Softwire

[didierj]

When you offer no option for the innocent or opressed to defend themselves, then fairness is lost and bullies win.

The joke of the poor-innocent-back-yard-researcher-that-has-to-be-protected was something for the beginning of last century, antiquated nowadays.

Patents is a billion dollar market. When a firm is sold, the counts of patents this firm holds is an important factor on the selling price.

When I hear that such stuff gets patented like: "mouse click on a window scrollbar" or "sperma treated with some hormone to enhance reproductivity" then I get serious problems concerning the idea of patents. :thumbdown:

I prefer the way of view, that when others take your Idea, then it's a greate one, otherwise it's bullshit. :thumbup:

Free market means that you have to be better than your concurence, not that you have to kill them by kicking in the ######, this is more wild-west.

...just my $0.02 opinion.

Didier

[Jim Kring]

Check this out... Microsoft has patented BASIC's IsNot operator.

[enolij]

I've been reading these posts at length and I haven't heard a single comment on what a piece of crap LabView is. Our company forced us to move away from a clean C++ environment to this clumsy product and all we have is constant crashes and high CPU utilization.

I briefly evaluated SoftWire. I may eventually end up with similar problems if I use it on large scale projects with deterministic realtime control. However, I am all up for choice. I would rather evaluate multiple products and make an informed decision, than to get forced to use a certain product because they have a better legal team (which is what the whole Microsoft/Linux argument is all about).

Plus, I think LabView is based on Ladder Logic used in PLC programming. The concepts of graphical representation have been around forever. The following article gives an overview of Ladder Logic.

http://www.barn.org/FILES/Manufacturingart...article9204.htm

[AnalogKid2DigitalMan]

enolij:

IMHO, I must disagree about LabView being a piece of junk that always locks up. It performs quite well and reliably in all the apps that I have programmed and deployed. And LabView is not based on ladder logic, it takes the diagram and compiles directly to machine code.

Please refer to the following link if interested.

http://www.ni.com/devzone/lvzone/dr_vi_archived6.htm

And is it slow compared to C? Not really

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd.nsf/we...node=DZ52061_US

[Michael Aivaliotis]

I've been reading these posts at length and I haven't heard a single comment on what a piece of crap LabView is. Our company forced us to move away from a clean C++ environment to this clumsy product and all we have is constant crashes and high CPU utilization.

3236[/snapback]

The reason you haven't read a single comment on what a piece of crap LabView is, is because this topic is about a patent infringment lawsuit. It says so right in the topic title. If you want to start a flame war then start your own topic instead of going off-topic. .

I briefly evaluated SoftWire. I may eventually end up with similar problems if I use it on large scale projects with deterministic realtime control. However, I am all up for choice. I would rather evaluate multiple products and make an informed decision, than to get forced to use a certain product because they have a better legal team (which is what the whole Microsoft/Linux argument is all about).

Deterministic realtime control? Are you running the real-time version of LabVIEW on a real-time controller?

Plus, I think LabView is based on Ladder Logic used in PLC programming. The concepts of graphical representation have been around forever. The following article gives an overview of Ladder Logic. 

 

http://www.barn.org/FILES/Manufacturingart...article9204.htm

Interesting article. It just re-affirms my opinion that the next replacement language to ladder logic is LabVIEW. I recently did a LabVIEW program that had to interface to a PLC "controller". I had the PLC programmer right next to me and we were programming in parallel various tasks. After viewing the speed at which I was able to program certain tasks, he asked me to take over the programming of most of the code in LabVIEW. For example, one task that would have taken him an hour to write in ladder logic only took me 5mins. Also, the lack of extensibility and compatibility with new technologies will spell the demise of PLC's.

[Khalid]

Also, the lack of extensibility and compatibility with new technologies will spell the demise of PLC's.

This is true and is already happening.. with FieldPoint first, and now even more with CompactRIO .

