×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

720 comments

Am too. (5, Funny)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863781)

I am going to patent "is too" and "nuh uh".

I'm gong to be rich! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863870)

I just got my patent on "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and stcks to you."

Re:I'm gong to be rich! (1)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863934)

Your "I" key is borked, isn't it?

Re:I'm gong to be rich! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863992)

Eye wanted to avoyed et to keep from vyolayteeng MS's patent.

Re:Am too. (3, Funny)

harrkev (623093) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863987)

I think that I am going to patent squishing ELSE and IF into one command which I shall call [sound of drums playing in the background} ELSIF. No applause necessary.

Another "duh" moment in the patent office.

oblig (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863784)

Somehow, this IsNot funny.

IsNot Microsoft? (4, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863786)

Hmmm Microsoft patents IsNot so we can't say Microsoft IsNot Linux or Mac, right? Maybe because they don't want us to say Microsoft IsNot good? IsNot fair? IsNot using best practice? I guess they are trying to surpress our complaining.

Microsoft patents ones and zeros... (4, Funny)

kuwan (443684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863959)

In other news... [villanova.edu] (From an old Onion article)

REDMOND, WA--In what CEO Bill Gates called "an unfortunate but necessary step to protect our intellectual property from theft and exploitation by competitors," the Microsoft Corporation patented the numbers one and zero Monday.

With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.

"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."


Read More. [villanova.edu]

--
Sounds like a scam, but it works. [wired.com]
Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com] |

This isNot... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863788)

first post?

Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo! (0, Redundant)

elwinc (663074) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863790)

Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo, so there!
IsNot
IsToo
IsNot
IsToo
I win!!

Re:Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863868)

This is a direct attack against GNU/Linux, no longer will GNU be GNU isNot UNIX!

Re:Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo! (1)

gosand (234100) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863897)

Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo, so there!
IsNot
IsToo
IsNot
IsToo
I win!!

Oh yeah, well I have patented "IsToo Infinity". I win!

(I have also patented "IsToo Infinity + 1" HAH!)

Re:Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo! (3, Funny)

bogado (25959) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863966)

But I do have the patent on IsToo non-enumarable infinity, witch is larger then IsToo infinity. I win!

Don't forget COME FROM (1)

anorlunda (311253) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863984)

Obviously you guys never heard of the totally original but controversial COME FROM statement proposed in Datamation magazine a long time ago.

To that I would like do add my own invention, the DO CAREFULLY statement.

Not Quite (5, Informative)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863797)

Unless I'm mistaken, they've only applied for a patent; it has not yet been granted. Sadly, given the state of the patent system nowadays, it would not surprise me if it is granted.

Re:Not Quite (5, Funny)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863892)

Slashdot headline, July 23, 2006 -- Patent IsNot Granted.

800 posts later, slashdotters still haven't deciphered the meaning of the headline.

lets patent else too! (1)

spikestabber (644578) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863800)

else do what? microsoft would patent the method of taking a computer and turning it on if they could.

Re:lets patent else too! (2, Funny)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863817)

sod it, let's patent main{}

But seriously, is there prior art? (i'm not old enough to know :P)

Prior art (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863803)

int* x;
int* y;

int foo = x != y;

Re:Prior art (0)

rdc_uk (792215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863840)

That's "does not have the same value as", rather than "is not the same thing as".

SQL has "WHERE field_name IS NOT NULL" though...

Re:Prior art (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863881)

Since both are pointers it is the same as the IsNot thingy.

Unless field_name is a pointer your SQL example is wrong though.

Jeroen

Re:Prior art (1)

El Cabri (13930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863885)

No, that's exactly what's covered by the patent : comparing two references with one operators. In C, references being pointers, you just use the scalar equality to compare them.

Re:Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863930)

"That's "does not have the same value as", rather than "is not the same thing as"."

How fucking stupid are you?

When I compare the value of pointers, I'm comparing what memory address they point to... got that? Ok, so when I compare two pointers using != I'm testing that they don't point to the same memory adddress... ok?

