I'm surprised that this patent was granted.
Someone patented linked lists
11–20 of 95 posts
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#12It's unenforceable. Check page 19 of "Programming the Logic Theory Machine", by Newell and Shaw, published in 1957, for prior art.
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#13I'm surprised that this patent was granted.
What exactly does a patent office do to determine if something is actually original or not? Like did some clerk look at this and say "Yeah, I'm no computer scientist, but this sounds original to me"?
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#14This 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…
At first I thought that too. But within 1 or 2s, I remembered that linked lists have never been limited to single linked lists (except maybe in poor quality courses), multiple linked lists have been around since Unix and very very probably before, have nothing inherently special, so it's absolutely all right to both simply call them "linked list" (like the patent properly does in its title) and to consider them as CS 101.
The patent is both obviously invalid and properly named "Linked List". That it is does not cover the single linked list special case does not changes this fact. The title is neutral, and you are inferring an anti-patent tendency from a neutral reporting (from which crowd btw?). I would be hugely curious to hear on which base you inferred that.
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
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" p…
It is though, did you read any of the above comments?
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
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" p…
It is though, did you read any of the above comments?
Yes, I hopped in my time machine and read xilun0's comment 13 minutes before he actually posted it.
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#17My head aches and my mind boggles. I don't know what the heck the patent text actually describes but I see vague visions of linked lists, skip lists, and graphs. I can't imagine what it would say to an USPTO officer or a judge.
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#18This 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…
Sorry, but Linked List is class of similar things -- Single-, Double-, Multiple-linkings are all part of the Linked List genre. Just because you associate Linked List strongest with the singly-linked list does not mean that other forms of the same thing, all of which qualify as linked list, can't be called it as well. You are just being disingenuous -- stop it, that is not cool.
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#19This 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…
Yes, especially when there is no actual court case.
Let's talk again once the owner of the patent successfully sues over it, making millions in the process.
Never going to happen.
Software patents are not the problem, patent trolls are.
Re: Someone patented linked lists
#20Well, well, well. I am gonna to patent data structures:
"Comprising but not limited to: the said node or nodes, containing one or more information items, equipped with one or more pointers, the said pointers pointing to the said nodes...blah blah blah"
and I will OWN all your asses. Buuaaahahahahaha!