Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3035 comp.org.usenix:2055 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!janus.Berkeley.EDU!jbuck From: jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: How come include file patent isn't mentioned in position paper? Message-ID: <42086@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 8 May 91 21:27:27 GMT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.42086 References: <1991Apr29.174230.7605@agate.berkeley.edu> <14730@ulysses.att.com> Sender: nobody@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: usa Organization: U.C. Berkeley Lines: 26 >> dc@caveat.berkeley.edu (Dave Cottingham) writes: >> Is this include file patent a hoax, In article <14730@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: >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. In that case (unless it took the Patent Office 10 years or more to process the application), clearly there is no danger of gcc or g++ being found in violation of the patent, since the first C compiler that used #include as it is now used is far, far, older than 1987, and court decisions have made it clear that using prior art is never a violation of a patent, even if the patent is found to be valid (IBM's patent would then be restricted to be much narrower in scope, covering only the specific application it was filed for). Still, the patent clearly should not be granted, because it claims things that had been in common use for years. I was concerned that this might be a much older patent, in which case there really would be a danger. -- Joe Buck jbuck@janus.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!janus.berkeley.edu!jbuck