Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Smells bogus to me i.e. prior art:
So much for Apple not abusing its contribution to LLVM.
The LLVM jab is amusing
Posted Aug 15, 2010 23:52 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Posted Aug 19, 2010 9:26 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785)
I wonder why this was not widely discussed?
Apple trying to pull an 'Oracle' over LLVM seems to me quite newsworthy!
If I were a LLVM contributor, I would be very annoyed|worried..
Posted Aug 19, 2010 14:10 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
Of course, if there is prior art, it's certainly best to get the patent invalidated before it's issued; that'd avoid any possibility of aggressive use in the future. But in this case, I bet you *won't* be able to find prior art for every one of the 34 claims, and you'd have to fall back on the more difficult to prove "obviousness" defense to knock out some of them.
Of course, if apple has actually pledged the patents to the LLVM project already, they're doing it a *favor* by getting the patents filed, since the patent office only seems to look for prior art in the patent database by default, and not in wider literature.
Posted Aug 19, 2010 11:18 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
LLVM's contributor policy requires contributors to give free access to necessary patents. http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patents
Anyone know if Apple has done this? Is there a list of declared patents anywhere?
I'm documenting this here:
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds