31–40 of 64 posts
This guy has to have some massive balls to do this.
As long as there's a legal way you can exploit something, someone will do it.
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...
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…
How do you get a patent regarding "A method includes addressing, through a command generated by an application [...] based on an appropriate communication link" to be issued? 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! Y…
The only way I can make sense of these ridiculous patents is if the patent examiners are under pressure to grant patents as part of their yearly performance metrics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
First, it should be obvious that I was not defending this patent. Attacking the patent as "a cartoon of a half-baked idea" is pointless, and doesn't answer my question at all. 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…
If you gloss over construction and modification details, this "invention" is entirely covered by "Fortran-style" linked lists which have been in common use since the 1950s. (Store the primary list in an array, then have one or more integer arrays containing the index of the next node. Relative to storing the "aux_next" pointer inside the node, this allows dynamically creating and destroying an arbitrary number of indices.)
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.
The examinators should probably be fired.
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…
> However, exaggerating this patent by claiming it is a "linked list" patent diminishes the conversation around patents. 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 th…
So it's a poorly titled patent. All that tells me is that the inventor was too unoriginal to even come up with a better name. If he'd titled it "the wheel", would it be accurate to claim that a patent was granted on the wheel?
>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).
I actually think you misunderstand my point. I agree that this is trivial and obvious. However, that doesn't justify exaggerating the actual claims ("linked list patented!"). People who are already dead-set against software patents might enjoy this, but they're just being self-congratulatory, and there's no real point.
People who are in favor of software patents or on the fence will instead recognize the exaggeration and dismiss the argument as disengenuous. Worse, they may take this as evidence that the anti-software-patent movement has no real basis, because the movement demonstrates that it has to exaggerate in order to even make its point.
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…
> However, exaggerating this patent by claiming it is a "linked list" patent diminishes the conversation around patents. 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 th…
Now you are being disingenuous. The title has no legal significance. The only thing that has legal significance is the list of claims, and the are to be read as a conjunction (A & B & C...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, exaggerating this patent by claiming it is a "linked list" patent diminishes the conversation around patents. 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 th…
> The title of the patent is "Linked List". How is that an exaggeration? So it's a poorly titled patent. All that tells me is that the inventor was too unoriginal to even come up with a better name. If he'd titled it "the wheel", would it be accurate to claim that a patent was granted on the wheel? > I think you misunderstand my point. I did not claim that this person patented linked lists. I claimed this person pate…
People are lazy, news at 7.
> If he'd titled it "the wheel", would it be accurate to claim that a patent was granted on the wheel?
No, because the scope of the patent is based entirely on the claims. Nothing else has legal significance.