🚀 go-pugleaf

mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
+---------------
| >I have a specific case to ask about.  This week the LPF has been posting
| >messages about patent 4,783,761.  This covers a particular spelling check
| >technique for a word processor.
| 
| How are command completion systems like that built into emacs or tcsh
| excluding from infringing on this patent claim?
+---------------

Prior art. BBN TENEX (later incorporated into DEC's TOPS-20) was doing
command completion essentially identical to emacs or tcsh way back in the
early 1970's. I'm not saying TENEX was first, understand, just that it
predates patent 4,783,761 by more than a decade.

Besides, I don't think command completion infringes on this patent. Note
that Claim 2 subpart (g) says [and similarly Claims 8 (g) and 10 (e)]:

   "(g) signal output means connected to said first and second storage
    means for generating a signal immediately in response to a received
    character input being out of spelling order as structured in said first
    and second storage means and determined by said comparison means."

Command completion that I'm familiar with *doesn't* "generat[e] a signal
immediately in response to a received character input being out of spelling
order". You have to either ask for completion (e.g. <ESC>) or finish the
whole command and hit <CR> before you get an error. [That's because such
command parsers *expect* you to often type a "new word" they haven't ever
seen before.]


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311