Someone patented linked lists

This is not a patent on the linked list. It's a patent on a modification of the linked list that provides a secondary (and possibly tertiary, etc.) traversal path.

The patent should not have been granted, and should be deemed invalid if it ever goes to court, but it is not a patent on just the linked list. The anti-patent crowd makes themselves look bad by trotting out examples like this and being deceptive about the actual content of the patent.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#5

Post by cleverjake » Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 5:53 PM UTC

lanstein wrote: post #3

Patent application

that was issued. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#6

Post by dpark » Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 5:53 PM UTC

lanstein wrote: post #3

Patent application

  Application number: 10/260,471
  Publication number: US 2004/0064448 A1
  Filing date: Sep 26, 2002
  Issued patent: US7028023 (Issue date Apr 11, 2006)

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#7

Post by ianterrell » Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #4

This is not a patent on the linked list. It's a patent on a modification of the linked list that provides a secondary (and possibly tertiary, etc.) traversal path. The patent should not have been granted, and should be deemed invalid if it ever goes to court, but it is not a patent on just the linked list. The anti-patent crowd makes themselves look bad by trotting out examples like this and being deceptive about the…

Oh, so someone patented a multiply linked list. That's better? It's not like there's not oodles of prior art or it's nonobvious...

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#8

Post by phoyd » Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 6:06 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #4

This is not a patent on the linked list. It's a patent on a modification of the linked list that provides a secondary (and possibly tertiary, etc.) traversal path. The patent should not have been granted, and should be deemed invalid if it ever goes to court, but it is not a patent on just the linked list. The anti-patent crowd makes themselves look bad by trotting out examples like this and being deceptive about the…

This modification looks like "Skip List" and according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list is was first described in 1990.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#9

Post by dpark » Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 6:12 PM UTC

phoyd wrote: post #8

dpark wrote: post #4

This is not a patent on the linked list. It's a patent on a modification of the linked list that provides a secondary (and possibly tertiary, etc.) traversal path. The patent should not have been granted, and should be deemed invalid if it ever goes to court, but it is not a patent on just the linked list. The anti-patent crowd makes themselves look bad by trotting out examples like this and being deceptive about the…

This modification looks like "Skip List" and according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list is was first described in 1990.

This is not a skip list, not at all. The skip list is a probabilistic data structure that gives expected access times comparable to a BBST. The patent covers a linked list with an extra set of links that provide a different traversal.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#10

Post by dpark » Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 6:15 PM UTC

ianterrell wrote: post #7

dpark wrote: post #4

This is not a patent on the linked list. It's a patent on a modification of the linked list that provides a secondary (and possibly tertiary, etc.) traversal path. The patent should not have been granted, and should be deemed invalid if it ever goes to court, but it is not a patent on just the linked list. The anti-patent crowd makes themselves look bad by trotting out examples like this and being deceptive about the…

Oh, so someone patented a multiply linked list. That's better? It's not like there's not oodles of prior art or it's nonobvious...

I feel like reading comprehension on HN is dropping lately, or at least that some people are willfully choosing to not read entire comments before replying. I specifically said that the patent should not have been granted.

The point is that by being misleading, the anti-patent crowd diminishes their moral standing, and makes it harder for people to take their arguments seriously. This is not simply a "linked list" patent, and anyone with any software development experience who bothers to read past the title should know that.