| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| The APL programming language source code |
| By Thom Holwerda, submitted by MOS6510 on 2012-10-12 12:03:43 |
| "With the permission of IBM, the Computer History Museum is pleased to make available the source code to the 1969-1972 'XM6' version of APL for the System/360 for non-commercial use." This is great: we need to make sure material like this is preserved. We can learn from it. |
|
| Find some hidden prior art? |
| By bram on 2012-10-12 16:29:41 |
|
And hopefully we can even find some techniques that qualify as prior art to subvert some patent trolls. But then again, patent system is going from first-to-invent towards first-to-file, so it may not do that much good. |
 - Score: 3 |
| Since when do programming languages have source code? |
| By saso on 2012-10-12 17:02:47 |
|
Just as a minor point, programming languages don't have source code. It's the interpreters and/or development environments that do. Just sayin' Edited 2012-10-12 17:03 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Find some hidden prior art? |
| By shmerl on 2012-10-12 17:34:31 |
| First-to-file doesn't negate the idea of prior art. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Broken link to source code |
| By theosib on 2012-10-12 18:20:49 |
| Well, I thought I'd download the source, just to poke around, but their "Agree" link goes nowhere. Hopefully they'll fix this soon. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Since when do programming languages have source code? |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-10-12 18:38:13 |
|
> It's the interpreters and/or development environments that do. Or if you're using a real language; a compiler. |
| - Score: 1 |
| Comment by marcp |
| By marcp on 2012-10-12 21:05:35 |
|
I'm amazed Apple didn't sue the authors of the APL programming language yet [end of joke]. Now, seriously, not so much ago Apple sued and destroyed webstore which sells groceries, based in Poland. Why, you may ask? well, the name of this store was "A". Nothing weird, huh? Well, the rest of the "name" - as the Apple lawyers thought - was the polish domain, which is "pl", so all in all the name goes as follow: a.pl. Oddly enough they managed to destroy this innocent business with their rediculous claims. Shame on you all, Apple, Apple workers, lawyers, american law system and americans! SHAME.ON.YOU. This name was not even corelated with Apple in ANY way. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Find some hidden prior art? |
| By unclefester on 2012-10-13 04:02:10 |
|
> But then again, patent system is going from first-to-invent towards first-to-file, so it may not do that much good. This has always been the case in Australia. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by marcp |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-13 04:50:10 |
|
First off I'd like to say I don't agree with Apple on this. But... the suit isn't about the domain name a.pl, it's about a logo on fresh24.pl, which is owned by a.pl. Nor has a.pl (or fresh24.pl) been "destroyed". The worse that can happen is that they need another logo, but since this logo looks more like an apple than an Apple and they don't sell tech I doubt they'll lose. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[2]: Comment by marcp |
| By Soulbender on 2012-10-13 06:54:07 |
|
> it's about a logo on fresh24.p Maybe it's just me but I don't see a logo there that is even remotely like the Apple logo. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[3]: Comment by marcp |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-13 07:38:16 |
|
Rumor has it it was their old logo, but even that can't be confused with Apple's. Even so I doubt anyone goes on-line to buy an iMac and ends up with a box of oranges. |
| - Score: 3 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |