Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'

[Terry Reedy]

"Peter Maas" <peter at somewhere.com> wrote in message 
news:309qrmF2im5d4U1 at uni-berlin.de...
> Could this patent be circumvented by writing "not (a is b)" instead
> of "a is not b"? If that would be the case the patent claim would
> be even more ridiculous.

Somewhere deep in the verbiage they explicitly mention 'Not (A Is B)' as 
the currently necessary idiom (which competitors would presumably have to 
continue using) and tout 'A IsNot B' as nicer or something.  Replacing the 
former with the latter is the whole and entire point of this 
ridiculousness.  No new actual functionality.  Yes, mind-boggling.

Terry J. Reedy