon.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Fri 12th Oct 2012 21:05 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

I'm amazed Apple didn't sue the authors of the APL programming language yet [end of joke].

Now, seriously, not so much ago Apple sued and destroyed webstore which sells groceries, based in Poland. Why, you may ask? well, the name of this store was "A". Nothing weird, huh? Well, the rest of the "name" - as the Apple lawyers thought - was the polish domain, which is "pl", so all in all the name goes as follow: a.pl.
Oddly enough they managed to destroy this innocent business with their rediculous claims. Shame on you all, Apple, Apple workers, lawyers, american law system and americans! SHAME.ON.YOU. This name was not even corelated with Apple in ANY way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by MOS6510 on Sat 13th Oct 2012 04:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

First off I'd like to say I don't agree with Apple on this.

But... the suit isn't about the domain name a.pl, it's about a logo on fresh24.pl, which is owned by a.pl. Nor has a.pl (or fresh24.pl) been "destroyed".

The worse that can happen is that they need another logo, but since this logo looks more like an apple than an Apple and they don't sell tech I doubt they'll lose.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by Soulbender on Sat 13th Oct 2012 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

it's about a logo on fresh24.p


Maybe it's just me but I don't see a logo there that is even remotely like the Apple logo.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by MOS6510 on Sat 13th Oct 2012 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Rumor has it it was their old logo, but even that can't be confused with Apple's.

Even so I doubt anyone goes on-line to buy an iMac and ends up with a box of oranges.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sat 13th Oct 2012 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Well, that's not quite true. A.pl may have some problems related to their own business, but this lawsuit didn't help them a bit.

Besides - the problem remains. Is that even remotely similar to the original Apple logo?

http://fresh24.pl/Images/logo.png

And - is "A.pl" even remotely similar to Apple?

No and no. There's something deeply wrong with US law which allows such claims.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by MOS6510 on Sat 13th Oct 2012 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

What I said is true. They didn't get destroyed and the suite isn't with regard to a.pl.

The logo does look a bit like the Apple logo, but not to such a level that it would be confusing, even more so because they are two totally kinds of businesses: fruit vs tech.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by Soulbender on Sat 13th Oct 2012 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No and no. There's something deeply wrong with US law which allows such claims.


But....a.pl does not do business in the U.S, does it
I'm pretty sure the U.S has no jurisdiction in Poland.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by MOS6510 on Sat 13th Oct 2012 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

We know that, not sure the U.S. does.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by BeamishBoy
by BeamishBoy on Mon 15th Oct 2012 02:49 UTC
BeamishBoy
Member since:
2010-10-27

Leave it to OSnews to turn an article about an obsolete programming language into a discussion about how evil Apple and the US are...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by BeamishBoy
by phreck on Tue 16th Oct 2012 11:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by BeamishBoy"
phreck Member since:
2009-08-13

(Never heard of it != obsolete) = (!Mainstream != obsolete)

Reply Score: 1