Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linked list patent

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: Linked list patent

#11

Post by fnid2 »

nkassis wrote: post #5
fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

This one is even cooler, patenting patent trolling: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se...

Absurdity is ubiquitous. Computer science is no exception. I know we think we are above it, but we aren't. We're just like everyone else. People don't have to be mechanical engineers to pattent something physical. They don't have to be computer scientists to patent an algorithm either.

Maybe that person who patented the method of swinging really thought the idea was great and could save the world. I don't know. But really, patenting inventions is almost a right.

We argue for copyright protection, or the abolishment of it in the same mind. If there are no patents for software and no copyrights period, what is there to protect the risk innovators take to make the world better?

It's true of corporations as well, because they spend a lot of money on Research and Developmennt. R&D budgets are in the billions. If a company, like Apple in the current debate, can't protect that investment, a lot of people who participate at Hacker News wouldn't have jobs. They'd have to go do something in some mundane role that has negligible impact compared to something, like the iPhone.

We all cheered when it arrived and now that Steve Jobs wants to get his money for it, his investors money for it, and his employees satisfaction for a job well done, he has to fight for that value.

If, in fact, HTC did steal some ideas from the iPhone, why shouldn't Apple get compensated for the lost value? Those are phones Apple could have sold and why shouldn't Apple have every bit as much right to make a positive return on their investment in the R&D for the iPhone and the parts of the iPhone that make it special to Apple, to Jobs, and for consumers?

Re: Linked list patent

#12

Post by fnid2 »

baddox wrote: post #9
fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

These two patents don't mean that all software patents are absurb, but it means that the current notion of software patents itself is absurd.

No, I don't think it does and I don't think simply stating that it is without providing any evidence for your case is going to change my mind or anyone's mind who agrees with me, but it looks like I'm the only one. Anyway....

The legal system is there to figure out if a patent is absurd and if you read the whole patent for the swing, at the end, it was ruled out. At least claims A, B, C and D. That same review process exists for software patents too. The patent office is taking steps to fix some of the problems, at least it is being pragmatic about pre-approval review processes that still protect the inventor.

Lots of arguments all the way to the echelon of the judicial system have taken place over software patents and it was ruled they are valid, so if a claim is to be made that they should be abolished -- it better be a very good one.

Re: Linked list patent

#13

Post by fnid2 »

alanthonyc wrote: post #10
fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents. I personally think they are absurd, as demonstrated by the OP, but am open to changing my thinking if proven wrong. The internet has leveled the playing field for everyone. But one of the few ways that big corporations can take advantage of their size against smaller, more innovative entities is by throwing money into a legal bat…

Okay, then the problem is not software patents, or patents in general, but that they unfairly tip the scales in favor of the big corporations.

How do we fix that problem? That problem exists outside the world of patents and software. Monsanto patents seeds and those are just strings of DNA which are essentially just four characters repeated in a seemingly random order. And yet farmers lose their farms over those strings of four letters. Not because they were even choosing to use the seeds, corn is just pollinated by the air and some of that code got into their crop as it blew in from the neighbors' field -- a farmer who did use Monsanto's DNA. It's absurd, I know.

One case on the not absurd side of the spectrum, is, as it turns out, the original case that ruled software could be patented in the first place. It was by a guy who had to fight, iirc, all the way to the supreme court to protect his right to patent his software invention. I'll try to find a link, but is a true story indeed.

Re: Linked list patent

#14

Post by nostrademons »

fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

"I know patents cause trouble, but what about the case where a patent helps an entrepreneur get the value out of an invention when big corporations steal it, market it, and make money without giving the inventor a dime?"

Patents don't protect against that. Problem is, filing a patent takes time, money, and attention that are in very short supply in a startup. You can file to protect your inventions - but if you do, that takes time away from more important things like getting the money you need to stay in business. And patents generally need to be filed before the invention becomes public (you have a year grace period in the U.S, but no such boon in the EU). If you gate your launch process on the speed of the patent process, you won't be launching much.

That's why Google's first patent wasn't filed until 2003 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6526440 - the PageRank patent is actually owned by Stanford, since they were Page & Brin's employers when it was invented). And many of the initial EBay inventions - online auctions and reputation, for example - were never patented, because the 1 year grace period had expired by the time they got around to it. Patents are something you get once you become big and have extra money lying around, not something you can afford as a startup.

