IS NOT Is Patent-Pending
from the it-too! dept
theodp writes "On Thursday, the USPTO disclosed that Microsoft Visual Basic .NET's Technical Lead has a patent pending for the IS NOT OPERATOR, which is described as 'the reverse of the existing "Is" operator in a BASIC programming language.' Before we need an open source AIN'T operator, how about some examples of IS NOT prior art for our friends at the USPTO? "
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
prior art as well
what a bunch of hypocrits. They know this has been around as long as bill in high school, and that it should not be patentable.
yet another illustration of how whacked the "market driven" concept of patents and everything else is these days. (my other swipe at broken government doing absurd things like that is the FCC and the airwaves, and market driven unregulated utilities).
jim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can top that
From page 96 of Smalltalk-80: The Language by Adele Goldberg and David Robson:
The book is dated 1989. However, it's the second edition and I'm reasonably sure that the operator is also described in the first, which dates back to 1983.
Of course, there are probably LISP systems from the sixties that had an is-not operator, so I'm still a piker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]