Smalltalk.org™ | news | news_20041003

Could Kodak Win Against Java Affect Smalltalks?
written by Peter William Lount
version 1, 20041003
Revision 2, 20041004, added form letter for you to send to your government represetative
Revision 3, 20041006, added additional follow up article and commentary.
Revision 4, 20041007: Sun settles with Kodak on Patent

Eastman Kodak Co. will return to U.S. District Court next week to seek $1 billion in damages from Sun Microsystems Inc. now that a federal jury has ruled in its favor in a dispute over the Java computer language.

The jury decided in Rochester on Friday that Sun infringed on technology belonging to Kodak when it developed and introduced Java more than a decade ago. The computer language is now used heavily by software developers, on the Internet and in computer schools.
...
The patents describe a method by which a program can "ask for help" from another application to carry out certain computer-oriented functions. That's generally similar to the way Java operates, according to Kodak and other experts.
- Kodak wins Java Lawsuit

The patents describe a method that allows computer programs to "ask for help" from other programs when needed — similar in a general way to the way Java operates.

That method was significant, Kodak contends, because it made it easier to add functions to software without turning out programs that are impractically large and unwieldy.
...
Sun denies that Java or any portions of it infringe on the Kodak patents. The company also claims that the Kodak patents are "invalid" under the law.
...
A lawyer for Sun, on the other hand, argued there was clear evidence that the patents did not infringe on Java, and that Kodak's claims that the technology had been pilfered were nothing more than "innuendo and insinuation.''
- Jury weighs evidence in Kodak case

JFengel asks a highly relevant question:

I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet; they're slow reading. '012 seems to be the broadest, and it's very, very long. They seem actually to patent object-oriented programming, but they reference the Smalltalk documentation so presumably they're patenting some enhancement. I've been unable to determine what that enhancement is over Smalltalk, so I can't say if Java infringes on it or not.
- jfengel

Two of the tree patents involved in this case refer to "Smalltalk".

Here are links to the three Kodak (formerly Wang) patents followed by the abstract which is the same for all three.

United States Patent 5,206,951
Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

United States Patent 5,421,012
Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

United States Patent 5,226,161
Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types

Anti-Patent Resources
Kodak Wins Java Lawsuit Against Sun
Software Patents: An Industry At Risk
The History of Software Patents
The Software Patent Crisis
Public Patent Foundation

Abstract
"An object based data processing system including an extensible set of object types and a corresponding set of "object managers" wherein each object manager is a program for operating with the data stored in a corresponding type of object. The object managers in general support at least a standard set of operations. Any program can effect performance of these standard operations on objects of any type by making an "invocation" request. In response to an invocation request, object management services (which are available to all object managers) identifies and invokes an object manager that is suitable for performing the requested operation on the specified type of data. A mechanism is provided for linking data from one object into another object. An object catalog includes both information about objects and about links between objects. Data interchange services are provided for communicating data between objects of different types, using a set of standard data interchange formats. A matchmaker facility permits two processes that are to cooperate in a data interchange operation identify each other and to identify data formats they have in common. A facility is provided for managing shared data "resources". Customized versions of resources can be created and co-exist with standard resources. A resource retrieval function determines whether a customized or a standard resource is to be returned in response to each request for a resource."

It seems to me that these are complex and abstract patents (which ones arent't?) and that it might take some time to understand them and the specifics of this court case as they become available. I also wonder if the Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) is prior art?

James Robertson says:

"Given that I'm a Smalltalk guy, I had to stop from guffawing every time the author used the term "Java" and "Innovation" in a sentence, but - all snarkiness aside - this is a horrid decision. To be honest, I also wonder how inept Sun's lawyers had to be to lose such a case."

James goes on to list some potential prior art for this patent. It looks like the prior art search is on!

Oh, check out the case that "enabled" Software Patents here.

PJ at Groklaw has this tidbit on the beginning of software patents in the USA:

Software has not always been covered by patent law, and it's not a statute that made it happen, but a case decision. That means it can change back. Case law is changed by someone bringing a case that makes it obvious to the court that change is needed. Somebody needs to do something about this problem, before it becomes impossible for anyone to write software unless they have a pile of billions on hand to pay out in case they get sued for patent infringement.
Groklaw.net: Kodak Wins Java Lawsuit Against Sun

[Updated 20041004 1:12pm PDT, added the following form letter for you to send your government representative.]

Dear Congressman / Member of Parliament

I am a programmer, and recent developments relating to software patents have caused me serious concern.

I am intending to write a new program, but due to the restrictions placed on me by software patents I am unsure as to why should I even begin. If I am unable to ensure that I would not be infringing a software patents somewhere which would cripple me due to the potential multi-million dollar lawsuits what incentive do I have? I could develop my new application and then loose everything due to legal fees and penalties if a patent holder decides to sue me in the future.