Traditional PLC manufacturers too are moving towards such devices what are now called PACs -- Programmable Automation Controllers. See the following for instance: http://gefanuc.com/pac

Khalid Ansari

[i2dx]

Thanks for posting this to the forum.  As a past user of other software that was more or less killed by NI's legal actions, I'm very interested in watching how this plays out.

329[/snapback]

which one ?

DASYLab / DIADem ?

best regards,

cb

[i2dx]

I've been reading these posts at length and I haven't heard a single comment on what a piece of crap LabView is. Our company forced us to move away from a clean C++ environment to this clumsy product and all we have is constant crashes and high CPU utilization. 

i have seen lots of LabVIEW code written by professional C/C++ Programmers* and i can approve that LabVIEW Code WRITTEN BY THESE GUYS results in constant crashes and high CPU utilization.

But it's not a problem of LabVIEW, rather a problem which resides between the ears of the programmers ... they try to create graphical C/C++ code with LabVIEW, not LabVIEW code.

best regards,

cb

*edit: with none / low LV Experience

[enolij]

The reason you haven't read a single comment on what a piece of crap LabView is, is because this topic is about a patent infringment lawsuit. It says so right in the topic title. If you want to start a flame war then start your own topic instead of going off-topic. .

3240[/snapback]

This isn't off-topic. 2 reasons for the post:

1. I have my own reasons to think LabView is crap. But my main worry is that LabView will only get worse if it systematically gets rid of its competition.

2. The data-flow diagram and the control structure parts of NI

[didierj]

1. I have my own reasons to think LabView is crap. But my main worry is that LabView will only get worse if it systematically gets rid of its competition.

3261[/snapback]

In this point I agree with you. being the sole player somewhere hasn't ever be profitable in the technical point of view. But as you should have seen if you read this topic, is that LV also has quite a few problems regarding patents.

2. The data-flow diagram and the control structure parts of NI

[dbp]

I wonder how things are going to be if

somewhere somebody would start a project similar to Softwire's,

but make it this time around open source and Java based...

Something like this looks reasonable to expect if

we all agree that G programming is a great thing.

[Jim Kring]

I wonder how things are going to be if

somewhere somebody would start a project similar to Softwire's,

but make it this time around open source and Java based...

Something like this looks reasonable to expect if

we all agree that G programming is a great thing.

3337[/snapback]

Who says that they haven't?

http://www.jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/#JavaFBP

[BendrixBailey]

Interesting comments, especially the open source discussion. We have been debating the value of publishing the source to all of SoftWIRE and inviting people to improve and extend it, while of course we would remain the repository and distribution point for the SoftWIRE program so that we could ensure its quality. Anyone have something to add to that conversation?

By the way, if you want to join a SoftWIRE forum just like the LAVA forum, we went live on Monday at:

http://forums.softwire.com/

So, if people are interested in Graphical Programming and would like to see open source open distribution revenue free, why not join in and help us understand how to make that work for you.

Thanks, and best regards,

Ben Bailey

[Michael Aivaliotis]

Interesting comments, especially the open source discussion.  We have been debating the value of publishing the source to all of SoftWIRE and inviting people to improve and extend it, while of course we would remain the repository and distribution point for the SoftWIRE program so that we could ensure its quality.  Anyone have something to add to that conversation?

Ben Bailey

3353[/snapback]

Well, free open source software is the natural evolution of software development. Companies that recognize this will survive in the long-term. See this article:

The care and feeding of FOSS

Thanks to Jim Kring for pointing this article out to me.

[Jim Kring]

Well, free open source software is the natural evolution of software development. Companies that recognize this will survive in the long-term. See this article:

The care and feeding of FOSS

Thanks to Jim Kring for pointing this article out to me.

3355[/snapback]

You're welcome, Mike. And, here's another interesting read, which is related to this thread:

Patents - An Alternate View

(notice that it is an essay from the same folks as the one you referenced)

[jpdrolet]

IBM releases software patents

[BendrixBailey]

Good article post. Thanks! The true leader in test and measurement, HP, has always had an open policy toward intellectual property. This is a telling quote:

In a statement, Dr John E. Kelly, IBM senior vice president, Technology and Intellectual Property, said: "True innovation leadership is about more than just the numbers of patents granted. It's about innovating to benefit customers, partners and society.

Using patents and the expense of litigation to crush small competitors and stifle innovations is not a benefit to society.

[dbp]

Thanks to all who contribute to this interesting topic;

Reading about the Java based data-flow programming initiative

(...have a look here http://www.jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/cmr.htm - thanks Jim Kring )

I suspect that the only reason they are not also sued is that

it's not capable of any serious (comercially viable) competition, at least for the moment.

The concept however seems to indicate one more time that essentially

data-flow was known and used way before LabVIEW (LV) was developed.

But it's not only the data-flow graphical programming that makes LV attractive, in my opinion,

it's also the easy interface with the I/O and the collection of directly useable examples

included in the distribution (as well as many other chunks of reusable code available for free).

SoftWIRE (SW) did a good job, apparently, when it comes to drivers.

I didn

[aledain]

The concept however seems to indicate one more time that essentially

data-flow was known and used way before LabVIEW (LV) was developed.

3486[/snapback]

Which I am not sure has ever been really denied. What was very innovative was the iteration and conditional structures, and in particular handling of memory in the data flow (see LabVIEW Graphical Programming, 3rd ed.,Chapter 1, p14 & p21-22). I think many of NIs patents probably protect these algorithms (but I could be way wrong ;-)).

cheers, Alex.

[Mike Ashe]

Which I am not sure has ever been really denied. What was very innovative was the iteration and conditional structures, and in particular handling of memory in the data flow ...

3489[/snapback]

Yup. The original patents are pretty thick reading. Bring and Instant Freeze-Dried lawyer with you to help decypher the legal-speak portions of the patents. The real crux of the patents was the graphical implementation of dataflow, not dataflow itself. NI never claimed to have invented dataflow.

Before LabVIEW and the Java based stuff, there was SmallTalk and a few other dataflow languages. The concepts have been around for a while. Not sure where the original papers are published on dataflow concepts. Graphics are certainly the best representation and Jeff Kodosky and the others at NI seem to be first at graphical While Loops, CASE structures, FOR Loops, etc, as well as the hierarchical subVI representation. Most of that stuff got covered in the first patents. Which are due to expire very soon.

The basics of NI's implementation of G have changed very little over the last 17 years. I am wondering if they will remain the same once the patents expire and work commences on ANSI/IEEE Standard G ?

In the meantime, Softwire's case is pretty interesting, especially in light of all the Open Source work going on in and out of LabVIEW. I hope they decide to release the source. Pretty cool stuff coming from open source these days and pretty competitive too. A great example being Firefox which I use all the time now.

[coral_reefer]

I'm new to this forum but have been programming LabVIEW for many years. I find this whole business about lawsuits to be facinating. Has anyone seen any new information regarding the time frame of these proceeedings? The early posts from around a year ago indicated trial dates in early 2005.

[coral_reefer]

Well, Answering my own question... This is from NI's recently released (04-Mar-2005) 10K form:

    On January 15, 2003, SoftWIRE Technology, LLC (

[didierj]

It looks like we'll have to wait for the wheels of justice to turn a bit longer before anything interesting happens.

4186[/snapback]

On thing is quite interesting for me as ingeneer: With these $3.3 million on NI side (and probably a similar ammount on Softwire's side), how many ingeneers could have been employed and with these additional forces how many of our whishes whould have been implemented???

...but time to wake up, real world is different!

[Jeff B]

For those who hadn't heard, it looks like NI just acquired Measurement Computing, so I'm guessing they probably won't sue themselves anymore.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

For those who hadn't heard, it looks like NI just acquired Measurement Computing, so I'm guessing they probably won't sue themselves anymore. 

4719[/snapback]

So I guess this thread is now irrelevant?

National Instruments Acquires Measurement Computing