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

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#51

Post by leon_ »

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…

> being misleading

Someone says "linked list" when he means "double linked list". How devious!

> the anti-patent crowd

World conspiracy!

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#52

Post by dpark »

leon_ wrote: post #51
dpark wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

> being misleading Someone says "linked list" when he means "double linked list". How devious! > the anti-patent crowd World conspiracy!

> Someone says "linked list" when he means "double linked list". How devious!

Someone patented compression. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4558302

Someone patented search engines. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999

Someone patented public-key cryptography. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4405829

Obviously none of those statements are misleading in any way.

> World conspiracy!

Just because someone doesn't hold the same viewpoint as you doesn't mean they're wearing a tinfoil hat. Get over yourself.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#53

Post by CamperBob »

alecbenzer wrote: post #13
lightblade wrote: post #11

I'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"?

More or less nothing. They rely on the applicant to disclose any prior art. Disagreements about patentability are a matter for the courts, in the USPTO's view.

The only solution is to defund them and shut them down.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#54

Post by Daniel_Newby »

alecbenzer wrote: post #13
lightblade wrote: post #11

I'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"?

My understanding is that the patent office checks if the patent is substantially similar to previous patents. A non-novel idea can easily get through if it is phrased in a different way or never appeared in an earlier patent.

I do not feel this is a problem. A patent just provides a legal presumption that you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Some people argue that this enables patent trolls, but patent trolls exist because con artists will always try to ride on the coattails of success. My view is that low standards for patentability provides protection against patent trolls: a company can patent early and often in the years before they hit it big and start attracting con men. Easy patentability also deepens the pool of well-documented prior art, providing more clubs with which to beat up patent trolls.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#55

Post by sophacles »

dpark wrote: post #31
sophacles wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 associati…

I suspect that maybe an intro book skips over some stuff in order to present a good conceptual base rather than a fully rigorous, complete set of definitions and options.

Compare an intro to calculus book: it presents you with several differentiation or integration methods, yet when you come across the Lebesgue integration technique, you don't run to your intro book and claim "It's not in here, it's not actually integration!"

Again: please stop with the disingenuous stuff -- it's still not cool.

edit: Someone please explain the downvotes to me? Is it because im calling out a guy who repeatedly tells people to not appeal to authority is appealing to authority for that disingenuous behavior?

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#56

Post by dpark »

menardp wrote: post #42

Look more closely. The publishing date is April 1st. http://www.google.com/patents?id=26aJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... Clearly this isn't serious.

That's when the USPTO published it. The filing date was Sep 26, 2002. Maybe the USPTO doesn't consider themselves serious anymore?

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#59

Post by dpark »

sophacles wrote: post #55
dpark wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 associati…

I suspect that maybe an intro book skips over some stuff in order to present a good conceptual base rather than a fully rigorous, complete set of definitions and options. Compare an intro to calculus book: it presents you with several differentiation or integration methods, yet when you come across the Lebesgue integration technique, you don't run to your intro book and claim "It's not in here, it's not actually inte…

> I suspect that maybe an intro book skips over some stuff in order to present a good conceptual base rather than a fully rigorous, complete set of definitions and options.

I suspect that the intro book leaves it out because it's not widely associated with the term, because it's a rather specialized data structure.

TaoCP also doesn't seem to mention multiply-linked lists or anything equivalent in its discussion of linked lists.

> Compare an intro to calculus book: it presents you with several differentiation or integration methods, yet when you come across the Lebesgue integration technique, you don't run to your intro book and claim "It's not in here, it's not actually integration!"

Compare someone claiming that Henri Lebesgue invented integration. It's misleading, not because he didn't invent a type of integration, but because he did not invent integration.

To my mind, the linked list claim is worse than this, because even to advanced practitioners in the field, "linked list" has a relatively specific meaning, and is not generally used to refer to "any data structure with linked elements". One could argue that a graph is a form of linked list, but that's not a common definition.

> Again: please stop with the disingenuous stuff -- it's still not cool.

What's not cool is repeatedly calling someone disingenuous when they take the time to answer you thoughtfully. You're coming off as self-righteous and rude.

Re: Someone patented linked lists

#60

Post by jsmcgd »

monochromatic wrote: post #43
jsmcgd wrote: post #40

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).

Google "sovereign immunity."

Interesting. I just did a bit but I can't tell if it covers the USPTO? Do you know if it does?
Post reply on HN