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

Someone patented linked lists

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#31

Post by dpark »

sophacles wrote: post #18
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…

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.

A skip list is also part of the "linked list" genre, but it would be misleading to say that William Pugh patented "linked lists" if he actually patented the skip list. (I don't believe he actually patented the skip list, just to be clear.)

The term "linked list" refers to singly and doubly-linked lists, which may be circular and/or sorted. This is from Intro to Algorithms (2nd ed). It's not just my personal association here.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#33

Post by pbhjpbhj »

davorak wrote: post #21
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…

It is the title of the patent located on the upper left in google patent. If you search for linked list patent it comes up on patent storm. This does not seem to be a case of deception. Can you provide other examples of the "anti-patent crowd" being deceptive with their examples?

54, the title, at least in UK (and IIRC in Europe) has no bearing on the field or scope of the invention. I've the vaguest recollection of a case in the UK facing this issue and being judged that the title was not allowed to be used in determining the scope.

If the title could be used for such purposes then you need the title to be as broad as possible to avoid reducing the scope of the patent unnecessarily. Suppose you patent "an improvement to a automobile engine" and it's later seen that the same improvement is good for boat engines, rocket engines maybe, etc.. This would be equivalent to file wrapper estoppel¹.

However, the claims define the invention and the title (again at least in the UK) must only signify the field of the invention. If you improve "linked lists" in your invention then you don't make up a new field you call it that. Simply "Linked Lists" is broad, it could easily be shorthand for "Linked Lists used in non-traditional fields" or "An alternative to linked lists", etc., and so is highly unlikely to limit the patent but still meets the regulatory obligation to provide a relevant title.

There I said it. Titles don't matter. Granted claims matter, in this case the claims in the B2, http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=c... (which don't look modified but I didn't really check).

--

¹ Firefox spellcheck says it's "estoppal" but I think I'm right (for a change ;0)>)

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#34

Post by dpark »

davorak wrote: post #21
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…

It is the title of the patent located on the upper left in google patent. If you search for linked list patent it comes up on patent storm. This does not seem to be a case of deception. Can you provide other examples of the "anti-patent crowd" being deceptive with their examples?

I'd argue it's still a case of deception. The fact that the patent is poorly titled doesn't change that. If the patent were titled "wheel and axle" but contained its current content, it would still be misleading to say that someone had patented the wheel and axle.

And no, I don't feel like digging through a bunch of anti-patent articles looking for misleading claims. Even if this were the only example, the point would stand that using misleading claims makes it harder to trust the movement.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#35

Post by dpark »

mark242 wrote: post #12

It's unenforceable. Check page 19 of "Programming the Logic Theory Machine", by Newell and Shaw, published in 1957, for prior art.

Sorry, this patent is invalid, but your prior art covers a different invention. Page 19 shows a singly-linked list. Page 20 shows nested lists (a list where some elements are also lists). I don't see anything in this document that covers the same type of multiply-linked lists that the patent claims.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#37

Post by Natsu »

dpark wrote: post #10
ianterrell wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

You are correct in that the patent covers a multiply-linked list. Specifically, one with two or more pointers, where the other pointers allow you to traverse the list in other ways.

One example would be a doubly-linked list, though they would presumably limit that claim by pointing out that the other pointers allow you to traverse the list in any way, not merely backwards.

That said, I don't think you'll find many programmers who think of this as anything but the obvious general type of a linked list or who are confused about what is claimed. I do get your point that pro-patent types (who seem mostly to be lawyers) will seize on any slight inaccuracy, though.

We see obvious generalities. They see them divided up. We're looking for general algorithms that can make our software flexible. They're looking for ideas that are just different enough to patent.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#38

Post by guelo »

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…

You are trolling. Your comment uses a pedantic point to purposefully arouse a negative reaction in readers. Bad form.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#39

Post by mtogo »

dpark wrote: post #16
mtogo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My bad, i thought your comment was in his thread for some reason.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#40

Post by jsmcgd »

Would there be any basis to suing the USPTO? If it could be shown that their incompetence/negligence led to an organization suffering loss due to an patently invalid patent? (pun not intended but acknowledged).
Post reply on HN