Breakpoints have now been patented

An anonymous reader noted that apparently Breakpoints have now been patented. From the link "A method for debugging including the steps of receiving code having a software breakpoint function therein, running the code for the purpose of debugging, monitoring the code to detect the presence of the software breakpoint function, recognizing the software breakpoint function, determining an action to be performed based on the software breakpoint function, and implementing the action. The present invention also includes an apparatus for implementing the method for debugging and a medium embodying a program of instructions for execution by a device to perform the method for debugging."

Could someone please patent code comments?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to have this as an excuse for not doing them. Thanks.

Step 2?

[fishdan (569872)]

Step 1: Patent commenting
Step 2: ???????????
Step 3: Profit!!!!

The problem is there will be no profit because no one comments. On the other hand, at least there is no prior art to rule against your patent.

Re:Step 2?

[sunwukong (412560)]

If you really want to make money, patent not commenting code.

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[LordSnooty (853791)]

In that spirit, I hereby copyright the phrase "THIS IS A KLUDGE"

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[SL Baur (19540)]

No that's not what they've patented. They've patented source level debugging with static break points. Apparently the developer litters the source code with SOFTWARE_BREAKPOINT; calls which turn into do-nothing statements if there is no debugger running the code. The target environment appears to be an embedded system like a cellphone.

They have not patented hardware breakpoints, gdb, etc. and a huge advantage of their system is that you could apparently debug and selectively enable/disable breakpoints in a production ROM executable image.

I know noone reads these patents when these kinds of articles go by, this is /., but is it too much to ask that the article submitter or the editor read them first?

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[keird (519534)]

Visual Basic has had this for years. It's called Stop. When running in the IDE execution breaks at the Stop command just as if you had a breakpoint defined. The command does nothing when running outside of the IDE.

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[SL Baur (19540)]

No, they're not preprocessor statements. They are calls to actual nop functions (the patent calls them "void" functions which is highly misleading). Some example code:

static void sw_break1(void)
{
}
static void sw_break2(void)
{
}
extern void do_something_with_side_effects(void);
extern int some_function(int, int, int);
void some_buggy_function(int a, b, c)
{
  int d;
 
  do_something_with_side_effects();
  sw_break1();
  d = some_function(a, b, c);
  sw_break2();
}

Now, if you declare the functions sw_break1 and sw_break2 as software breakpoint functions to the debugger and not the function do_something_with_side_effects, the debugger will recognize that the nop calls to sw_break? should do something special and trap them. Since they are nop functions, obviously if the program is not being run under a debugger, nothing special happens and the program doesn't crash.

The way the description is worded, the debugger is expected to be doing the equivalent of single stepping through the program at a source code level looking for calls to special nop functions. When it detects some such, it can perform some (debugger) user defined operation. Because these are specifically software breakpoints, they are built into the program at compile time and are always present whether or not the program is being debugged.

The patent goes on to claim various methods of describing which void functions should be considered special by the debugger, including a broad all parameterless void functions are special. Any required special debug code is linked from a library and hence, this method of debugging allows one to enable and disable breakpoints dynamically in an read-only image executing directly off a ROM.

I'm a programmer not a lawyer and I've never done embedded programming so I haven't much of a clue whether or not there's prior art, but I am certain that gdb or any debugger that modifies the executable image in any way are not within the claims of this patent.

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[Almost-Retired (637760)]

if that's the case....I think I can find old code that I wrote back in the mid-90's that I did that...

How in 104ee+99 kinds of hell can this patent stand? I was doing that in the late 70's, on an 1802 board called the Cosmac Super Elf, and 6 months later on a pair of z80 boards called the micro-professor. And in both cases I was doing it without an assembler! I was poor, so I looked the hex code up in the manual and entered it with the same hex editor I was using for the debugging, by inserting a breakpoint that took it back to the monitor and captured the machine state for a leasurely inspection. How the hell else did one debug machine code in those days?

Hell and damnation, I'll bet Grace Hopper even used this technique. And I'd bet that same 6-pack she learned it from somebody that had been doing it for 5 years then...

I can't fscking believe this, its only one step more complex than the (in)famous xor patent for moving the curser.

Will someone Please deliver us from the insanity that is our patent system?

--
No Cheers this time, Gene

Re:Could someone please patent code comments?

[SL Baur (19540)]

So a macro of something like #define SOFTWARE_BREAK asm { int 3; } which I have been using for years is now patented? That's laughable.

No, that's not what they patented. The patent covers portable software breakpoints which are detected by mapping a special (void) function called to an action. The patent also covers a variety of methods of describing which void function calls should be trapped by the debugger and a variety of methods by which the name of the special void function call can be mapped into an action to perform.

No assembly is involved, the method is processor agnostic. No open inline code is involved either as the breakpoints must be detectable by software looking for function calls.

