Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Programming IT Technology

Morfik Patents AJAX Compiler 181

Posted by Hemos from the i-am-patenting-newspaper-delivery-as-well dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Morfik Patents AJAX Compiler More

Morfik Patents AJAX Compiler

Comments Filter:

  • My First Thought (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [namtabmiaka]> on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:21AM (#18573309) Homepage Journal
    My first thought was, "Is Google Web Toolkit [google.com] prior art or infringement?" After a bit of looking around, it seems this patent was filed on September 5, 2006 while GWT 1.0 was released in May 2006. Sorry Morfik, but your patent is invalid. (Thank God, too. This patent appears to be overreaching and far too broad. It could prevent an entire industry from developing.)

    All I can say is: where was your due diligence, Morfik? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend time and money on filing a patent that will be useless to you after it's granted. The best they could do is scare a few Open Source projects into submission. Anyone with a vested interest in the technology is going to do the due diligence that Morfik didn't, and take the matter to court.

    The only "out" they have available is to show evidence that they disclosed the inner workings of their JST product prior to GWT being released. In which case they might have protection from the "one year to file" rule. Maybe. Or maybe they're just trying to carry out this threat [ajaxian.com] in a laughably oversimplified fashion. (They're lawyers must be telling them it won't work?) Go figure.

    For those who are unaware of what GWT is, it's basically a toolkit that takes Java programs and converts them down to Javascript. By coding Java to the GWT toolkit*, you gain all the benefits of the Java compiler and type checking without sacrificing the ability to deploy on browsers that do not have Java installed. I'd rather code in Javascript myself, but it has its place. :)

    • Re:My First Thought (Score:5, Informative)

      by MikeyTheK ( 873329 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:28AM (#18573421)
      Unfortunately I didn't put "Pay attention to [0001]" in the article submission, which reads "This application relates to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/714,285 filed on Sep. 6, 2005 entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING OBJECT-ORIENTED CODE INTO BROWSER-SIDE JAVASCRIPT."

      That's 2005, not 2006.
      • And the plot thickens. I'm trying to pull that patent right now. But my question is, if that patent covers the same technology, why does Morfik need this patent?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) *
          Did I ever mention that I HATE the patent search system?

          In any case, I managed to pull the patent. (Search in published applications for application #20070055964) It looks like this is the exact same patent, just in different forms. (One an application while the other is the issued? Could someone who knows more about the filing process chime in here?) In which case, Morfik may have a valid patent. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
          • Dur... Nevermind. I'm just confusing myself. I found the same patent that the article linked to. I can't find the previous filing in the system anywhere (did I mention I hate the USPTO's search engine?), but it does appear that this filing is just an update to the previous one.

      • Re:My First Thought (Score:5, Informative)

        by petard ( 117521 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:38AM (#18573605) Homepage
        GWT would still be prior art. Google used it to build gmail, which launched in early 2004.
          • Right. But did Google did use it for something before it went open source, so the question is: 1) what was that, and 2) when did they do it? Because as it sits right now, Google has a giant target painted its back saying "SUE ME!"

            • It doesn't matter whether they (or anybody) used it before then. The patent system does not reward invention, it rewards disclosure.

              If you invent something and you don't disclose it fully and publicly, you lose your right to use your invention if someone else patents it. That's what the patent system is intended to accomplish.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by samkass ( 174571 )
                Not in the United States. Although I think you're right in most countries, the United States uses a first-to-invent, not first-to-file system. Thus, Google still would be the sole entity able to patent this idea if they can show they used it before the other guy.

        • yaccety yacc (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Bastard of Subhumani ( 827601 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @10:21AM (#18574259) Journal
          For all the handwaving and buzzwords in the application, it converts code written in language foo into language bar. That's a compiler. Now if they want to patent (copyright's possibly more appropriate?) their specific individual implementation of a compiler, then let them get on with it. If they want to patent compilers as a concept they can stuff it and I don't think they have a hope.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by z4ce ( 67861 )
            Ah yes, handwaving. I wonder if they use IP over SFSS [rfc-editor.org] at all in this patent. ;)

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Dausha ( 546002 )
            "it converts code written in language foo into language bar."

            It reads like what I've seen done for years: having a program (e.g. PHP-based) that produces javascript or calls to javascript. Heck, I wrote something like that as recently as 2005. "Compile" could be as simple as building an array of javascript function calls that are then embedded into a web page.

            That said, another case of poor judgment of the USPTO. Last summer I took a class in Patent Law at my law school. The professor showed a patent for a
      • Right. But does it go from the date of first filing or from the date of application?

    • All I can say is: where was your due diligence, Morfik?
      What is the legal penalty for failing to exercise due diligence?
      • Technically there isn't one.

        On the other hand, if you can be proven to have not displayed due diligence, you run the risk of a substantial shareholder lawsuit, because your lack of due diligence can be seen as a type of actionable mismanagement.

        I would argue that, by modern standards, failing to at least attempt to patent something like this could be argued to be in itself a failure of due diligence by a sufficiently informed shareholder possessed of the moral rectitude of a wood tick.

    • It could prevent an entire industry from developing.
      And how do you know a system to promote innovation is broken? When people start worrying about the above when it's used. I really do wish the patent system could be useful for something other than as a vehicle to initiate lawsuits.
    • It seems like every time we hear about a patent application on Slashdot it's usually followed up with lots of evidence of prior art, be it Google's Web Toolkit or something else. The US Patent and Trademark office doesn't have the manpower or expertise to thoroughly research every patent submission which seems to embolden schmucks to patent things they shouldn't or couldn't if there were competent safeguards in place. That being the case, let's "slsashdot" Congress with petitions to enact penalties ranging

      • That would just tilt the patent system even more in the favor of large companies, patent trolls, and hordes of lawyers. Determining if there is prior art - even well publicized prior art - for a patent can be damn hard. Even an expert in a reasonably specific field (say "Web Programming" here) won't know about all of the potential prior art.

        Consider how the law you suggest would effect a big company, a patent troll, and a small entrepreneur. The big company would file the same patents they always did - th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Sorry but I can beat that prior art. How about RATFOR , pas2c, and the first version of C++?
      All where preprocessors that translated one high-level language into another.
    • Wasn't AjaxPro.net released before the original patent was filed? Even if it wasn't RELEASED before that it was likely in some tangible form somewhere before that date... I think that it wasn't likely the first one either, but just as an example, there is probably a ton of prior art.
      • I'd also like to point out that I'm commenting on this as if it were an Application not a granted patent. I don't think that they can buy the farm on this compiliation procedure in general, but they might have a particular way of doing it that they will get the grant for.. I'm not a patent attorney so I don't know what sort of legal angle they're actually going for here.. If they're trying to say they invented the ajax from high level language compiler, then they'll likely lose that one, or it will be over

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ajs ( 35943 )
      Perl 6's pugs [pugscode.org] engine has been capable of producing JavaScript as a back-end for some time, certainly since before this patent's date.
    • Not only specific "HighLevel to Javascript" compiler like GWT could be similar, but the whole concept seems to be pretty old.

      Isn't this a very specific subcase of all "translating" compilers that compile some highlevel into some other similarly- or not quite so- high level language (instead of compiling highlevel language into assembly / bytecode) ?

      Thoses have been around for years.

      As recently Pugs [wikipedia.org] - the perl 6 to haskell/perl 5 (and parrot [wikipedia.org] intermediate representation for lower level) translator.

      Or to cite

  • Well, if this keeps people from making C into JS (Score:5, Funny)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:22AM (#18573313) Journal

    Then maybe the patents aren't such a bad thing.

    • If one is going to compile code to an "executable" form, in this case java script, why does it actually matter what form it is. Why not compile it to java?

      Trying to answer my own questions the relevant issues are:
      1) is the size of the javascript smaller or larger?
      2) is java faster or slower for sophisticated operations?

      I don't actually know which will be true. While normally i'd expect java to be faster than an interpered language, it's not so obvious for code sent across the web. While simple things like
    1. Patent obvious method
    2. Sue Microsoft for Atlas AJAX library
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by anomalous cohort ( 704239 )

      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.

      • That's true, but doesn't Visual Studio have some methods of automatically creating Javascript calls to public server side functions? If so it's likely that Visual Studio is infringing on this patent, in a similar way to Google Web Toolkit mentioned above. This patent is potentially very broad-reaching.

        • If so it's likely that Visual Studio is infringing on this patent, in a similar way to Google Web Toolkit mentioned above.

          Do you mean Visual Studio 2005? :-)

          The first beta came out in 2004, I believe. i.e., before September 2005.

        • Visual Studio have some methods of automatically creating Javascript calls ... it's likely that Visual Studio is infringing on this patent

          IANAL so take this with a grain of salt. IMHO, VS.NET does not infringe on the first independent claim of the Morfik patent. It is my understanding of U.S. patent law that all independent claims of a patent must be infringed upon in order for it to be a patent violation.

  • Don't even think it. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:23AM (#18573323)
    I swear, I will set fire to the first bastard to reply to this article with "dur dur... I'm going to patent blank"!

  • ya know (Score:3, Funny)

    by hansoloaf ( 668609 ) <hansoloaf@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:23AM (#18573329)
    April Fools Day is over.
  • Of course it is technically possible to do anything in Javascript. But can this technology do any task which is actually complex enough that it wouldn't be easier to just port it manually, at anything like reasonable speed?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by TheTempest ( 99802 )
      GWT does it and very well indeed. I've cross-compiled MD5 hash code to javascript and it works fine. I'd rather not port that manually since I already have perfectly good Java code for it.
  • It's more like 'a job someone had to do'.

  • Turing Completeness? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:28AM (#18573435)
    Shouldn't any technology like this be immediately unpatentable? All this does is translate code in one Turing-complete language to another. Since this transformation is mathematically proven to be possible for all Turing-complete languages, this is merely an algorithm and should be unpatentable...

    (I know, they'd approve a patent on cheese if you worded it as "a method for transforming milk and bacteria into edible food product.")

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 )
      this is merely an algorithm and should be unpatentable...

      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

      • f it's an algorithm, it's been firmly established legally that it is patentable.
        Thing is, it's not any particular algorithm. It's overly broad. You can't patent an overly general description of an algorithm, e.g. "a mathematical computation that takes in an integer and returns one or more integers as output". I think translating one of any number of languages into another, even a specific target language like JS, is overly broad.
      • Check out these guys [plotpatents.com] who seem to be interested in patenting plots for novels.

  • NOT A PATENT (Score:5, Informative)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:35AM (#18573563) Journal
    There is not a patent here. This is a published application. Filed in 2006, not 2005, with priority to 2005 through a provisional application, which almost gives it the same level of priority as if it were file in 2005. Someone wake me up WHEN this gets issued and not when it is just an application that quite possibly hasn't even been viewed yet. (USPTO has almost a 3 yr backlog in some arts.)
    • The point to be fighting this application is PRIOR to it becoming a patent. Are you saying you'd rather not hear about these until it's much harder? I'd rather we know about these before they are approved and can still be fought much easier.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Otter ( 3800 )
      There is not a patent here. This is a published application.

      There's that period of readjustment every April 2nd, as we return from an endless stream of unfunny "joke" stories to an endless stream of just-plain-wrong stories.

  • What will the reflection of that patent or whatever is going to be on ajax ?

  • ColdFusion? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bigblackcar ( 1072018 )
    Since when is ColdFusion a high-level language? Just because they use it in MySpace?

  • Compiler definition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @09:59AM (#18573925) Journal
    The definition of a compiler seems to differ from person to person, but the best one is something that reads a stream of input, converts it into a richer internal representation (usually a tree but it doesn't have to be), and writes out a different stream based on this internal representation.

    Even here in 2007, some people still seem to think the only thing that can be called a compiler is something that takes source code and emits binary code, but that's just one specific special case. The same basic principles that GCC uses will be used by PovRAY to compile its scene language into an image, ignoring the raytracing part. (That is, setting up the internal representation of the scene is just like a compiler.) Compiling C# into IL uses the same basic techniques. Defining anything that uses standard compiler techniques as a compiler is the motivation for my preferred definition.

