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

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Linked list patent

#41

Post by Estragon »

kiba wrote: post #40

In the interest of advancing the level of debate regarding intellectual property, once again as countless time before, I beg everyone to read Against Intellectual Monopoly at http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, co…

I haven't read the book, but the interview with the author on Econtalk was great: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...

Re: Linked list patent

#42

Post by jcromartie »

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...

I can hardly believe that this exists... but there it is. I think this is the only evidence needed to establish the fact that our patent system is hopelessly and irreparably broken.

Re: Linked list patent

#43

Post by bediger »

Oh no! Now that I've read the patent all the software I've written that uses linked lists (and that's rather a lot) is now in violation of the patent, and I'm liable for treble damages, right?

Damn you, Hacker News!

Re: Linked list patent

#44

Post by ebneter »

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...

That's an application, though, not a patent.

Re: Linked list patent

#45

Post by lutorm »

fnid2 wrote: post #32
lutorm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, do not argue that software patents are ok because genome is patentable. That's going in the wrong direction.

Well, perhaps to add more content here w.r.t. the Monsanto case, I mean, the court should have been able to determine if the wind just blew the pollen in to pollinate the plants. IANAL, perhaps an IP attorney who is knows what they are talking about can explain why that case worked out the way it does. Anyway, it's pretty unfortunate how that one example worked out, but the point I failed to make, was that the engine…

While the outcome of the Monsanto case was beyond absurd, that wasn't what I was referring to wrt genome patents. If you invent a lifeform, then I think it's fine that you patent it.

What makes no sense to me is how the genomes of naturally occurring life forms can be patented. By the same rationale, Clyde Tombaugh could have patented Pluto, and Galileo would have patents to Jupiter's moons. It makes no sense whatsover.

Re: Linked list patent

#46

Post by stonemetal »

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…

When did anyone bring up inventors? It would be nice if they had rights, under the current system there is no inventor protection. Any idiot who can imagine something can get a patent, and then turn around and sue the hard working engineer who puts together a practical product.

Re: Linked list patent

#47

Post by dbz »

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…

Nah. This is easy to beat. Hang the swing set from anything besides a horizontal tree branch.

Re: Linked list patent

#48

Post by mhb »

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…

How do we fix that problem?

Loser pays.

Re: Linked list patent

#49

Post by nandemo »

huhtenberg wrote: post #22
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…

> Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf This is a mock patent. It was obtained by an IP lawyer for the exact purpose of demonstrating the absurdity of the state of the patent system in the US. The legal counsel person in one my previous companies was a close friend of this patent author. That's why I know.

Well, yes, of course it is a mock patent. The point is that it was even accepted in the first place.

Re: Linked list patent

#50

Post by nitrogen »

fnid2 wrote: post #11
nkassis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

why shouldn't Apple get compensated for the lost value?

Because most of the cited patents are probably just restatements of research done at universities and research labs (like Bell Labs) in the 1960s and 70s. Note that I haven't read the claims to avoid polluting my own work. Most patents don't seem to explain anything, they're deliberately obscure, when they're supposed to be teaching future inventors how to reproduce the invention.

Post reply on HN