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

Patent #7028023: Linked List

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#11

Post by vonmoltke »

sturmeh wrote: post #9

This has been discussed before, it is not just a linked list. It is a list which has elements that not only point to the next element, but the element after it, and so on. (As to provide a recovery method if one element is to be destroyed, or to ease implementation for removal etc. However that's still fringing on patent trolls.

And, as presented in this patent, its a trivial enhancement on a conventional linked list. This is a patent for a data structure. There is no implementation there. Hell, there is no algorithm there. Its just someone who said, "Hey, I can put two forward pointers in each element of a linked list!" and wrapped a bunch of legalistic crap around it. This patent doesn't need prior art to be invalid.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#12

Post by dpark »

vonmoltke wrote: post #11
sturmeh wrote: post #9

This has been discussed before, it is not just a linked list. It is a list which has elements that not only point to the next element, but the element after it, and so on. (As to provide a recovery method if one element is to be destroyed, or to ease implementation for removal etc. However that's still fringing on patent trolls.

And, as presented in this patent, its a trivial enhancement on a conventional linked list. This is a patent for a data structure . There is no implementation there. Hell, there is no algorithm there. Its just someone who said, "Hey, I can put two forward pointers in each element of a linked list!" and wrapped a bunch of legalistic crap around it. This patent doesn't need prior art to be invalid.

> its a trivial enhancement on a conventional linked list.

Indeed it is. The patent should not have been granted, and from previous discussions about this, there is ample evidence of prior art.

However, exaggerating this patent by claiming it is a "linked list" patent diminishes the conversation around patents. It doesn't make patents sound worse. It makes those who are anti-patent seem disingenuous. This patent is bad enough on its own merits without implying that someone was granted a patent for the linked list concept as a whole. If Subaru were issued a patent for a new method of fuel injection, would it be appropriate to claim that they were issued a patent for the internal combustion engine?

> This is a patent for a data structure. There is no implementation there.

What is a data structure if not an implementation?

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#13

Post by chris_wot »

By the same author:

"A method includes addressing, through a command generated by an application executing on a computing platform, one or more device(s) in storage communication with the computing platform based on an appropriate communication link. The method also includes accessing, based on the addressing, a physical register of the one or more device(s) through an appropriate interface therein. Further, the method includes obtaining statistical information associated with a performance of the one or more device(s) at the computing platform through the access of the physical register."

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120144069

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#15

Post by Evbn »

dpark wrote: post #12
vonmoltke wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, as presented in this patent, its a trivial enhancement on a conventional linked list. This is a patent for a data structure . There is no implementation there. Hell, there is no algorithm there. Its just someone who said, "Hey, I can put two forward pointers in each element of a linked list!" and wrapped a bunch of legalistic crap around it. This patent doesn't need prior art to be invalid.

> its a trivial enhancement on a conventional linked list. Indeed it is. The patent should not have been granted, and from previous discussions about this, there is ample evidence of prior art. However, exaggerating this patent by claiming it is a "linked list" patent diminishes the conversation around patents. It doesn't make patents sound worse. It makes those who are anti-patent seem disingenuous. This patent is b…

In the patent-law sense, an implementation is a manifestation in hardware that performs some function.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#16

Post by chris_wot »

RutZap wrote: post #3

This guy is amazing... he invented everything.. from air purifiers and supplementary bicycle handlebars, shoe tongue securing devices to linked lists (as early as 2002!!!) Patent Troll!

The only sorts of patents that should be granted are ones where you fire giant snowballs into the desert in order to irrigate it.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=...

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#20

Post by Jare »

mhp wrote: post #7

I posted it on http://askpatents.com if you'd like to list prior art. http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for... Even an issued patent can still be invalidated. http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/587/if-a-patent-h...

Multiple internal storage linked lists should be a prime example. I was using them on my 1995 racing game [1], where each car was contained in a global list of cars (for game logic and rendering), a list of cars for each sector of the track (for driving AI), and a list of cars for each map tile (for collisions).

Not sure if this is formally valid prior art, as each list a car is part of can be considered different lists (i.e. different set of members), not different sequences on the same set.

Frankly, I'd rather see this abomination be dismissed on the grounds of being obvious.

[1] https://github.com/TheJare/SpeedHasteSrc/blob/master/game/th...

Post reply on HN