    Given the long history of compilers, and the sheer profusion of them, I really don't think that compilers ought to be patentable anymore. Compiling Java into Javascript isn't a novel idea, it's "just" some engineering by somebody who understands compilers. (Which the recent "Wasabi" uproar over Joel on Software's posting proved is not all that many people, but still, it's simple once you see the tricks.) The only even remotely tricky part of such a compilation is if there's no easy way to get the syntax tree directly from the language parser, and that's still just engineering. There's definitely plenty of copyrightable stuff in such a compiler, but it'd take something very, very novel for it to be patentable.

    (Note I'm writing this message as if I weren't entirely against software patents, which I am, at length [jerf.org]. This is written from the putative point of view of the patent system; even then, compilers generally aren't that novel an idea. Saying "with a compiler!" is up there with "on the internet!" for novelty.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tim Browse ( 9263 )

      Compiling Java into Javascript isn't a novel idea, it's "just" some engineering by somebody who understands compilers.

      Indeed, but sadly not many programmers do understand compilers. (And even fewer understand linkers.)

      Other examples are CFront (the first C++ compiler) which just compiled C++ into straight C, which was then compiled by an existing C compiler, and the first Modula-3 compiler, which also just compiled to raw C.

      I myself have written a compiler that took a scripting language in our game editor, compiled it to C, linked the C code into a DLL, loaded the DLL into the game editor, and ran the code all in a

    • Specifically, this is a source to source translator. Those are as old as the hills too. C-front is probably the obvious well known example, but Perl to C translation is also well known. However, things like LALR parser generators and Code Generator Generators also fall into this category, and one would not really call those compilers (although the term compiler-compiler is common) - so source to source translators are not a subset of compilers.

      There is also the concept of nested abstract machines that is

  • Isn't this part of the basic framework of Ruby on Rails? I call "high-level" commands which "translate" to AJAX functionality. Rails has been around since 2004. Not to mention the obvious, but how is creating a framework that encapsulates another system's behavior new in any sense.. Yeah, yeah, I know.. I suppose the following is a patented, "new" idea:

    <%= observe_field(:person_search,
    :frequency => 1,
    :update => :output,
    :with=> "'search='+escape(value)",
    :url => { :action => :searc

  • April Fool's! (Score:3, Funny)

    by enharmonix ( 988983 ) <enharmonix+slashdot@gmail.com> on Monday April 02, 2007 @10:23AM (#18574289)

    Yeah, haha, Hemos, you almost had me! OMG PONIES!!!1!! Very clever April Fool's joke! And for the USPTO to be in on it... Wow. Best one yet!

    ...wait a tic, it's April 2nd... WTF?

  • This is yet another argument for creating a large "ecosystem" of valuable GPL3 code: lock vendors who abuse patents out of this ecosystem. Companies can still keep their intellectual property to themselves: private and proprietary data used with GPL3 code.

    As a consultant, I always try to sell my customers on going open source, if it makes sense for their situation. Open source == cost savings.

  • Slashdot Just DOES NOT GET Patents (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02, 2007 @10:36AM (#18574513)
    For as smart as the people on Slashdot are, it continually surprises me to see just how bad people are missing the boat in terms of what a patent application such as this means. Seriously, discussion here might be elevated from ridiculous to meaningful if everybody would just keep in mind the following things:

    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!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ajakk ( 29927 )
      Somebody please mod this up. Slashmods are TERRIBLE about pushing patent stories that are false. I would bet that approximately 75% of all stories regarding patents on Slashdot are materially wrong. If the guys at /. want a primer on patent law, feel free to email me and I would be more than happy to teach them a thing or two.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Jaqenn ( 996058 )

        If the guys at /. want a primer on patent law, feel free to email me and I would be more than happy to teach them a thing or two.
        I'm interested. But why do you want to distribute via email instead of just posting? It's just as hard to type as an email as to type as a comment.

  • Difference Between Application/Priority Date (Score:4, Informative)

    by blckbllr ( 242654 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @10:39AM (#18574567)
    In this case, the application was filed September 5, 2006. Thus, the application filing date is September 5, 2006. However, the application claims priority to a provisional application [uspto.gov] filed September 6, 2005. Thus, the application has a priority date of September 6, 2005. This difference is important for 35 U.S.C. 102(e) [uspto.gov] purposes.

