Hacker News Reader

That sounds bizarre. So this means that parents are potentially holding back programming language innovation? I hope I don’t have to consult with a lawyer every time I invent a new variation on the for loop. (I anticipate that someone will then tell me that there already is a patent for that…)

View on HN

Why would it be bizarre? It's not exactly a fringe belief that patents in all software are holding back innovation.

I don't think programmers often consult 20 year old "inventions", so it seems pretty obvious on its face that the supposed benefit of patents, that something is _only_ locked up for 20 years, is quite pointless in software.

Anyway, for loops are safe, unless the for loop is over the elements of a linked list. Then you need to wait until next year: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7028023B2

Doesn't that patent's claims cover doubly-linked lists? The "auxilary order" could very well be reverse order. Seems like an obvious prior art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com