Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linked list patent

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Linked list patent

#21

Post by zackham »

fnid2 wrote: post #13
alanthonyc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bat…

Okay, then the problem is not software patents, or patents in general, but that they unfairly tip the scales in favor of the big corporations. How do we fix that problem? That problem exists outside the world of patents and software. Monsanto patents seeds and those are just strings of DNA which are essentially just four characters repeated in a seemingly random order. And yet farmers lose their farms over those stri…

I don't think it is fair to criticize patents on DNA and defend patents on software with the argument that DNA is just a combination of four characters - you could say the same thing about any piece of encoded information, software most notably in binary.

Re: Linked list patent

#22

Post by huhtenberg »

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…

> Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf

This is a mock patent. It was obtained by an IP lawyer for the exact purpose of demonstrating the absurdity of the state of the patent system in the US.

The legal counsel person in one my previous companies was a close friend of this patent author. That's why I know.

Re: Linked list patent

#23

Post by lutorm »

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 mathematicians should be able to patent formulas too? Some are novel, unobvious and valuable.

The argument, I believe, is that formulas aren't invented, they're discovered. That's why I think it's totally, unequivocally absurd that you can patent genomes. Who invented the human (or any other naturally occurring life form's) genome?

Just because something's not obvious or novel doesn't mean you can patent it. You can't patent music or poetry, no matter how obvious, novel or valuable it is.

At least this example is an implementation detail. That seems more reasonable to me than, for example, UI patents. If someone patents a way to make steel, you are free to make steel any other way you can figure out. The same seems to apply with the implementation detail patents, but with the "multitouch" patent Apple's suing over, it seems that the question of how HTC has implemented the functionality doesn't matter because the patent covers the user interaction. And that makes no sense to me. If it's so genuinely difficult to make, then they can patent the implementation. But patents were meant to cover "the process P which accomplishes B from A", not "any means of accomplishing B starting with A even if totally unrelated to P."

Re: Linked list patent

#24

Post by nostrademons »

fnid2 wrote: post #16
nostrademons wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?" Patents don't protect against that. Problem is, filing a patent takes time, money, and attention that are in very short supply in a startup. You can file to protect your inventions - but if you do, t…

I don't think that is exactly true. A good patent from a very good firm in L.A. will run you about $20k. Yes, it's a lot, but I a computer engineer could sock that much away in a year. Work on the software at home at night, patent it, sell the patent to Apple or Microsoft or another big company for a couple million dollars. The corporation makes $100 Million of the device. Great, the inventor got $2M and can innovate…

"Work on the software at home at night, patent it, sell the patent to Apple or Microsoft or another big company for a couple million dollars."

Your employer will usually own the patent then, as part of your invention disclosure agreement. California's the lone state that doesn't let employers claim ownership over inventions done in your own time, but there's a big exception for inventions that relate to the current or forseeable businesses of your employer. If you work for a big tech company, that could be practically anything.

Re: Linked list patent

#25

Post by lutorm »

fnid2 wrote: post #13
alanthonyc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bat…

Okay, then the problem is not software patents, or patents in general, but that they unfairly tip the scales in favor of the big corporations. How do we fix that problem? That problem exists outside the world of patents and software. Monsanto patents seeds and those are just strings of DNA which are essentially just four characters repeated in a seemingly random order. And yet farmers lose their farms over those stri…

Dude, do not argue that software patents are ok because genome is patentable. That's going in the wrong direction.

Re: Linked list patent

#26

Post by kmavm »

alanthonyc wrote: post #10
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 bat…

When working correctly, patents allow information that would be a corporate secret to be more openly disclosed. In my career, I've been able to discuss technical details more frankly in blog posts and academic publications because we know that our large, well-funded competitors would not be able to abuse that disclosure to harm our business.

The public good here is hard to measure from the other side, as a reader of those blog posts and papers; if it were not for IP protection, I would not willingly endanger my job or business to discuss the technology so openly.

Re: Linked list patent

#27

Post by lutorm »

To be fair, it's not just a linked list. It's a triply linked list. Must be at least 3 times as hard to figure out as a singly linked one...

Re: Linked list patent

#28

Post by jfoutz »

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…

The problem isn't "is it a good idea?"

The problem is, "Is math part of the structure of the universe?" Is pi a discovery that is fundamental to the existence of reality, or is it just a useful shorthand for thinking about things we don't understand?

If math is discovered, and algorithms are math, then algorithms can't be patented. You may reject the notion that math is discovered, or that algorithms are math, I disagree.

I'm fine with patenting a specific sequence of instructions on a particular chip, because they're extra fast or something. that's an invention.

You can't patent an electron, or the idea of an electron. You can patent a device for moving an electron around.

Re: Linked list patent

#29

Post by lutorm »

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…

By the way, you forget that the purpose of patents is not to allow you to get rich, it is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The relevant question is if you think progress of science is promoted by the current system, or if progress is hampered because software patent litigation puts a damper on it?

The multitouch patent, for example: Do you think Apple wouldn't have bothered with the iPhone if they couldn't patent their "invention" (which wasn't theirs either, but that's a different issue)? In that case, the patent has promoted progress. But it's sure standing in the way for ubiquitous competition and rollout of touch devices now.

Re: Linked list patent

#30

Post by modeless »

fnid2 wrote: post #12
baddox wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I don't think it does and I don't think simply stating that it is without providing any evidence for your case is going to change my mind or anyone's mind who agrees with me, but it looks like I'm the only one. Anyway.... The legal system is there to figure out if a patent is absurd and if you read the whole patent for the swing, at the end, it was ruled out. At least claims A, B, C and D. That same review proces…

>The legal system is there to figure out if a patent is absurd

If the legal system was free and fast, you would have a point. However, the legal system is expensive and slow. A system where a patent as clearly absurd as this one can survive to the point of requiring a legal challenge to be overturned is simply unacceptable.

Post reply on HN