Next up...

[CdrGlork (1096607)]

Next to be patented will be the GOTO statement, so ALL YOU LAZY PROGGERS WILL STOP USING IT!

Re:Next up...

[Vihai (668734)]

I DO use gotos heavily.

If you know where and how to use them, they actually are a sensible choice.

They are very good in implementing the function rollback code, that is code which has to undo everything the function has done in case of an error.

For example:

int allocstuff(void)
{
        char *a = malloc(100);
        if (!a)
                goto err_malloc_a;

        char *b = malloc(100);
        if (!b)
                goto err_malloc_b;

        return 0;

        free(b);
err_malloc_b:
        free(a);
err_malloc_a:

        return -1;
}

I just patented CODE WITHOUT COMMENTS

[giafly (926567)]

to prevent horrors like OP. Did you notice how the "free(b)" call was after an unconditional return? Somebody didn't.

Re:

[Vihai (668734)]

to prevent horrors like OP. Did you notice how the "free(b)" call was after an unconditional return? Somebody didn't.

Yes, the compiler will happily optimize it away, however, when you are adding another allocation you don't have to remember to add the deallocation code you left out before. You may well comment it if the compiler doesn't like it but only if you licensed the comments patent :)

Re:Next up...

[Dachannien (617929)]

Your code makes me want to throw up.

Re:

[pclminion (145572)]

Wouldn't nested 'if..then's be better in this case?

That requires one level of nesting for every initialized resource. That can become ridiculous very quickly. A rollback or "error ladder" is something you see in a lot of commercial AND open source code. Examples I know of include FreeType and the Linux kernel.

It's only "unclear" in the sense that a for-loop was "unclear" to you when you first learned how to use it. This is a common, generally accepted idiom for the use of goto.

Re:Next up...

[teslar (706653)]

There's no try/catch in C, I'm afraid.... you're thinking C++.

Re:

[Vihai (668734)]

I don't think I'm undestanding you, sorry, I'm not a native english speaker.

I, of course, use that approach when I write C code, that's why I wrote that code snippet in C.
And I, of course, write C code in kernel land and when writing critical code in userland

Oh... and yes... memory allocation failures may well happen on modern machines in kernel land... and if you like to write robust code, you have to cope with those

hardware debugger

[Anonymous Coward]

its a hardware debugger or so it appears, not a software one, they specifically address pitfalls with software debuggers and why they did this method.

while hardware ones arent totally new, they arent that common either. gdb is immune from this for example since its software only.

the abstract isnt the patent, the title isnt the patent, the claims are the patent. Readers are encouraged to read the claims and not spread FUD because they can.

Re:hardware debugger

[richie2000 (159732)]

I had a hardware breakpoint debugger in The Final Cartridge II on the Commodore 64. That was, what - 20-25 years ago? This patent was issued last year.

That said, the first 13 claims pertain to software only (curio: the word "software" appears no less than 17 times in the first claim, "hardware" scores a big fat zero). Subsequent claims seem to revolve around a device reading a medium where the debug code is stored, ie RAM, some kind of ROM or even a CD with reader would fit this description.
It's so vaguely stated as to be totally useless. Useless, that is, if someone were to actually use this patent to implement something useful. You know, like the patent system was supposed to do. Very useful if it's to be used to threaten competitors and stifle innovation.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts", my ass.

Re:

[thomasa (17495)]

I worked on a hardware debugger back in the early 80s working
on 8080 based software. Intel hardware debugger. You could
set break points in hardware. It would continually check the
address bus when it saw the address of the breakpoint, it would
interrupt the execution. It had 8 inch floppy disks too.

Re:Next up...

[jimstapleton (999106)]

ok, if you do that, can I patent a system whereby human-readable text is converted into machine instructions?

Re:Next up...

[gyranthir (995837)]

Cobol already exists!!!

Re:Next up...

[Feyr (449684)]

he did say human readable

Re:Next up...

[Jarjarthejedi (996957)]

Patent Application 297641286876b

A method by which a specific unbound sequence of comparisons are performed with the program being instructed to perform differing operation based on the results. Should none of the comparisons result in the machine determining that the variable being compared fits the condition a "default" condition shall be allowed. Using this system a large number of such Improved Jumps can be performed with less code and processing power.

((For those without programming knowledge, or sense of humor, the parent wants to post If-Then statements, this is a Switch statement. That is all))

USPTO Link

[MECC (8478)]

Here. [uspto.gov]

Got there from a search at their site...

Err, prior art?

[RingDev (879105)]

Filing Date: 05/01/2002
Publication Date: 11/06/2003

Now, I'm pretty sure there is a whole slew of prior are on this, especially since it sounds like they are describing the method Visual Studio uses for break points and debugging. Heck even the debugging tools in VB5 and VB6 fit this description and that's from back in the mid/late 90's.

