Linked list patent

#1

Post by tlrobinson » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 10:53 PM UTC

Linked list patent
google.com

Re: Linked list patent

#2

Post by colinprince » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:17 PM UTC

My first reaction is, oh no, Google has patented the linked list, forsooth.

Instead, it's a company called LSI Logic Corporation.

Re: Linked list patent

#3

Post by fnid2 » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:19 PM UTC

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf

It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable.

I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but not software that does the same thing.

It seems like we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know patents cause trouble, but what about the case where a patent helps an entrepreneur get the value out of an invention when big corporations steal it, market it, and make money without giving the inventor a dime?

There's good and there's bad, but it seems like around here there's only mud slung at software patents. Some inventors of software algorithms are every bit as clever as inventors of anything else that may get patented. Why shouldn't they be treated the same under the law?

Equal rights under the law. That's the way it should be.

Re: Linked list patent

#4

Post by philwelch » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:20 PM UTC

Duplicate: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1165089

Re: Linked list patent

#5

Post by nkassis » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:28 PM UTC

fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

This one is even cooler, patenting patent trolling:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se...

Re: Linked list patent

#6

Post by tlrobinson » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:33 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #4

Duplicate: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1165089

Oops. I saw it on Twitter (likely by someone who saw it here or on Reddit...) and posted it not knowing it was already posted. Sorry.

Re: Linked list patent

#7

Post by runT1ME » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:33 PM UTC

fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

Do you think you should be able to patent a sentence? Even if its a good one? If not, why?

Re: Linked list patent

#8

Post by tlrobinson » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:34 PM UTC

fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

True, it doesn't mean all software patents are absurd, but it does mean something is wrong with the system.

Re: Linked list patent

#9

Post by baddox » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:35 PM UTC

fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

These two patents don't mean that all software patents are absurb, but it means that the current notion of software patents itself is absurd.

Re: Linked list patent

#10

Post by alanthonyc » Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:37 PM UTC

fnid2 wrote: post #3

Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…

Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents.

I personally think they are absurd, as demonstrated by the OP, but am open to changing my thinking if proven wrong.

The internet has leveled the playing field for everyone. But one of the few ways that big corporations can take advantage of their size against smaller, more innovative entities is by throwing money into a legal battle which the smaller entity can't afford to fight.

Equal rights under the law. But currently, the more money you have, the equaler you get.