Apple is indeed patenting Swift programming language features
source link: https://www.tuicool.com/articles/hit/6V3Afq6
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
ebup (Eben Up) 2019-01-24 23:23:20 UTC #1
Here is the patent that includes optionals chaining:
9,952,841
This is very disturbing. It's like Apple has gone insane. Computer languages are not supposed to be owned by any company. We learned this mistake with Java and APIs. Computer languages are supposed to be a part of the Commons, owned by everyone for the benefit of humanity, not the benefit of a greedy corporation.
Nobody1707 (Nobody1707) 2019-01-24 23:28:02 UTC #2
I mean, yeah, software patents were a stupid idea, but it's not like them holding a patent for optional chaining matters that much since they released the code that implements it under the Apache license. Honestly, the only possible reason to even have a patent for this is to keep the patent trolls away.
taylorswift (^) 2019-01-24 23:44:35 UTC #3
i'm confused
Nobody1707 (Nobody1707) 2019-01-25 00:20:00 UTC #4
Apache license gives the right to use patents required to use the code (assuming the original author had those rights), and the code implementing optional chaining in the compiler is Apache licensed. So, the only thing Apple having a patent on optional chaining does is to stop frivolous suits from patent trolls. It can't be used for any kind of nefarious power play by Apple, which is what OP was worried about.
ebup (Eben Up) 2019-01-25 02:33:54 UTC #5
I would like to hear an Apple attorney confirm this theory and explain whether this was Apple's intention.
I always wondered why Apple thought a new language was required, not that Swift isn't interesting but still, it is odd that they introduced it and didn't mention that they patented it.
Also, the patents cover more than just optional chaining. There are two:
9,952,841 issued in 2018
9,329,844 issued in 2016
Presumably there are more that are pending.
By the way here is a list of Apple patents pending, the public ones anyway.
I see there an attempt to patent an API, and if I recall, the issue of copyrighting APIs came up in the Java lawsuit between Oracle and Google.
ahti (Lukas Stabe ) 2019-01-25 02:41:36 UTC #6
Prior Art would take care of that if Apple had not gotten a patent on Optional Chaining ( the Google patents page for US9952841B2, which was the only result I could find for the number given by@ebup, reads to me more like the whole concept of Swift, but I may be misunderstanding).
From a quick search (IANAL, also not from US, so salt to taste), I could also not find a consensus on whether the patent grant in the Apache license extended to derivative works and unrelated works. This StackExchange answer makes it sound like it does not, which as I read it could mean that Apple could still require a patent license if another project wanted to incorporate Optional Chaining.
Here is the patent grant section of the license:
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
ebup (Eben Up) 2019-01-25 03:04:56 UTC #7
The worrying thing is that Apple did some things that in combination look bad:
a. they encouraged people to adopt Swift, even going so far as to release Swift before it was ready for production use;
b. they didn't warn people that using some feature or other might in future require a patent royalty payment;
c. they didn't come out publicly and say "here is our policy" about these patents to put people at ease.
So worst case, it could be argued Apple engaged in a deceptive business practice that is nevertheless legal because ... patents.
John_McCall (John McCall) 2019-01-25 04:57:24 UTC #8
You never need a patent grant just to make derivative works. Restricting the creation of derivative works is not part of the monopoly granted by a patent. If I've patented The Wheel, you are free to separately make — and patent! — The Axle, The Tire, and The Wheelbarrow; you just can't make your own wheels until my patent runs out.
John_McCall (John McCall) 2019-01-25 05:29:07 UTC #9
a. they encouraged people to adopt Swift, even going so far as to release Swift before it was ready for production use; b. they didn't warn people that using some feature or other might in future require a patent royalty payment; c. they didn't come out publicly and say "here is our policy" about these patents to put people at ease.
By licensing its contributions under the Apache license, Apple has granted you a perpetual, royalty-free license to use all of its patents that are necessary in order to use Swift. That is a legally-binding statement written plainly in the license text. Your complaint is that we didn't make a second, non-legally-binding statement about our "policy" which promises to never charge you a royalty that we've already legally given up our right to charge. Even if we made that statement, I can't imagine why you'd trust it more than the plain terms of the license. I can only encourage you to talk to an IP attorney who hopefully can explain these things to you in a way that you do trust.
tkremenek (Ted Kremenek) 2019-01-25 05:38:31 UTC #10
The intention of using the Apache 2 license goes beyond this as well. This isn't just about Apple's contributions to the Swift project, but any company that has a significant patent portfolio such as IBM and Google. A contributor whose contributions implies one or more of their patents is effectively contributing the use of those patents to the Swift open source project. This was intentional and by design.
Any company making a contribution to Swift is intentionally licensing implied patents to the project. This is a business decision. Speaking on Apple's behalf, that business decision is clear and deliberate: we want Swift to be successful and to be used widely. The Apache 2 license provides a form of IP licensing as well as IP protection for the project, and thus its users.
Max_Desiatov (Max Desiatov) 2019-01-25 09:16:40 UTC #11
I understand that there's a ton of legal implications, but hope someone could help with this even with "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer. Would anyone be able to clarify a few points here please?
- If a separate open-source programming language under Apache 2.0 license implements an optional chaining feature, would it be a violation of the patent then?
- What if there's a separate implementation of a Swift compiler developed from scratch independently from Apple, does mean that it's not able to implement optional chaining without licensing the patent?
- Here's the most interesting part: let's say there's a fork of a Swift compiler that significantly diverged and is developed independently from Apple. It seems to me that forks like these still don't violate the patent, otherwise any GitHub fork with unmerged PRs would be a violation. But let's say Google's fork no longer wishes to contribute its changes upstream, at what point does this separate development could trigger a patent violation? Does amount of divergence have any impact, let's say 90% of the codebase changes? Does the name of project matter, if someone names their fork as "Sparrow", not "Swift" is it considered a patent violation at this point if there's no license and royalties paid for optional chaining?
Max_Desiatov (Max Desiatov) 2019-01-25 11:51:28 UTC #12
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this. If optional chaining was open-sourced before any patent on it was claimed by Apple, it would make any subsequent attempt by patent trolls to attack it invalid via prior art :
If an invention has been described in the prior art or would have been obvious over what has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.
If I understand this correctly, Apple didn't need to patent it for any "defence", just open-sourcing it and making "prior art" was enough. But as a contributor to Swift's ecosystem I feel unsafe now as we have a precedent of Oracle ruining Java's ecosystem with its patents. Can we be sure that Apple never ever does this to any 3rd-party open-source project related to Swift as a "business decision"?
Tahoma_Toelkes (Tahoma Toelkes) 2019-01-25 14:35:41 UTC #13
Prior art has been meaningless in US patent law for several years and has been replaced by first-to-file. In addition to the legal clarity that filing would have lent even when prior art had meaning, this is a huge reason why defensive patents must now be filed, especially for ideas intended to be a gift to the public.
Caveats: I am not a lawyer. Further, I am employed by Apple in an engineering capacity, but do not represent any officially held position. Thus, my comment above is both a non-professional and a personal opinion on a legal matter and should be lent as little gravitas as that implies even though it is also correct. ;-)
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK