How come include file patent isn't mentioned in position paper?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <14730 at ulysses.att.com> smb at ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>So to violate their patent, one would have to have a facility that let
>you specify just a *portion* of a file to be included...  Big change,
>right?  Not obvious to ``one skilled in the art''?
>
>Subsequent claims mention that the merged document must be in editable
>form, that it must include the back pointers, that changes are
>propagated back (the real thing they did, or think they did), and
>another claim I'm having trouble translating from the legalese.

This sounds much fancier than the standard #include file mechanism.  Most
#include facilities don't have any way to specify portions of files, only
whole files.  An #include mechanism in a programming language
implementation doesn't have to provide a way to save or display the merged
document, although it may be useful for debugging purposes.  And I've never
heard of one that automatically propogates changes in the merged document
back into the include file.

I suspect they're describing something from DCA (IBM's Document Content
Architecture, I think) or DISOSS (their DCA-based OA system).  Who claims
that #include in any C compiler infringes on this patent?

>Other sins in the patent include using ``cursor'' as a verb.

Any noun can be verbed.
-- 
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar at think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar