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

[Steven Bellovin]

In article <NIX.91Apr29140634 at valis.asd.sgi.com>, nix at asd.sgi.com (Sold to the highest Buddha) writes:
> dc at caveat.berkeley.edu (Dave Cottingham) writes:
> 
>    Is this include file patent a hoax,
> 
> I posted the same question several months ago and got nothing back in
> the way of references.  As far as I'm concerned it's a net.legend.

The patent number is 4,674,040, issued on June 16, 1987 to Barbara Barker,
Irene Hernandez, and Rex McCaskill, and is assigned to (blare of trumpets)
IBM.  RMS kindly provided me with the number a few weeks ago; I just
got a copy of the patent.

The essence of what they're saying is new is that they keep a
back-pointer to the include file.  If you take the merged file, and run
it through some formatter, and then edit the result, the changes are
fed back to the included files.

That said, they are trying to claim more or less the #include
directive.  Well, not exactly -- to quote their Claim 1 precisely, they
claim

	A method for merging a portion of one document into another
	document, said method comprising:
	  (a) including a reference to said another document to said
	  portion; and
	  (b) causing said portion to be merged with said another
	  document and displayed in merged form.

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.

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

I confess -- I disagree with Stallman about the concept of software
patents.  We've had our email discussions on the subject.  But I think
we can all agree that abuses of the patent system are another matter
entirely.


		--Steve Bellovin