Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Steven Bosscher]

Hi,

This is just a heads-up for this patent Sun Microsystems is claiming
on the construction of "Factored assert chains", see
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7272829/description.html

I wonder if GCC's VRP ASSERT_EXPRs would be considered prior art.

Gr.
Steven

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Diego Novillo]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 04:49, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder if GCC's VRP ASSERT_EXPRs would be considered prior art.

Even earlier than that.  The assertion mechanism in GCC was taken
directly from the PLDI'95 Patterson paper.


Diego.

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Daniel Berlin]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 04:49, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if GCC's VRP ASSERT_EXPRs would be considered prior art.
>
> Even earlier than that.  The assertion mechanism in GCC was taken
> directly from the PLDI'95 Patterson paper.


Guys, as long as the implementation exactly follows some practice that
pre-dates the priority date on the patent (in this case, 2003), you
have nothing to worry about.

(and by exactly, i mean exactly)

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Robert Dewar]

Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 04:49, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if GCC's VRP ASSERT_EXPRs would be considered prior art.
> 
> Even earlier than that.  The assertion mechanism in GCC was taken
> directly from the PLDI'95 Patterson paper.

Does anyone know if inclusion of something in openly available source
code has been accepted as proper publication for prior art? (it does
not meet the letter, but it does meet the spirit I would say).
> 
> 
> Diego.

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Daniel Berlin]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 04:49, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if GCC's VRP ASSERT_EXPRs would be considered prior art.
>>
>> Even earlier than that.  The assertion mechanism in GCC was taken
>> directly from the PLDI'95 Patterson paper.
>
> Does anyone know if inclusion of something in openly available source
> code has been accepted as proper publication for prior art? (it does
> not meet the letter, but it does meet the spirit I would say).

The patent examiners i've spoken with in the past (and their
supervisors) consider publicly available source code to be prior art.
I am too lazy to search federal circuit case law, but my recollection
is that their is a case or two on point here saying it is.
(They read "printed publication" very broadly to include any document
available to the public)

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Daniel Berlin]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> wrote:
>> Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 04:49, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if GCC's VRP ASSERT_EXPRs would be considered prior art.
>>>
>>> Even earlier than that.  The assertion mechanism in GCC was taken
>>> directly from the PLDI'95 Patterson paper.
>>
>> Does anyone know if inclusion of something in openly available source
>> code has been accepted as proper publication for prior art? (it does
>> not meet the letter, but it does meet the spirit I would say).
>
> The patent examiners i've spoken with in the past (and their
> supervisors) consider publicly available source code to be prior art.
> I am too lazy to search federal circuit case law, but my recollection
> is that their is a case or two on point here saying it is.
> (They read "printed publication" very broadly to include any document
> available to the public)
>
Here you go:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Richard Kenner]

> >> Does anyone know if inclusion of something in openly available source
> >> code has been accepted as proper publication for prior art? (it does
> >> not meet the letter, but it does meet the spirit I would say).
> >
> > The patent examiners i've spoken with in the past (and their
> > supervisors) consider publicly available source code to be prior art.
> > I am too lazy to search federal circuit case law, but my recollection
> > is that their is a case or two on point here saying it is.
> > (They read "printed publication" very broadly to include any document
> > available to the public)
> >
> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm

Hmm.... I'm not sure.  Nothing in there seems to be talking about viewing
source code as a "publication".  The way I read that, it's addressing the
issue of "printed" vs "electronic", not "source code" vs "publication".

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Daniel Berlin]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Richard Kenner
<kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> >> Does anyone know if inclusion of something in openly available source
>> >> code has been accepted as proper publication for prior art? (it does
>> >> not meet the letter, but it does meet the spirit I would say).
>> >
>> > The patent examiners i've spoken with in the past (and their
>> > supervisors) consider publicly available source code to be prior art.
>> > I am too lazy to search federal circuit case law, but my recollection
>> > is that their is a case or two on point here saying it is.
>> > (They read "printed publication" very broadly to include any document
>> > available to the public)
>> >
>> Here you go:
>>
>> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm
>
> Hmm.... I'm not sure.  Nothing in there seems to be talking about viewing
> source code as a "publication".  The way I read that, it's addressing the
> issue of "printed" vs "electronic", not "source code" vs "publication".

Uh?

"We agree that 'printed publication' should be approached as a unitary
concept. The traditional dichotomy between 'printed' and 'publication'
is no longer valid. Given the state of technology in document
duplication, data storage, and data retrieval systems, the
'probability of dissemination' of an item very often has little to do
with whether or not it is 'printed' in the sense of that word when it
was introduced into the patent statutes in 1836. In any event,
interpretation of the words 'printed' and 'publication' to mean
'probability of dissemination' and 'public accessibility'
respectively, now seems to render their use in the phrase 'printed
publication' somewhat redundant."

