21–30 of 64 posts
So this is a linked list that's ordered in two different ways? If I create a third pointer to reorganize the same data in a third way, can I patent that on top?
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…
The patent is a cartoon of a half-baked idea. It does not even describe how to implement element addition or removal. (Unless the caller maintains some special structure, many O(1) list operations become O(N). Removal is delicate because you need all incoming pointers.). It's unclear whether the "inventor" ever implemented the data structure.
So this is a linked list that's ordered in two different ways? If I create a third pointer to reorganize the same data in a third way, can I patent that on top?
Nope, Claim 2 is for a tertiary pointer as well. Your attempt to patent a triply-sequenced linked-list would be rejected as insufficiently innovative. Unlike the patent in question. cough
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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 meth…
All I read was "This patent regards using a software-controlled computer to communicate with another computer in an arbitrary manner which can allow for data statistics and performance tracking. Oh, wait, that's not specific... Hmm... Oh wait! Yes, and you have to get the data from a register."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> What is a data structure if not an implementation? The patent is a cartoon of a half-baked idea. It does not even describe how to implement element addition or removal. (Unless the caller maintains some special structure, many O(1) list operations become O(N). Removal is delicate because you need all incoming pointers.). It's unclear whether the "inventor" ever implemented the data structure.
Second, the patent describes an implementation that allows multiple traversals. That it doesn't cover addition or removal seems irrelevant. The patent is for the structure that allows the traversals. You could build up the structure in a number of ways, but the end result would be the same.
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…
The title of the patent is "Linked List". How is that an exaggeration?
> 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?
I think you misunderstand my point. I did not claim that this person patented linked lists. I claimed this person patented a trivial enhancement to a conventional linked list, and did not provide any implementation detail (which is really what makes it trivial).
On the subject of implementation, I do not see a data structure description as an implementation, any more than I see an algorithm as an implementation. Being an electrical engineer I am biased towards thinking of implementation as an actual, functional system (not necessarily hardware). I know there are many patents where this definition of implementation doesn't hold, but that is why I am uncomfortable with software and business method patents in general, and think chemical and drug patents should be a special category.
I'm certain that at least one older algorithms text I own mentions skiplists, and there is no doubt much other prior art here, seems like the kind of thing that might find its way into kernel scheduling queues.