-Rick

Re:

[gstoddart (321705)]

Now, I'm pretty sure there is a whole slew of prior are on this, especially since it sounds like they are describing the method Visual Studio uses for break points and debugging. Heck even the debugging tools in VB5 and VB6 fit this description and that's from back in the mid/late 90's.

Well, I didn't read the specific of how this patent attempts to handle breakpoints, but I was using debuggers with breakpoints on VAX machines in the late 80's ... and those tools had been around a very long time.

People have

Well? Make a point!

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Prior art never seems to be much of an obstacle to getting patents. This keeps the patent industry active, which of course appeals greatly to the patent lawyers.

I recently had a look at the area in which I have one of my patents and found no less than five patents which have claims that mine had. One of them even cited my patent in the search list and still made conflicting claims that were allowed.

This situation is of course ridiculous. There is no accountability in the patent system. That is, there is no feedback in the system that ensures the USPTO provides high quality patents. The USPTO does not get sued if they give out stupid patents. No, you need to hire a patent lawyer and go sort it out in court. There are even some patent lawyers that specialise in mining the patents for prior art conflicts and solicite business that way.

This situation wiill not fix itself because those in the system really like it the way it is. The USPTO keeps cranking out money for Uncle Sam by essentially selling the same property many times over. The lawyers love it. They get to charge fees to apply for a patent, then get to charge even more to fix the mess caused by broken patents. So why would it change?

The only way it will change is if the practitioners become accountable for their actions. If they issue a bad patent then USPTO should pay for fixing the mess. USPTO would not like that, but it would soon improve patent quality. That would reduce patent disputes too, so the lawyers would not like it either.

That's it.

[Manos_Of_Fate (1092793)]

I'm applying for a patent on "A system of tubes, that carries information globally, so as to assist the procurement of pr0n."

Re:That's it.

[blantonl (784786)]

I'd love to see the prior "art" for this one.

No longer news

[pembo13 (770295)]

At this point, these things aren't really "news" any more, and certainly no longer shocking.

Prior Art

[orbitalia (470425)]

oh come on.. Conditional breakpoints have been around atleast since the mid eighties.. for example watcom's wd (watcom debugger) detailed here [pjwstk.edu.pl] for QNX/DOS etc.

Seriously America needs to put a stop to software patents, it's damaging your software industry as Knuth puts very well in his letter to the PTO here [mit.edu]

I think this is a bit different

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

I'm not up on my patent-ese, but I think this is describing a specific type of breakpoint technology based on virtual functions. Since we've been talking about Javascript so much lately, and it's so easy to do virtual functions in JS, here's an example in JS code:

Debugger.breakPoint = function()
{
//do nothing
};

Now if you put the function in your code, nothing happens:

Debugger.breakPoint();

But if you have the debugger initialized, it will replace the virtual function like this:

Debugger.breakPoint = function()
{
    Debugger.runDebuggerAndStopTheWorld();
};

Thus you end up with software breakpoints that can trigger the debugger based on optional listeners. At least, that's how I understand it. I could be wrong about the actual implementation.

Re:I think this is a bit different

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

Thus you end up with software breakpoints that can trigger the debugger based on optional listeners. At least, that's how I understand it. I could be wrong about the actual implementation.

You've just observed the slashdot patent attention span deficiency. Because most posters on this site don't have the slightest clue how to read a patent, they interpret a patent that claims to improve technology X by using method Y a synonymous to patenting X. Sure, this is obviously wrong to a moderately intelligent Orangutan, but nevertheless, it happens a lot here.

Re:I think this is a bit different - Not Really

[evought (709897)]

Yeah, except that debugging, breakpoints, and "virtual functions" or closures, interpreted code, or whatnot have been around for so long, that there is essentially nothing new under the sun. Smalltalk implementations were able to call into the debugger through an assert-like mechanism. You could then enter the debugger, change values around, and continue execution. Made things much easier when you were in the middle of a multi-day simulation test run and hit a problem. You could note the problem, fix it, and continue. Various Lisp, Scheme, ProLog and so forth variants have done some very neat things with debugging support through assertions, exceptions, traps, and all kinds of mechanisms. Essentially, any time you have an interpretive runtime, people play with different ways to do debugging.

Another way to look at it is that many runtimes will automatically enter the debugger on an exception or trap of some kind. An assertion failure generates an exception or trap. Assertions are generally controlled by DEBUG variables of some kind. Viola! Configurable code-side breakpoints. Different languages handle resumption from exceptions in different ways.

The problem is that people who write patents think that the mere act of putting two things together is innovative, even if the first thing is a tool, and the second is a logical extension of the tool's purpose, like adding "on the Internet" to something and calling it an invention. In this case, they did not even bother to see if it was done before, probably because they have no knowledge of languages outside the mainstream.

