Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3034 comp.org.usenix:2054 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!ulysses.att.com!smb From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: How come include file patent isn't mentioned in position paper? Message-ID: <14730@ulysses.att.com> Date: 8 May 91 20:49:27 GMT Article-I.D.: ulysses.14730 References: <1991Apr29.174230.7605@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: netnews@ulysses.att.com Distribution: usa Lines: 47 In article , nix@asd.sgi.com (Sold to the highest Buddha) writes: > dc@caveat.berkeley.edu (Dave Cottingham) writes: > > Is this include file patent a hoax, > > I posted the same question several months ago and got nothing back in > the way of references. As far as I'm concerned it's a net.legend. The patent number is 4,674,040, issued on June 16, 1987 to Barbara Barker, Irene Hernandez, and Rex McCaskill, and is assigned to (blare of trumpets) IBM. RMS kindly provided me with the number a few weeks ago; I just got a copy of the patent. The essence of what they're saying is new is that they keep a back-pointer to the include file. If you take the merged file, and run it through some formatter, and then edit the result, the changes are fed back to the included files. That said, they are trying to claim more or less the #include directive. Well, not exactly -- to quote their Claim 1 precisely, they claim A method for merging a portion of one document into another document, said method comprising: (a) including a reference to said another document to said portion; and (b) causing said portion to be merged with said another document and displayed in merged form. So to violate their patent, one would have to have a facility that let you specify just a *portion* of a file to be included... Big change, right? Not obvious to ``one skilled in the art''? Subsequent claims mention that the merged document must be in editable form, that it must include the back pointers, that changes are propagated back (the real thing they did, or think they did), and another claim I'm having trouble translating from the legalese. Other sins in the patent include using ``cursor'' as a verb. I confess -- I disagree with Stallman about the concept of software patents. We've had our email discussions on the subject. But I think we can all agree that abuses of the patent system are another matter entirely. --Steve Bellovin