Cenedese at indel.ch
Mon May 9 08:04:40 CDT 2005
>> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>> >Because it's patented by Borland?
>> Do you have any reference to the patent? It looks to me like it is easy
>> to by-pass by using different key words and than the user can Just
>> define them to the MS ones.
>US Patent #5,628,016, Kukol, May 6, 1997. And you can't patent a name, so
>changing names won't help.
>But you can patent wiping your ass after defecating. Which is basically what
>Borland has done here.
From this page: http://www.mega-tokyo.com/osfaq2/index.php/Doing%20a%20kernel%20in%20C++?version=18
http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/exceptionhandler.asp (explaining the stuff, but for VC++. Note that, on x86, VC++ and most other PC compilers use a stack-based unwinding and handling mechanism known as SEH, common to OS/2, Windows and Windows NT and described in detail in a famous MSJ article,
http://www.microsoft.com/msj/0197/Exception/Exception.aspx GCC and most other UNIX compilers, instead, use the same table-based mechanism that is the rule on RISC architectures on x86 too. Also note that any use of stack-based SEH may or may not be covered by USPTO patent #5,628,016, held by Borland International, Inc. SEH on RISC architectures is table-based, thus unaffected by the patent)
The link to the patent is (without really reading all of it :)
I wonder though: if stack-based SEH is patented by Borland, does it mean
that "VC++ and most other PC compilers" pay to Borland?
More information about the wine-devel