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

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Linked list patent

#51

Post by evanrmurphy »

ciniglio wrote: post #36
evanrmurphy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 und…

More likely, lawyers with higher success rates cost more.

Sure, but it's beside my point, which is that the small g(uy|al) would be better off if lawyers were either obsoleted by a ``Law 2.0'' or made into a purely public resource.

Re: Linked list patent

#52

Post by btilly »

mhb wrote: post #48
fnid2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With loser pays the big corporation can always generate such legal fees that, even if you have a 70% chance of prevailing, you'd be an idiot to risk bankruptcy.

Re: Linked list patent

#53

Post by anamax »

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…

> Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents.

There are some interesting optimization methods that probably wouldn't have been made public if it weren't for patents.

I want all useful algorithms to become publically known. Patents help accomplish that.

How do you propose to get people to forego trade secret protection?

Re: Linked list patent

#55

Post by ssp »

anamax wrote: post #53
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…

> Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents. There are some interesting optimization methods that probably wouldn't have been made public if it weren't for patents. I want all useful algorithms to become publically known. Patents help accomplish that. How do you propose to get people to forego trade secret protection?

There are some interesting optimization methods that probably wouldn't have been made public if it weren't for patents.

Which ones?

I want all useful algorithms to become publically known. Patents help accomplish that.

I don't think that's true. If you invent an algorithm that is genuinely novel and you get a competitive advantage from it, patenting it is the last thing you want to do. Keep it a trade secret.

Why? Because as a legitimate company you can't enforce the patent. If you try, you'll just be counter-sued for infringing someone else's patents.

Re: Linked list patent

#56

Post by char »

I'm really too tired to read this, but is someone seriously trying to patent a linked list? This is really a "palm to the forehead" moment for me.

Re: Linked list patent

#57

Post by fnid2 »

ssp wrote: post #55
anamax wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents. There are some interesting optimization methods that probably wouldn't have been made public if it weren't for patents. I want all useful algorithms to become publically known. Patents help accomplish that. How do you propose to get people to forego trade secret protection?

There are some interesting optimization methods that probably wouldn't have been made public if it weren't for patents. Which ones? I want all useful algorithms to become publically known. Patents help accomplish that. I don't think that's true. If you invent an algorithm that is genuinely novel and you get a competitive advantage from it, patenting it is the last thing you want to do. Keep it a trade secret. Why? Be…

PKZip was one that really moved the compression industry forward. JPEG is another. The current H.264 debate is a sound one and the owners of that patent have even publicly stated that it'll be free to use for the next 5 years or so. Imagine how many better methods may be discovered to compress and stream video than H.264 over the next half decade. That's a lot of time in this industry!

Re: Linked list patent

#58

Post by fnid2 »

lutorm wrote: post #23
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 mathematicians should be able to patent formulas too? Some are novel, unobvious and valuable. The argument, I believe, is that formulas aren't invented , they're discovered. That's why I think it's totally, unequivocally absurd that you can patent genomes. Who invented the human (or any other naturally occurring life form's) genome? Just because something's not obvious or novel doesn't mean you can paten…

I've heard the discovery vs. invention argument, and there is something too it, but personally, I'm still not clear on how to distinguish between invention and discovery. Wasn't steel a discovery, elements, or quantum theory?

Music and poetry are covered by copyright, currently. But the same problem exists there and Larry Lessig has done a lot to protect culture in an environment of copyright litigation.

Re: Mathematics and formulas. A lot of the discoveries or inventions in mathematics are patented. Three dimensional protein folding is a huge industry in pharmaceuticals and math is almost 100% of that knowledge. It's applied math, but nonetheless, still patentable mathematics and a lot of it too.

I think one differentiator here is that the multi-touch and the one click amazon patent as another example are something that seems obvious to try to achieve given the current environment. There are other ways as well, like a space elevator or gloves to help protect astronauts in space.

Is math a fact? I don't know if facts can be patented or copyrighted, though collections of facts surely can.

Re: Linked list patent

#59

Post by fnid2 »

nostrademons wrote: post #38
fnid2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I'll go further then to say, save up $40,000, then quit your job. Create a company called whateveryouwannacallit.com and start inventing stuff. New algorithms. Optimize compression. Optimize Video streaming. Then spend $20,000 to have an attorney draw up a patent for you. I know some. I can connect you. Then, market the patent to corporations. Start a bidding war. That's what it all boils down to. It's hard wor…

"Then spend $20,000 to have an attorney draw up a patent for you. I know some. I can connect you. Then, market the patent to corporations. Start a bidding war." This doesn't work either (unless you have an ex-Microsoftie whose initials are N.M. backing you). Think of it from the corporation's POV. They could buy the patent now. Or they could wait - since you just spent $20k patenting your invention, you're probably d…

There are several options at this fork. A) go back to work with owning a patent on your resume. Lots of companies would hire you. Use the patent to make money and support yourself and avoid the need to sell at fire sale prices.

More success keeping the invention secret is precisely why patents are a good idea. It lets the inventor release the idea and still protect it.

Re: Linked list patent

#60

Post by bartl »

char wrote: post #56

I'm really too tired to read this, but is someone seriously trying to patent a linked list? This is really a "palm to the forehead" moment for me.

"Trying"?

>Date of Patent: Apr. 11, 2006

Post reply on HN