And guess what? That's EXACTLY what the patent says IsNot does - tests that the two operands don't refer to the same memory address.

"evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations"

Please respond. I want you to explain how you think you were right.

Re:Prior art (1)

kmurray (166822) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863938)

Patent only applies to the BASIC language, as best I can tell.

Re:Prior art (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863963)

Yes, and the patent only applies to the IsNot keyword, it specifically says that "A IsNot B" a "better grammatical construction" than "Not (A Is B)".

Let 'em have it. So long as "Not (A Is B)" is public domain. I disagree with them, and think in practical use, it's a better statement structure. When A and B involve lots of crazy variables and references and whanot, I like to see the "Not" negator right there at the beginning of the mess.

Re:Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10864001)

Your code would both be rejected by any implementation of BASIC, is poorly documented - worse yet uses poorly named variables.

F / 0 Marks

Microsoft Also Patents (2, Funny)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863807)

Me: "IsNot" a valid patent.

Microsoft: "IsTo"! damn forgot to patent that one!

Re:Microsoft Also Patents (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863910)

I think you mean, IsToo! Farking sloppy homonyms. Lemme guess. "I'm not an English major."

Re:Microsoft Also Patents (5, Funny)

fred ugly (125371) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863975)

Lemme guess. "I'm not an English major."

I believe you mean, "I IsNot an English major."

how in the g-golly fuck (0)

hsmith (818216) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863808)

can you patent something that IS ALREADY PRESENT IN THE LANGUAGE. it would be differnet if it was not present in the language.

seriosuly, what the hell is with this? maybe i will patent structs in java, so if they ever put them in, i can sue!

Re:how in the g-golly fuck (1)

Red Alastor (742410) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863887)

can you patent something that IS ALREADY PRESENT IN THE LANGUAGE. it would be differnet if it was not present in the language. Well... At least the rules are saying that you can't patent something that is obvious...

Patents should be denied to convicted monopolists (4, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863810)

If the whole idea of sanctioning a company because it formed and mainatined a monopoly through anticompetitive practices is to restore competition in the industry, why do we continue to allow it to secure a temporary monopoly in that industry? PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY ARE STILL BEING SANCTIONED?

I think it is a travesty that MS is allowed to aquire IP though the goverment that is sanctioning them. How does that restore competition? It is blatantly counter productive.

Re:Patents should be denied to convicted monopolis (2, Insightful)

Suidae (162977) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863990)

Would it matter? Microsoft could pay any random employee to own the patent and license it to them on an exclusive basis.

Laws could be made to to try to avoid that, but realisticly it doesn't seem like it could be prevented.

aint it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863825)

How about my new "aint" operator?

It's brilliant... (4, Funny)

ravind (701403) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863830)

For future applications, the patent office will have to pay them to say "This IS NOT original".

Watershed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863833)

This may be the big one folks. There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny. Not only that, this is the backbone of the world's economy and its rigorous enforcement may well wake up the world to the problem of broad software patents and bring about quick change to the patent system.

May it be rigorously enforced for the good of humanity.

Re:Watershed (1)

Craig Maloney (1104) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863991)

Or not. :)

There have been many examples of gross negligence in the patent office before, and yet we keep stoking the fire with newer, more ridiculous examples. I'm not sure what will bause critical mass in the patent debate, but I have a feeling this won't be it.

So am I infringing if... (5, Informative)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863839)

After a quick read of the patent, it seems to say that it is a test to see if two "variables" are actually the same entity, i.e. at the same address.

That would seem to imply

#define IsNot(A,B) (&(A) != &(B))

infringes?

Surely this is done in things like memmove() to prevent overwriting of data?

Re:So am I infringing if... (1)

chthon (580889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863880)

So that means that they want a patent on a veil over a C library, which presumably does a test on two pointers, like p1 == p2 ?

Re:So am I infringing if... (2, Informative)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863895)

IANAL, but the patent application seems to be pretty specific in saying that it's only in BASIC that they're trying to patent it, so a similar thing in C would likely be unaffected. I don't know what good having this patent would do them, honestly. I can't conceive of any way off the top of my head that this could be infringed if it is granted. I 'll let that kind of brainstorming up to my fellow /.ers.