Re:I think this is a bit different

[escay (923320)]

From what I understand (read the invention background section in the patent) This is a patent about the implementation of a breakpoint handling mechanism, not the idea of using breakpoints to debug itself. specifically, conventional breakpoint sends a software interrupt that is either caught by (a) the debugger, pausing/halting program execution or (b) the OS, in case no debugger is present, resulting in a system hang or crash. Also the assembly halt code may vary for different processors.

The patented breakpoint function catches interrupts and handles them in a specific way, irrespective of whether a debugger is running or not, and also issues CPU-indepedent halt codes, marking an improvement over existing techniques.

Karma whoring, you say? I just have a fascination for patents.

Re:

[pclminion (145572)]

I actually slogged through the entire patent, and to my (unprofessional) eye it certainly looks like they have patented ALL methods of software breakpoints which use a "specially named void function" which is inserted at a specific place in the code by a compiler or linker. That is essentially the definition of a software breakpoint, so they basically have patented the concept of a software breakpoint in general.

Of course, we have to figure out what "specially named void function" means. If it means the f

Re:

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

I can believe that. MULTICS was a truly incredible operating system, but is so poorly known by the programming public at large. It wouldn't surprise me at all if HP reinvented something that was already invented in MULTICS.

It's simply too bad that Honeywell drove the system into the ground. We might all be using MULTICS derivatives today if Honeywell hadn't tried to compete against their own computers. :-(

I have a ton of prior art on this one

[bherman (531936)]

Take any of my code....it has a ton of breakpoints. Usually any function with an input breaks at that point.

What's a breakpoint?

[seniorcoder (586717)]

I assisted in the hiring of a mid-level developer for our team.
One week into his new job, I suggested he set a breakpoint in his code to quickly determine the cause of a problem. He said: "What's a breakpoint?"
A month later he was fired.

How does a developer manage to work for a few years without knowing what a breakpoint is?

Re:What's a breakpoint?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

> How does a developer manage to work for a few years without knowing what a breakpoint is?

His code always worked first time?

Fuck patents

[dattaway (3088)]

A bad law is an unenforceable law.

How Patents Work

[rilister (316428)]

Hey people - I read TFA and there's no detail whatsoever attached.

Before y'all get real excited about insane patents:

1) This is a patent application, NOT a granted patent. Hence the serial number beginning 2003 - this means the application was submitted in 2003. It should have been processed now. I'll take a look if I get a spare moment.

2) This is a snippet from the patent abstract, I'd say. It doesn't mean much at all - abstracts are pretty irrelevant to the content of a patent. We have no idea what they are actually patenting from this: it could be an entirely new mechanism for doing this, new code, a genetically engineered cow with the capability of implementing breakpoints.

The abstract means NOTHING - it's often not supposed to. Don't have a cow, guys.

Re:How Patents Work

[karolgajewski (515082)]

If you look up the application number in the USPTO, you will see that it has indeed matured to patent: US 7,055,140 [uspto.gov]

The enforcability of this patent, however, is left to the discretion of the patent owner.

don't get yer panties in a wad yet

[uab21 (951482)]

It's not patenting breakpoints, per se that I can determine. It's a software breakpoint put into code pre-compile, and then you can attach a debugger later to take advantage of the hook points put into the code as void functions, but the program can run normally without a debugger attached and not crash the system (which fixes a problem evident from one of the referenced patents (Carter)). Dunno about prior art for this implementation, but breakpoints in general are not claimed in this application.

in other patent pending news

[psbrogna (611644)]

I'm in the process of getting "software bugs" patented. No worries- I'm planning on being quite liberal with licensing, just a modest subscription based royalty fee.

Your missing something

[SQLz (564901)]

To patent software, it doesn't have to be new, inventive, or even your idea. Thats not the point of a software patent. You just pay a guy to submit anything you tell him to submit, and pay the patent office for the patent. They don't won't even put your idea into google. As long as its not too similar to something in their database, or doesn't violate some law of physics, you are usually good. Its a huge revenue stream for the US. Its the USTPO's opinion that the courts should handle the garbage they let though, and unfortunatly, that translates to the american people subsidizing the patent office by supporting the infrastructure to litigate these patents.

Re:

[jshriverWVU (810740)]

I'm curious why it was patented and then let go for free if that's the case. Patents are extremely expensive, and each year are more and more expensive. Just doesnt make sense to patent something so simple, and pay all that money for nothing.

Re:Good and sad at the same time

[RingDev (879105)]

"It's good to see that this patent is (or appears to be) registered as a free patent that can be used by anyone."

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion. The patent has been published, but I don't see anything in the link stating that the company has a non-enforcement vow.

-Rick

are you kidding?

[nanosquid (1074949)]

"Free patents online" is a service that lets you search for patents on-line for free; the patents themselves aren't "free".