Therefore I need to know the following:

What process should I perform to ensure my program doesn’t infringe on the numerus patents filed around the world?
How am I supposed to protect myself from litigation when I am unable to research which patents, if any, I might be infringing?
What is the cost to find out? and how as an individual am I supposed to afford these costs when I am an indovidial/small busness?

How is this system supposed to encourage innovation and development? From everything I have seen all it does is stifles creativity by the many to the benefit of the few large corporations with the financial backing to withstand these costs (especially if they get sued) are the only winners of this system.

Yours faithfully

Concerned Programmer

ps. Please see attachment entitled "Software Patents: An Industry At Risk". You may also find it at http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/industry-at-risk.html.

"Feel free to use the above letter, I just wrote it to outline my own concerns on this issue. If you indend to use it good luck and I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears." - feldegast (Lee MacKinnell)

I recommend that you send the letter with the attachment article printed out. In addition send along anyother background materials to let your representative know more about the issue and how important it is to you, the software industry and the economy.

[Update 20041006]
InfoWorld is running an article on how Microsoft, HP, IBM [are] safe from Kodak software patent. It's interesting.

Some of Kodak's patents are so broadly stated that they could possibly cover technologies as varied as the Windows operating system, the Microsoft .Net platform, or even IBM's DB2 database,...

"This is one of the things when you hit your head and say how can this possibly be valid," [Jonathan Eunice] said. "If Java does these things and infringes, then what doesn't."

Java developer Adam Baker agreed with Eunice that the techniques covered in Kodak's patents were developed years before the patents themselves were issued.

"I'd be surprised if either via the appeals process or a separate application to the patent office, the (patents don't) get rejected although these things are never certain," said Baker...

A second option would be an appeal of the ruling, which would stand a good chance of being overturned, according to Dan Ravicher, executive director of The Public Patent Foundation in New York. Software patent case decisions are reversed "about half the time" in appellate court, he said. "In the patent world, the chance of reversals are so high, that having a trial verdict doesn't leave you with the ability to predict the outcome of a case."

At least this patent it getting the attention that could see it overturned.

[Update 20041007]

Sun Microsystems has settled a patent suit brought by Eastman Kodak relating to Java software, agreeing to license Kodak's patents for $92 million.
- ZDNet

Eastman Kodak Co., poised to ask for more than $1 billion in damages from Sun Microsystems Inc., has reached an out-of-court settlement in a long-running patent dispute over the Silicon Valley company's Java programming language. - Ledger-Enquirer

Additional news stories via Google News Search

Wow, that was fast and a bit unexpected.

PJ at Groklaw has this nice quote that sums up the dangers of software patents by no less than Bill Gates himself in 1991:

“If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today. The solution . . . is patent exchanges . . . and patenting as much as we can. . . . A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high: Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors.” Fred Warshofsky, The Patent Wars 170-71 (NY: Wiley 1994).

Now comes the tedius task of busting these patents wide open. Let's begin with paragraph 5.5 in the Kodak-Wang United States Patent 5,206,951 on how objects can be frozen:

5.5 Freezing Objects and Links

Objects can be frozen. An object that has been frozen can never be modified; the convention on the present system is that once an object is marked as frozen, it will not never again be marked as not frozen. A copy may be made of a frozen object and the copy may be modified. An object is identified as frozen by setting the "frozen" flag in that object's record in the object catalog.

Certainly using a flag to identify an object as frozen is obvious. Simple flags are one of the first data types learnt by anyone in beginning programming classes.

This patent can't be the first time that "objects" were frozen. Object technology had been around since the late sixties and was well developed by the time this patent was filed on April 3rd, 1991. Besides the language here side skirts a common technique long and widely used in computer science, and that is "versioning" of information. Once a versioned piece of information is stored it's "frozen" and the only way to modify it is to copy it and modify a new version which also means that you get a new version. Essentially they have attempted to patent version control systems here by using a "flag" (not novel and very much obvious) and by not using the word "version". RCSS and CVS are likely sources of prior art. As would any object database prior to the patent filing dates.

Oh, as far as "object catalogs" go, the very first Smalltalk's had "object tables" (some still do) which are lookup tables containting a "catalog" of all the objects in the system. Some of these object tables/catalogs contain "state" information about the objects in the system in addition to a pointer to the memory location of the object. Object catalogs are obvious, not novel and plenty of prior art exists.

So just looking at a tiny piece of this patent it starts to become obvious that it's overly broad and ignores prior art. In addition by the clever use of langauge they "bypass" direct comparisons with existing technologies that were well established long before these patents were filed.

Let's dig deeper into the patents. Take a read through them and send my your comments. I'll post the releveant patent busting ones here.

Other Patent News: Lawyers: Microsoft's FAT Patent Defeat 'Significant'

Wednesday
August 20 2008

Interoperate.org, the place to find out how to interoperate.

Meet other Smalltalk people, contribute, learn, earn.

lingoize.me™

On speaking languages
naturally with ease
aiming for fluid fluency.