Re:So am I infringing if... (1)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863977)

but the patent application seems to be pretty specific in saying that it's only in BASIC

Oh. Good point, but one would think that given it is trivial to do in other languages, it would be obvious to do in BASIC and thus should be rejected.

Since it appears it is still only an application, I guess there is a chance of this occuring... but, then again, this is the USPTO isn't it? :-)

Re:So am I infringing if... (5, Insightful)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863998)

Perhaps the intent is to keep implementations of Visual BASIC from springing up on other platforms. A great deal of software out there is still written in VB and this code often stands in the way of getting off of Windows for good.

Re:So am I infringing if... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863923)

More to the point, the operator has existed in Lisp since at least the '60s:

(neq a b)

In Java the operator is simply !=, which tests for pointer equivalence in all non-numerical cases:

a != b

But ISNOT is likely a Bill Gates invention. It would seem the whole of the patent rests on a single claim, #2: the operator being in BASIC. Can this possibly stand up?

Re:So am I infringing if... (2)

ajs (35943) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863949)

Here's the thing that has always confused me. I don't understand how patents are applied. This patent, for example, specifically claims coverage over BASIC-derived programming langauges where the operator is called IsNot. So, am I to understand that a C version does not infringe? What about a Basic version that calls the operator Isnt? How does this work? Lawyers?

Is the 'Is' operator patented? (4, Insightful)

TreadOnUS (796297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863843)

If so, the 'IsNot' operator is obvious and therefore not a good candidate to be patented. Of course what MS is really trying to do here is patent a representation of logic.

Re:Is the 'Is' operator patented? (5, Informative)

albalbo (33890) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863994)

Actually, they specifically admit "Is" as prior art, the example they give is:

If (Not(A Is B)) Then (Goto Z) End If

By generating an IsNot operator, such that Not(A Is B)===(A IsNot B), you're re-ordering the sentance:

If (A IsNot B) Then (Goto Z) End If

That's what they're trying to patent. The use of a keyword rather than boolean logic. I rather hope and suspect this patent will fail for insufficient inventive step.

c'mon.... trivial prior art (3, Informative)

arn0n (675488) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863844)

From the patent application:
A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two variables point to the same location in memory.

Prior art:
The C operator !=, for comparing two pointers.

Re:c'mon.... trivial prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863900)

That's 2 operators, the ! operator and the = operator

Re:c'mon.... trivial prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863920)

Nope.

!= is an op that compares values. It _can be used_ to do what the patent covers, but it is not an operator that _just does that_ which is what the patent in fact covers.

The patent is still (yet) another example of the paucity of the US patent system. (the system is now so debased that ANYTHING has a good chance of becoming a patent)

Re:c'mon.... trivial prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863929)

Let's get away from prior art for the moment--where the bloody hell is the "not obvious" criterion???

Re:c'mon.... trivial prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863951)

eqv? (in scheme)

GNU is_not Unix (1, Interesting)

TrueJim (107565) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863849)

Since GNU's Not Unix, clearly this sets the stage for an assault on GNU.

Re:GNU is_not Unix (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863915)

Hey! That's the prior art we need to stop this thing.

In other news (1, Funny)

Random_Goblin (781985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863853)

Microsoft recently announced patents on the Instructions PRINT and GOTO, the Variable "Hello world" and the concept of Line Numbers (with particular reference to 10 and 20.)

Re:In other news (1)

Blitzenn (554788) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863955)

"Hello World" is the contents of a variable and is copyrighted by Sun Corp as part of their Java manual, not Microsoft.

Innovation my ass (1)

Dreamland (212064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863860)

In what way is comparing two memory addresses considered an innovation? Doesn't the i386 CMP operator constitute prior art?

Attention Europe (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863863)

See what is going on? do you want this, too?

The patent is really not necessary (1)

CreamOfWheat (593775) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863872)

A pointer is needed in most executable provisions of a language. I really thin M$ is going for overkill by patenting a computer-executable instruction for: receiving source code comprising at least one statement comprising a keyword representing a logical operator, and a first operand and a second operand; and generating from the source code, executable code for the at least one statement, the executable code evaluating to true when the first operand points to a first location in memory and the second operand points to a second location in memory that is different from the first location in memory, the at least one statement evaluating to false when the first operand and the second operand point to the same location in memory

Patent Pending (1)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863874)

I have a patent pending for all uses of and references to -1.

I'm going to make millions!

I'm still on the lookout for other negations I might be able to cash in on before anyone else does.

This is disgusting! (5, Insightful)

kuwan (443684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863876)

If ever there were an example of how completely broken and useless the current patent system is then this is it. This makes you think, what other obvious and trivial functions have been granted patents? Can I get a patent on strcmp? I'll just apply for a patent on my new, special function that I just recently came up with. It's called StringCompare!

As I right this my colleagues are writing up patent applications for the !=, ==, &&, ||, &, and | operators. I expect these applications to be granted shortly, after which we'll own all your code and Microsoft will be my bitch.

--
Sounds like a scam, but it works. [wired.com]
Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com] |

Delphi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863908)

"a BASIC-like or BASIC-derivative language such as but not limited to MICROSOFT VISUAL BASIC, BORLAND DELPHI or REAL BASIC"

Delphi is BASIC-like or BASIC-derivative? News to me, and i have programmed in Delphi since 1995. You learn something new every day. Maybe it is (very superficially) Visual Basic-like, but that is the environment, not the language.

Not quite all-encompassing (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863916)

By the look if it, this only refers to BASIC code and to an operator to check if two pointers point to the same object.

At any rate there's still plenty of prior art in other languages

Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863917)

You will note the filing date: 2003. I would reeeeeeaaaaaaallllly like to see MS argue that there is no prior art to this date, or that 'one skilled in the art' would not have already used such an operator. I bet this goes all the way back to Babbage.....

And the name of their IP law firm is... (1)

kk49 (829669) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863918)

WOODCOCK Washburn LLP, need I say more.

MS says "Let's throw some shite against the wall and see what sticks."

What we really need is... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863928)

IsPatented - returns true if method/function/operator is patented

Programmers should be able to tell what methods and operators are patented before they call them

IF not IsPatented( IsNot() ) Then
IsNot(....
ELSE
OneTimeIsNotHandle = PayToUseIsNot(CC#, CC Type, CC Expiration)
OneTimeIsNotHandle(....
END IF

Before everyone gets too worked up (1)

heir2chaos (656103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863933)

This is only for a BASIC compiler. How many of you that are bothered by this even use BASIC? Hands up please.

What I mean to say is they are not patenting !=, they are patenting "IsNot". From my point of view, who really cares?

Patent Abuse (1)

itsnotthenetwork (634970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863942)

It's completely asinine that this sort of thing is legal.
The entire purpose is to make money without actually doing anything, and the end result is that it stifles innovation.
The patent system in this country needs a major overhaul.

IANAL but IAMABP (1)

SamBeckett (96685) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863952)

I just read the patent. This is what they are claiming:

Add the following rule:

Expression: Expression IsNot Expression
{ If ($1 is not an lvalue or $2 is not an lvalue) then print error message,
else
$$ = $1 == $2 (or assembly code for the same test)
}

Umm. Ok.

The truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863956)

yet more proof that bill gates and his free mason ilk are ruling the entire earth via subliminal messages implanted in linux

my parents trusted the american government

trust can come back to screw you

Ballmers outburst? (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863960)

Anyone have the link to this? He's got a face only a mother could love (or someone who thinks they could get a slice of his money) ... so between that and some of his more ridiculous statements (the one about the low cost computers) I love checking out dumb moves by him.

Only pertains to BASIC (1, Insightful)

Christopher_G_Lewis (260977) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863961)

From the Patent
1. A system for determining if two operands point to different locations in memory, the system comprising: a compiler for receiving source code and generating executable code from the source code, the source code comprising an expression comprising an operator associated with a first operand and a second operand, the expression evaluating to true when the first operand and the second operand point to different memory locations.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a BASIC-derived programming language compiler.

3. The system of claim 1, wherein the operator is IsNot.

4. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler comprises a scanner, a parser, an analyzer and an executable-generator.

The patent only applies to the BASIC language.

This is like me patenting the color Blue only in my living room.

Nothing to see here.

haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863962)

I just can't stop laughing at this. This patent is extremely dumb for a few reasons:
  • This operator is a painfully obvious one. "Hey lets make a != operator that only works on pointers instead of being more generic"
  • It's the BASIC programming language. The only purpose of this operator is to work around it's already shitty and verbose ways of dealing with expressions
  • Other compiler writers just need to use perl's "unless" statement to get the same effect (and then some)
  • Three douchebags actually took the time and money to patent this
  • How huge this patent application compared to like the 3 lines of code it actually took to implement this in their compiler

Pushing the bounds... (1)

kmurray (166822) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863964)

I think they are just trying to see what they can get away with. M$ recently talked about pumping up their patient portfolio. Maybe they are starting to flood the patent office and this is one of the more blatenly stupid ideas.

isRidiculous! (1)

DrLex (811382) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863969)

I suggest we team together, create a temporary company, and patent the sum, aka '+', operator.

Elegance. (4, Funny)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863970)

There is a sublime although disturbing elegance in the fact that it is illogical to allow MS to patent a logic operator

I am currently trying to patent multiplication so all of you owe me a nickel everytime you times.

Where are we? - A serious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863983)

Is Microsoft and the other patent chasers so out of new ideas that they need to resort to this?

Are they truly that greedy or paranoid?

I hear a lot of deserved heckling, but what is the explanation for this type of behavior?

Why bother? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863985)

Let them have IsNot, the rest of the world is either using "Is Not", "!=" or something similar anyway.
Microsoft may also patent "IsNotGreaterThanOrEqualTo" if they want, we'll just use "".

i've had enough (1)

buro9 (633210) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863989)

i'm going to patent main() and then deny use to anyone and everyone... that will deal with it!

Coming soon: Elements of Style for VB Programmers (2, Funny)

Eric Giguere (42863) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863995)

From the patent application: Such a language construction is ungrammatical, requires more typing and violates the philosophy on which BASIC rests. It would be helpful therefore, if a single more intuitive operator could perform the function that the combination of the two operators Is and Not typically performs.

Microsoft is simultaneously announcing the publication of an updated version of The Elements of Style [amazon.com], revised specifically for Visual BASIC programmers.

"We're concerned with the literacy rates among VB programmers," says Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. "How can programmers learn to write correctly in English when they're exposed on a day-to-day basis with ungrammatical programming constructs?"

Not everyone agrees with the initiative. Some people are expressing concern that Microsoft is concentrating on grammatical correctness at the expense of program correctness. Stay tuned for further details on this exciting development in the annals of programming history.

Eric
More humor here [ericgiguere.com]

RTFA - Not that bad, but still bad. (4, Interesting)

borkus (179118) | more than 9 years ago | (#10864002)

The patent isn't easy reading, but if you plow through enough of it you get to an example in code

[0003] Class x
[0004] Dim y As Integer
[0005] End Class

[0006] Class x in this case is defined to contain a member of type "Integer", which is to say that if the item stored at memory location 252 is a variable of class x, the contents of memory location 252 will comprise an Integer. Suppose now that the following code is executed:

[0007] Dim a As x
[0008] a=New x( )

[0009] The first line of code defines variable a to be of class x while the second line creates a new instance of x 254 on the heap, a pointer to which is stored in variable a 256.

It looks like their patenting using the Basic IsNot operator on object comparisons in Basic. It's a pretty limited patent.

On the other hand, I'm baffled that you can patent overriding a specific operator in a specific language. There's considerable prior art in overrding operatorsin general.

Of course, the problem with patent abuse by a few people is that it prompts others to do the same. Don't want someone to patent a piece of technology out from under you? Patent it first!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...