IE they don't care whether it i printed, and don't care whether it i a
publication, they care whether it is accessible to the public and has
been disseminated to the public.

Anyway, this is wildly off topic.

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Richard Kenner]

> IE they don't care whether it i printed, and don't care whether it i a
> publication, they care whether it is accessible to the public and has
> been disseminated to the public.

Right.  That's exactly what I meant.   They are saying that "printed"
vs "electronic" doesn't matter.

However, the issue here isn't whether it matters if the GCC sources were
printed in a book someplace or just available electronically.

The issue that Robert was raising is not the "printed" part, but the
"publication" part.  Specifically, if source code could be considered
a "publication".  Reading the reference you gave makes it sound like they're
using the term "publication" interchangably with "technical paper" in
that they're talking about online references and databases.

Nothing in that document (I didn't go to the referenced cases) seems on
point to the issue of whether source code is a "publication".

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Robert Dewar]

Richard Kenner wrote:
>> IE they don't care whether it i printed, and don't care whether it i a
>> publication, they care whether it is accessible to the public and has
>> been disseminated to the public.
> 
> Right.  That's exactly what I meant.   They are saying that "printed"
> vs "electronic" doesn't matter.
> 
> However, the issue here isn't whether it matters if the GCC sources were
> printed in a book someplace or just available electronically.
> 
> The issue that Robert was raising is not the "printed" part, but the
> "publication" part.  Specifically, if source code could be considered
> a "publication".  Reading the reference you gave makes it sound like they're
> using the term "publication" interchangably with "technical paper" in
> that they're talking about online references and databases.
> 
> Nothing in that document (I didn't go to the referenced cases) seems on
> point to the issue of whether source code is a "publication".

For example, at one extreme, the source code may have extensive comments
so that it is clearly a publication.

At the other extreme it could be uncommented junk, and an argument could
be made that someone with appropriate skills could not reasonably 
extract the information needed.

At a really really extreme level, object code can document stuff if you
are willing to do enough reverse engineering, but would be unlikely to
qualify as publication.

I don't think this is entirely off topic, we do want to make sure that
anything we do within gcc acts at the very least as its own defence
against a patent that comes along later.

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Daniel Berlin]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> wrote:
> Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>
>>> IE they don't care whether it i printed, and don't care whether it i a
>>> publication, they care whether it is accessible to the public and has
>>> been disseminated to the public.
>>
>> Right.  That's exactly what I meant.   They are saying that "printed"
>> vs "electronic" doesn't matter.
>>
>> However, the issue here isn't whether it matters if the GCC sources were
>> printed in a book someplace or just available electronically.
>>
>> The issue that Robert was raising is not the "printed" part, but the
>> "publication" part.  Specifically, if source code could be considered
>> a "publication".  Reading the reference you gave makes it sound like
>> they're
>> using the term "publication" interchangably with "technical paper" in
>> that they're talking about online references and databases.
>>
>> Nothing in that document (I didn't go to the referenced cases) seems on
>> point to the issue of whether source code is a "publication".
>
> For example, at one extreme, the source code may have extensive comments
> so that it is clearly a publication.
>
> At the other extreme it could be uncommented junk, and an argument could
> be made that someone with appropriate skills could not reasonably extract
> the information needed.
>

I understand the problem you are facing, but the cited case (and those
following it) make clear they do not equate "publication" with
"technical paper", but instead "something available to the public,
regardless of form".

"interpretation of the words 'printed' and 'publication' to mean
'probability of dissemination' and 'public accessibility'"

(note that publication is equated with public accessibility, not form
of document

If you want to argue they are not exactly on point, you could try, but
given there is absolutely no caselaw i can find coming down that would
support such a position,  I think you would be hard pressed to find a
judge who would not roll their eyes at you. :)

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Robert Dewar]

Daniel Berlin wrote:

> I understand the problem you are facing, but the cited case (and those
> following it) make clear they do not equate "publication" with
> "technical paper", but instead "something available to the public,
> regardless of form".

It still has to be reasonably accessible to one of appropriate
skills. Surely you would not argue that machine code is sufficient,
on the grounds you could reverse engineer it to determine that it
was using somme particular arlgorithm?
> 
> "interpretation of the words 'printed' and 'publication' to mean
> 'probability of dissemination' and 'public accessibility'"
> 
> (note that publication is equated with public accessibility, not form
> of document
> 
> If you want to argue they are not exactly on point, you could try, but
> given there is absolutely no caselaw i can find coming down that would
> support such a position,  I think you would be hard pressed to find a
> judge who would not roll their eyes at you. :)

Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Diego Novillo]

Could you folks take this off list please?  It was barely on topic
when it began.  It's now totally off topic.


Thanks.  Diego.