    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.

  • Time to Modernize.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by truckaxle ( 883149 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @10:40AM (#18574579) Homepage

    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".


    I guess now I am forced to to port all of my FORTRAN AJAX apps over to Perl :)
  • This article is so 2006. :-)

    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.

  • This was already being done in 2001 (Score:3)

    by xutopia ( 469129 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @11:13AM (#18575003) Homepage
    I worked for b-process.com in 2001 and we implemented exactly this in Java. I also have done similar stuff in PHP since then. It's nothing new.
  • It's not JavaScript. It's ECMAScript [wikipedia.org], and your JavaScript terp just happens to run it properly.

  • Yay! (Score:2)

    by smcdow ( 114828 )

    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".
    Cool. I can still use Python and Perl.
  • I don't own any patents, and don't claim to know much about them, but I think I have a solution to them.

    Just have someone show a working invention to the people at the patent office. That will be patented. You want to spur innovation? Maybe rewarding people AFTER they innovate might be better than to reward them after they have submitted nothing but paper and ink?

    Just a thought.

     
  • So at worst, Morfik should recoup its total costs that it risked by pouring them into developing this invention. And even a 100% profit, to promote progress in science and the useful arts. Collectively from the actual infringers, who have themselves poured lots of money into delivering their versions of the invention. I think that means a few thousand infringers have to split the bill to Morfik of under $100K. Which Morfik will need later when someone else with even more prior art shows Morfik is infringing

  • Obviousness, Prior Art, a bad patents (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dfoulger ( 1044592 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @02:13PM (#18577699) Homepage
    I read through the whole thing, that this is just a very bad patent. Not bad for people in general. It can't possibly stand up to scrutiny. Its just a bad patent at every level I can think of up to and including "badly written".

    Its a bad patent because it is so "obvious". All they've done is to define JavaScript as as a p-code machine and created a (set of) compiler(s) for translating arbitrary programming languages into JavaScript "p-code". They have, in effect, attempted to patent compilers, albeit in a very limited way. Doing this was extrordinarily obvious, so much so that it wouldn't surprise me if there were hundreds of instances of prior art.

    This may be one reason why the patent is so badly written. A truly general patent would make claims against all possible programming languages, but this one explicitly does not. Almost every claim is tacked down to a specific list of languages, and that list varies from claim to claim. Worse, none of the claims address some of the most widely used web programming langauges, including Perl, RUBY, Python, and PHP. My guess is that either (1) the patent was written by an amateur or (2) that these list variations reflect what they were able to find in their search of prior art. The mere existence of variations in the claims is probably evidence of the obviousness of this patent.

    As for prior art, we've already seen claims of prior art in IBM (1996) and Microsoft (1998) products. That doesn't surprise me at all. I can recall discussing use of a JavaScript translator for an Ajax-like project I was in involved with (at IBM Research) in 1996. We didn't actually do it while I was on the project, but it was an option, and certainly not one that anyone would have believed was in any sense patentable. Appearance of such code in VisualAge during that same time frame would be anything but surprising. That is, for instance, the same time frame in which Mike Cowleshaw is translating REXX into Java p-code while retaining the interpretability of the REXX.

    There are so many other examples of this kind of machine code translation, going all the way back to the original Fortran. I don't see a chance that this patent will hold up to scrutiny.

  • S2 (Score:2)

    by makomk ( 752139 )
    Hmmm, interesting - they acknowledge the existence of S2 (LiveJournal's templating language - translated to Perl before execution) and the JavaScript-outputting backend thereof, which apparently predates the first patent application by a year (but is only really a PoC). IANAL, but I suspect this may narrow the applicability of the patent somewhat - I suggest you take a look at that part of the patent...

  • 1.) Compiler is the wrong term. 2.) Prior Art. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Monday April 02, 2007 @03:07PM (#18578423)
    1.) This process is generally regarded as 'generating' rather than compiling. Compiling implies that something is transferred into a lower level language for speed and better runtime integration. Here it's the opposite. Thus: Generating. The servlet (or whatever) does it is generically refered to as 'generator'. Compiling is the wrong term.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close