Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3051 comp.org.usenix:2061 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: How come include file patent isn't mentioned in position paper? Message-ID: Date: 11 May 91 01:04:05 GMT References: <1991Apr29.174230.7605@agate.berkeley.edu> <14730@ulysses.att.com> <1991May10.072503.5575@Think.COM> Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Distribution: usa Organization: The World Lines: 48 In-Reply-To: barmar@think.com's message of 10 May 91 07: 25:03 GMT From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) >This sounds much fancier than the standard #include file mechanism. Most >#include facilities don't have any way to specify portions of files, only >whole files. Sure they do: File A: #define USESTUFF #include junk.h: ...whatever... #ifdef USESTUFF ...more whatever... #endif /*USESTUFF*/ I know, sounds silly, but who knows once the lawyers start making claims. That it's not slick doesn't deny its existence. It's fully general. But I don't think this is the issue. >I suspect they're describing something from DCA (IBM's Document Content >Architecture, I think) or DISOSS (their DCA-based OA system). I agree. I doubt C compilers would be in trouble as that's definitely prior art. If anything I think that's the point here. In fact, the C '#include' is almost an exact clone of PL/1's '%include' facility (note the name similarity!) Which IBM might own. Hmm. (Anyone know if the PL/1 pre-processor was part of the original VDL specification? It should be fairly easy to look up. Do other PL/1 compilers generally implement this pre-processor? Is any of this relevant to the issue?) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD