[deleted]
Judy arrays are patented
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#12It's released under the LGPL, according to its COPYING file, by HP. I am pretty sure that means the patent doesn't matter; HP is granting you a license to use it.
Strictly speaking the LGPL is a license that relates to copyright, not patenting. A separate patent license would also be required, unless you use a copyright license that also includes patent terms (I haven't reviewed LGPL in awhile to confirm, and obviously you need to specify about what exact version of LGPL you're referring to anyways).
Any GPL (any version) explicitly forbids distributing the software with external conditions restricting its ability to be redistributed. That puts it at odds with almost any conceivable patent license.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#13You can patent a data structure!? Seriously? This is straight up an abstract idea. I think non-abstract patents are beneficial and help society. This is just plain idiocy.
Regarding patents, people always complain a particular patent couldn't have been granted because it's not novel enough, anyone could have thought it, or that it's math.
Patent law is a black-on-white subject, either you support it or not. It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strictly speaking the LGPL is a license that relates to copyright, not patenting. A separate patent license would also be required, unless you use a copyright license that also includes patent terms (I haven't reviewed LGPL in awhile to confirm, and obviously you need to specify about what exact version of LGPL you're referring to anyways).
Any GPL (any version) explicitly forbids distributing the software with external conditions restricting its ability to be redistributed. That puts it at odds with almost any conceivable patent license.
IMHO your mistaken about the second part. You can have a separate patent license. If the patent holder distributes software under the GPL, this would effectively license the patent for the related GPL work, or it wouldn't be correctly licensed under the standard GPL.
If a separate implementation is NOT a derived GPL work, then patent licensing may be a factor.(IANAL etc.)
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code. Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.
So... I can patent complicated math? This is essentially what you are saying, right?
All inventions are complicated math.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... I can patent complicated math? This is essentially what you are saying, right?
All inventions are complicated math.
No, some inventions are describable with math. Some 'inventions' are math. A Wankel engine is not math. You can model it and describe it with math, but that is irrelevant.
Any equation that you can make will merely describe a Wenkel engine, not be one. Equations for mathematical concepts are those concepts (expressed in a particular format).
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#17You can patent a data structure!? Seriously? This is straight up an abstract idea. I think non-abstract patents are beneficial and help society. This is just plain idiocy.
Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code. Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.
So is JPEG's complexity the cutoff for you? What do you think of the LZW patents then? LZW is simple as hell.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#18Unless you are a patent lawyer/expert specifically in someone's employ, pointing out that in your layman's opinion that "something appears to be patented" isn't doing anyone any favors, and may in fact be harming them.
Patents use their own specific, strange language. The claims, as modified by other precedents, only apply in certain specific situations which may be different than what a casual reading would imply. And, for any of dozens of reasons the holder may not be interested in ever trying to enforce the patent.
So simply by raising the possibility, causing attention to be drawn, and uninformed discussions to be spawned, people's time is being wasted. If they become uneasy, or start spending engineering effort to 'work around' something that they hardly understand and that may never be enforced, more time is wasted.
And by getting more eyes on the fuzzy patent, you may have put more people/projects at risk of treble damages for 'willful infringement', in the rare case where the patent is actually enforced later, or undermined their ability to make a case for obviousness (because many teams came up with the same approach without seeing the patent).
The better policy is to ignore such "appears to be patented" reports, unless and until there's a credible threat from the holder(s) to enforce in specific ways, as checked by experts. Let these patents (and panicked overbroad interpretations) wither away in unenforced obscurity.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code. Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.
So... I can patent complicated math? This is essentially what you are saying, right?
All software patents are patents on complicated math.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#20You can patent a data structure!? Seriously? This is straight up an abstract idea. I think non-abstract patents are beneficial and help society. This is just plain idiocy.
Regarding patents, people always complain a particular patent couldn't have been granted because it's not novel enough, anyone could have thought it, or that it's math. Patent law is a black-on-white subject, either you support it or not. It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time.
> It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time.
Is that not the job of patent examiners?