Breakpoints have now been patented 412
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."
Err, prior art? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Good and sad at the same time (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
Seems somewhat original to me (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Err, prior art? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
People have had breakpoints in debuggers for a helluva long time.
Any such patents, IMO, clearly don't pass muster of being anything other than obvious, pre-existing, or sneakily trying to write a special case which is barely different from any existing case.
Cheers
Well? Make a point! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Could someone please patent code comments? (Score:4, Interesting)
Different than... (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=EmR4AAAAEBAJ&dq=
Seems someone has beaten them to it...
Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Interesting)
It will never happen and I will explain why. I worked for the US government some years ago in my first job after college, so I know how the US government works and how government workers think. You need to understand the following:
1) US government workers have "skills", and I use the term very loosely, that often have no practical application outside of the US government. In other words, many US government workers can't get equivalent jobs in private industry because equivalent jobs don't exist.
2) US government workers don't want to lose their jobs any more than anyone else does.
3) US government workers are very difficult to fire, leading to conditions of essential lifetime employment with very few exceptions. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
Your typical US government employee stays with Uncle Sam because there are a few decent benefits (vacation and retirement benefits are superior to many companies in private industry) and the jobs are often low stress. Pay does lag behind private industry in many cases and because of #1 that I mentioned earlier, you have a lot of people who are screwed if they lose their government jobs because they don't have any useful skills for private industry. Where I worked, most younger employees with any motivation and useful skills (I work in IT) left after 3-7 years for better pay in private industry and better jobs. Government work is pretty boring, if safe.
What has happened with the patent office is that now that they approve everything they can, they get more money coming in. More money coming in means that they are more important to the federal government because they bring in the bucks. They don't exist to consume tax dollars, they bring in revenue. To Uncle Sam, it's a win-win. He gets more money and businesses get "the tools they need" to protect their "valuable intellectual capital". More money to the Patent Office means they need more employees, which means they need more managers, which means pay goes up for managers. Now you have a bloated government office that has every incentive there is to protect itself and protecting itself can only be done if they bring in the bucks. Fewer patents means fewer examiners, which means fewer managers, which means people who have no useful skills for the outside world might be forced to find jobs in that outside world. Government employees are masters at protecting their own interests, so they just tell Congress and the President that they are doing a "vital service" to business. Business = money. Money = tax revenue. Tax revenue = good. Don't expect the President or anyone in Congress to ever think that patents = bad. Why on earth would reducing the size of a government agency that makes money instead of consuming money ever be good? I certainly respect Knuth, but the Patent Office guys will just paint him as an idealist in the academic world and ignore him. Remember, if patent reform ever happens, a lot of pissed off government employees, including managers, will lose their jobs because we'll need fewer of them and they will do everything they can to prevent that day from happening. Surely you all understand the idea of self-preservation.
Did this in the late 60's (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could someone please patent code comments? (Score:2, Interesting)
CALL PLITEST;
Or more recently:
CALL CEETEST;
Re:Could someone please patent code comments? (Score:5, Interesting)
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