Patent #7028023: Linked List • Hacker News Board

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#51

Post by dpark » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 4:36 PM UTC

jedbrown wrote: post #48

dpark wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ironically, what you're asking for is not a more complete implementation, but more algorithms. If I patent a mechanical device, it's not expected that I describe how to build the device. That's not the invention, and it's not the implementation (it's an algorithm for producing an implementation). Likewise, if the patent is on the in-memory structure that allows for multiple list traversals, then describing how to build that structure is pure algorithm, not implementation, and outside the scope of the patent claims.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#52

Post by kyrra » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 5:09 PM UTC

I am a former employee of LSI, and I actually had a chance to participate in a meeting with one of the patent lawyers at the company. This patent was specifically talked about in that meeting.

1) LSI is not a patent troll. They generate a small portion of their revenue through patents, but most of that is through its purchase of Agere (cell phone tech patents).

2) The patent in-question is near impossible to prove that it is being used by anyone unless the code is available to look at. And even then would require going over their code to find the issue. Most lawyers don't want to put in that much work to find a violation, they would rather have more broad patents to litigate or monazite with.

3) As there is a good chance that there is prior art to this patent, it probably won't be used by LSI. Worst-case is LSI hits financial troubles and sells the patent to a troll that tries to use it.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#53

Post by reader5000 » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

PatentTroll wrote: post #50

I 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 cour…

It doesn't matter. The non-zero probability of having to defend against this turd patent is real. Maybe the "owner" of the patent is reasonable and decides not to enforce it, maybe not. Maybe they sell it later and it is enforced. There is still a nonzero cost to this patent. The greater problem is companies see the PTO is willing to let shit like this through and therefore patent everything in sight. The "system as a whole" failed utterly here.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#54

Post by kyrra » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 5:13 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #28

dpark wrote: post #12

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…

You don't seem to understand the patent system in the US. Title and summary of a patent tend to mean shit. When a judge is ruling on a patent violation, they will only take the claims of the patent into account.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#55

Post by marshray » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 5:18 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #52

I am a former employee of LSI, and I actually had a chance to participate in a meeting with one of the patent lawyers at the company. This patent was specifically talked about in that meeting. 1) LSI is not a patent troll. They generate a small portion of their revenue through patents, but most of that is through its purchase of Agere (cell phone tech patents). 2) The patent in-question is near impossible to prove th…

In my opinion, it should be obvious to anyone skilled in the art that this patent should not have been issued and those who filed it and approved it have participated in a fraud against the US legal system.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#56

Post by beerscout » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

amalcon wrote: post #32

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...

This is a bit more general than either a doubly-linked list or a skip list, but it seems a pretty straightforward extension of those ideas.

Not only straightforward, but also not novel. For example such lists have been described (with source code) in this textbook (published in 1994): Taming C++: Pattern Classes and Persistence for Large Projects by Jiri Soukup. Here's a picture taken from this book illustrating the concept: http://community.moertel.com/~thor/blog/pix-20061201/soukup-...

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#57

Post by georgemcbay » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 6:37 PM UTC

brador wrote: post #17

Anyone know the cost of getting a patent like this?

It varies based on claims and size of the filing entity. There's a fee list here:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee100512.htm

Of course those are just the filing fees, most filers will file using patent attorneys which bring the ~$500-ish dollar cost up to $5k-10k per application.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#58

Post by antidoh » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 6:42 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #42

antidoh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

And yet the environment in which they work encourages more granted patents, as the new patent examination facilities being promoted by the administration imply (to me). Obama's/admin's stated reasons are to grant more patents faster.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#59

Post by kyrra » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 6:47 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #55

kyrra wrote: post #52

I am a former employee of LSI, and I actually had a chance to participate in a meeting with one of the patent lawyers at the company. This patent was specifically talked about in that meeting. 1) LSI is not a patent troll. They generate a small portion of their revenue through patents, but most of that is through its purchase of Agere (cell phone tech patents). 2) The patent in-question is near impossible to prove th…

In my opinion, it should be obvious to anyone skilled in the art that this patent should not have been issued and those who filed it and approved it have participated in a fraud against the US legal system.

Sadly, that's not how the patent system is setup in the US. It rewards companies who try to file as many patents as possible and see if they can get those patents granted. It falls on the USPTO to validate and grant those patents.

As the USPTO is underfunded and understaffed, a lot of possibly invalid patents are granted.

Re: Patent #7028023: Linked List

#60

Post by enduser » Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 7:07 PM UTC

Jare wrote: post #20

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 li…

You would need to have been storing cdrs as well as cars for it to be considered valid prior art.