Although I'm not a lawyer, I don't believe Xerox has a patent on AOP per say. They do have a patent on AspectJ and how it applies AOP to Java.
Besides, there is prior art for at least Advises. And other languages have had introductions for years.
> This might be a little bit off-topic (not for
> developing), but I think it is important since Jboss
> 4 is based on this already patented Aspect Oriented
> Programming technology. (It is patented by Xerox)
> What is the formal policy of Jboss Group regarding
> this issue?
> Henri Chen
> Although I'm not a lawyer, I don't believe Xerox has
> a patent on AOP per say.
> They do have a patent on
> AspectJ and how it applies AOP to Java.
No, it's the principles that are patented (according to Greg anyway). It's not possible to avoid the patent by using some other implementation (I asked Greg about that possibility).
> No, it's the principles that are patented (according
> to Greg anyway). It's not possible to avoid the
> patent by using some other implementation (I asked
> Greg about that possibility).
relax... I asked gregor as well when I met him and he says it's irrelevant that the patent is way too large and mostly applies to the aspect implementation and pointcut language. But if they want to enforce the patent they would have to undo all of J2EE declarative XML (which IS a pointcut language, put this security on this method etc) and they would also have to sue MS for the pointcut language that c# is and we like to argue about so much.
I will tell you that the only thing I am worried about is a "trademark" on the words "AOP" but by now it is so public domain that I don't imagine there would be a problem.
Rickard, back to the code table, we need to get the images out of your mind ;) and you I enjoy you a lot more when you talk about code than when you talk about conspiracies of legal issues.