Re: Linked list patent

#15

Post by scotty79 »

fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

Wow. That method of swinging on the swing actually is innovative. At least for me. I never did that by pulling one chain and the the other. I always sort of balanced my whole body to start and keep swinging.

I'm eager to try this new method. Should I apply for some kind of licence to that guy? I don't live in US is that patent valid in other countries?

Re: Linked list patent

#16

Post by fnid2 »

nostrademons wrote: post #14
fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

"I know patents cause trouble, but what about the case where a patent helps an entrepreneur get the value out of an invention when big corporations steal it, market it, and make money without giving the inventor a dime?" Patents don't protect against that. Problem is, filing a patent takes time, money, and attention that are in very short supply in a startup. You can file to protect your inventions - but if you do, t…

I don't think that is exactly true. A good patent from a very good firm in L.A. will run you about $20k. Yes, it's a lot, but I a computer engineer could sock that much away in a year. Work on the software at home at night, patent it, sell the patent to Apple or Microsoft or another big company for a couple million dollars. The corporation makes $100 Million of the device. Great, the inventor got $2M and can innovate for the rest of his or her life.

That's a good story in my opinion. Is that any better or worse than a social media site that gets 1,000,000 users and sells itself to google or whatever? How is that better?

Seriously, and with all due respect, a lot of the social media sites that do that add little value to anyone but the investors. Sometimes they take money from their customers in nefarious ways that maybe the world would be better off without -- especially right now.

So I'm a staunch supporter of software patents, because I see them as a path to freedom and a mechanism to publish ideas into the population and allow them to be built upon and improve the quality of life in the world.

I think the world could use a little improvement in its quality right now. There are probably millions of people who will agree with me.

When it comes down to it -- you gotta make money. That's what it comes down to and patents, any kind of patent, whether it is for wind shield wipers or for a software revolutionizes the solar energy system.

If something like that saves the world, I don't see a problem with an inventor getting a little bling out of it.

When it comes down to it, I just don't see the difference between gears spinning in the real world and gears spinning in a 3d model. That's every bit as much software as the algorithms and hardware behind some of what the iPhone does.

Some little company patented a film that goes over glass to make it much much stronger, but still transparent with UV protection and over a decade later, a car company used that material in its windshields without ever compensating this small individual owned business. It just turned out that when the material was invented, there was no market for it. No one could figure out what to do with it.

But it was within the 20 year period for the invention, which is essentially an arrangement of atoms in space, which could all be described by software. But I digress.

Re: Linked list patent

#17

Post by clofresh »

nkassis wrote: post #5
fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

This one is even cooler, patenting patent trolling: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se...

Assignee Name and Address: Halliburton Energy Services Inc.

Wow, Halliburton is just synonymous with evil.

Re: Linked list patent

#18

Post by fnid2 »

runT1ME wrote: post #7
fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

Do you think you should be able to patent a sentence? Even if its a good one? If not, why?

It depends on the sentence. And I know where you are going.

Re: Linked list patent

#19

Post by evanrmurphy »

fnid2 wrote: post #13
alanthonyc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents. I personally think they are absurd, as demonstrated by the OP, but am open to changing my thinking if proven wrong. The internet has leveled the playing field for everyone. But one of the few ways that big corporations can take advantage of their size against smaller, more innovative entities is by throwing money into a legal bat…

Okay, then the problem is not software patents, or patents in general, but that they unfairly tip the scales in favor of the big corporations. How do we fix that problem? That problem exists outside the world of patents and software. Monsanto patents seeds and those are just strings of DNA which are essentially just four characters repeated in a seemingly random order. And yet farmers lose their farms over those stri…

> Okay, then the problem is not software patents, or patents in general, but that they unfairly tip the scales in favor of the big corporations.

Agreed. Legal issues (patents included) tend to favor big corporations because you're more likely to win a case if you spend more money on it. I don't know about all the factors contributing to this, but I think a big one is that law (in the U.S., anyway) is difficult to understand for laypeople, and so you need lawyers to defend you, and the lawyers that cost more have higher success rates.

Re: Linked list patent

#20

Post by timtadh »

runT1ME wrote: post #7
fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

Do you think you should be able to patent a sentence? Even if its a good one? If not, why?

patents apply only to things that are: anything made by man new non-obvious commercially useful

i think a sentence, even Shakespeare, fail one or more of those qualifications. which is why we have copyright for sentences.

Post reply on HN