Wow what a load.
Patent #7028023: Linked List
41–50 of 64 posts
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"How do you get a patent ..." 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.
Patent examiners actually take pride in their high rejection ratio.
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#43I am stunned. Seriously, seriously stunned.
I've complained about patents once before, and I think this sort of patent is a perfect example of something that wouldn't be worth a single day of patent protection. It's a colossal over-payment. Does it really make sense for our society to "pay" 20 years of protection for an idea that is so trivial to most of the practitioners in the art?
It's like a street magician selling the secret to their cup and ball routine for $100,000. It's not a mystery, and it isn't worth the price. But for some reason, the USPTO reasons, "well, I haven't seen your cup and ball routine before, so here's the check." They have far too low a standard, and we are paying far too high a price for the vast majority of patents. We can't keep doling out decades of protection for such common-place "inventions".
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4153732
...
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#44Awesome
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"The implementation of a data structure usually requires writing a set of procedures that create and manipulate instances of that structure." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure ) 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 mor…
I don't think the patent office or judicial system generally refers to Wikipedia for what constitutes an implementation.
This invention is obvious and trivial and there seems to be lots of prior art. I'm not sure why you still seem to think I'm defending it. Regardless, describing how these lists should be constructed would not make this any less trivial or obvious.
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#46I believe that doublely linked lists are described by Knuth in the Art of Computer Programming volume (something). My recollection is that it may have been in a problem or note. They are definitely used in UNIX for the run queue where rapid traversal was necessary. I recall them from an internals course I took at UNIX expo back in the mid '80's.
Additional pointers are trivially implied so I don't think that this patent should not stand.
What a mess!
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#47Earlier 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? 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...)
I don't think he ever claimed Linked Lists were patented. The title of the post is "Patent #7028023: Linked List". That's entirely factual based on the number and title of a patent.
At no point in his comments do I see him say "A linked list has been patented" or something similar.
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The implementation of a data structure usually requires writing a set of procedures that create and manipulate instances of that structure." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure ) 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 mor…
I don't think the patent office or judicial system generally refers to Wikipedia for what constitutes an implementation. This invention is obvious and trivial and there seems to be lots of prior art. I'm not sure why you still seem to think I'm defending it. Regardless, describing how these lists should be constructed would not make this any less trivial or obvious.
The original point made by vonmoltke was that the patent text does not define an implementation in any meaningful sense. My wikipedia link was merely corroborating my opinion that an implementation of a data structure involves the fundamental operations on that data structure. If a data structure implementation can be complete without such details, then an AVL tree is equivalent to a red-black tree.
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#49So, unless it s open source software, how would they know who implements their patented list?
There are many companies who make a living by finding software patent infringement for their clients, sometimes through analyzing decompiled source code.
Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List
#50I am a strong supporter of the patent system, and in general an advocate for software patents. This, however, is a likely example of an error. We accept a certain error rate in any process, and if the USPTO is expected to be infallible, then fees would skyrocket and people would complain that patents cost a million dollars. Anyone who tried to enforce this patent would more likely than not have it invalidated in court or on re-exam. Apparently the assignee (LSI Logic, hardly a 'troll') has chosen not to enforce this patent on Google and Microsoft because it is so weak. So before we grab the pitch forks, remember that the "system" as a whole has worked here, even if the PTO let one through. The tech world has not come crumbling down, Google was not shut down, and everybody who has ever modified a linked list has not been sued out of oblivion. If you have a much better method, I'm genuinely interested to hear it.