Morfik Patents AJAX Compiler 181
MikeyTheK writes "It appears that under the radar, the USPTO granted Morfik a patent for the "System and method for synthesizing object-oriented high-level code into browser-side javascript". Reading further, it appears that they have patented the compiling of high-level languages into AJAX apps. The high-level languages include "Ada, C, C++, C#, COBOL, ColdFusion, Common Lisp, Delphi, Fortran, Java, Object Pascal, SmallTalk, Visual Basic, and Visual Basic.NET". It would appear that the application date is September, 2005."
Re:My First Thought (Score:5, Informative)
That's 2005, not 2006.
Re:Turing tarpit (Score:2, Informative)
NOT A PATENT (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My First Thought (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Turing tarpit (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. [w3.org] Next question?
Re:Turing Completeness? (Score:3, Informative)
If it's an algorithm, it's been firmly established legally that it is patentable. It transforms a computer from a "general purpose device" into a "specific invention". Any lawyer will tell you this. Patents are granted for algorithms all the time and they cannot be challenged on that basis.
If you write a book, you transform hundreds of sheets of blank pages into a device for keeping you absorbed for a few hours, but they won't let you patent that for some reason having nothing to do with "prior art" since there is no prior art if you're the first to write a book with the given plot, premise, or subject. I can claim copyright no matter what I write (as long as I don't plagiarize) but if I'm the first to come up with a book about a superhero who gets his superpowers only when he smokes pot (so running out of money is like "kryptonite"), you'd think I'd be able to get a patent on all books involving serial killers who have to smoke quickly in phone booths to save people. But nooooooo, they'll let you schmucks rewrite my book.
Re:Economic Model (Score:3, Informative)
The MSFT technology [asp.net] that the poster is referring to used to be marketed as Atlas but no longer. It is not in violation of this patent because it does not compile server side code into client side java script. Instead, it provides a lot of web controls that use AJAX instead of the traditional ASP.NET form post to interact with the server.
Slashdot Just DOES NOT GET Patents (Score:5, Informative)
1. The title of a patent does not describe the scope of what the patent will cover. In this example, they are not trying to patent every single "System and method for synthesizing object-oriented high-level code into browser-side javascript." They are trying to patent *one particular, specific system and method* for doing so. That is a big friggin difference. If you read the patent claims, you will see what the patent is actually covering. Summary: People on Slashdot inappropriately freak out when they see a patent title that looks broad and they really ought to know better by now.
2. This is a patent APPLICATION!!! Not an issued patent. When people try to get a patent, they make the claims incredibly broad at first. And then the examiner will make them narrow the claims as they negotiate what the patent actually will cover. In this example, I am going to hazard a guess that the examiner will probably make them throw out claims 1 through 4. And the examiner might let their broadest claim be claim 5. The people trying to get this patent KNOW that this is what will happen during this process--it is how things are done! I am astounded that the people on Slashdot have not picked up on this yet. Summary: Just because a patent application has incredibly broad claims, that does not mean 1) that the patent will issue that way, or 2) that the people applying for the application realize that what they are in their application claiming is too broad.
Get with it, people! I hope that reading this may take the discussion here from "Patents suxkzorz!!" to "Well, claim 1 looks way to broad because of $somePriorArt . . . but the method described in claim 5 . . . hmmm, I don't know that I've ever heard of anything that does it that way exactly."
Here's to hoping, anyway!
Difference Between Application/Priority Date (Score:4, Informative)
Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), a prior filed U.S. patent or application can be used as "prior art" against a currently filed application. As an example, suppose Application A was filed on March 1, 2006 that discloses each and every limitation of claim 1 of the current application. Application A could then be used under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as "prior art" to reject claim 1 because it has an earlier filing date (application date) than the current application. However, the Applicant of the current application could then rely on the priority date of the provisional application, which is September 6, 2005, to overcome the rejection. In this case, the Examiner would then have to go back to the provisional application to which the current application claims priority, and determine, whether, in fact, the provisional application discloses the subject-matter claimed by claim 1. As an additional comment to 35 U.S.C. 102(e), I briefly add that it is common for an Examiner to reject a claim in view of a reference that qualifies as "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), where the reference is used with other art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) [uspto.gov].
Hence, there is a difference between filing dates and priority dates, and these two dates need not always be the same. So, to say that these application has a filing date of September 5, 2006 would be correct, but then to say that this application has a priority date of September 6, 2005 would also be correct.
The opinion expressed herein does not represent the views of any government or private organization.
This isn't under the radar. Been known about. (Score:3, Informative)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=196 [zdnet.com] explains the patent back in 2006. No, Morfik didn't copy it. They even hypothetically showed it to Google before GWT was released.
Re:NOT A PATENT (Score:5, Informative)
There is a review process where an examiner searches for prior art that matches or closely matches the application. Then, in probably 90% or more of cases, a rejection letter for some or all of the claims is sent to the attorney (or the applicant if filing without an attorney). After a few months, a response from the attorney comes. This can now go one of two ways. If the attorney argued your prior art is not applicable, you can 1) uphold your decision, in which it become a "final rejection" or 2) change your rejection in which case you basically repeat the first step again.
The other method is they pre-date your prior art, using proof of older design date, if your rejection wasn't under 102(b) that is. You can now write a rejection with new prior art and this becomes a "final rejection". However, these "final rejections" are not the end of the process. They can either make a last ditch effort to amend to your liking (and probably get their "stamp"), they can basically repay the filing fees and start over with another two rounds, or they can file an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI, I think that is right.). If they still don't like the decision they can appeal to the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), and in the very unlikely case, all the way to the Supreme Court.
I recommend three pieces of literature before you say they just stamped "approve" on everything. Read title 35 of the United States Code (35 USC), title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulation (37 CFR), and the Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). I am pretty sure that is the right CFR, but all of those documents will give you an idea of what a patent examiner deals with. I gave you a very rough and very brief explanation of the procedure above. And to end this, I was a Patent Examiner, so yes, I do know something about this.
pypy (Score:2, Informative)
1.) Compiler is the wrong term. 2.) Prior Art. (Score:3, Informative)
2.) Prior Art. Tons of it. Laszlo [openlaszlo.org] and a bunch of other generators have been doing this for years. This patent won't even last a month. To many big players involved in RIA to let it pass. It's about as long lasting (and as silly) as the famous Gary Larson 'Chicken hung by a helium balloon floating into a pub full of Samurai'. Nothing new here, move on.