In case of patent lawyers, break glass and extract HAT-trie or crit-bit tree.
Judy arrays are patented
31–40 of 60 posts
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
A distinction without a difference.
You really don't see a difference?
If I write out a book parametrization a Wankel engine and describing the chemistry and physics of the system necessary to make it turn, I have not implemented a Wankel engine, and I am in violation of no patents. It is a description of the engine, not an engine.
A mathematical description of an algorithm can be executed. It is the algorithm. The description is an implementation and any implementation is the description. There is literally no line between the two, the only thing that you can change is the notation in which you write it.
If you don't see the difference, you are just being obtuse. The difference is as plain the difference between physics and mathematics.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#33Unless 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. A…
The fact that it takes a lawyer to even guess whether a patent applies, and that the typical strategy is to keep a low profile and hope nobody notices, is itself a serious flaw in the patent system. Any system in which it's impossible to predict ahead of time what is safe or legal is broken.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#34Unless 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. A…
The fact that it takes a lawyer to even guess whether a patent applies, and that the typical strategy is to keep a low profile and hope nobody notices, is itself a serious flaw in the patent system. Any system in which it's impossible to predict ahead of time what is safe or legal is broken.
Not to mention the fact that engineers are routinely advised to never read patents, since doing so would increase liability when they inevitably independently reinvent the same obvious idea.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#35Are we talking about the implementation is patented? Or the algorithm itself is patented?
You can't patent an algorithm, at least not in the U.S. The expression of an algorithm can be patented. Patent lawyers often tell people to replace an algorithm with a system, which is an expression of the algorithm.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As others have said, it is not black and white. You can support patents on "things" and not patents on "ideas." There's a big difference. I can tell you mathematically how a windmill grinds corn but that does not make my description into a windmill. On the other hand, laying down the mathematical description of a Judy Array IS the array itself!
Well, I'm against software patents pretty much as much as anyone here, as you can verify from my comment history, but describing the mathematics of an array isn't the same as the array itself. The patent isn't violated until you start executing that mathematics of a Judy Array on a running computer. Otherwise, you could violate a patent by just talking about it.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As others have said, it is not black and white. You can support patents on "things" and not patents on "ideas." There's a big difference. I can tell you mathematically how a windmill grinds corn but that does not make my description into a windmill. On the other hand, laying down the mathematical description of a Judy Array IS the array itself!
You're saying the description of how a windmill works is not a description of a windmill, while the description of how the array works is a array.
How is that true? Isn't a description a model [1], never the thing itself?
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#38Re: Judy arrays are patented
#39Are we talking about the implementation is patented? Or the algorithm itself is patented? You can't patent an algorithm, at least not in the U.S. The expression of an algorithm can be patented. Patent lawyers often tell people to replace an algorithm with a system, which is an expression of the algorithm.
Patents tend to be written like "any system that implements algorithm X" and "any machine-readable medium containing software that implements algorithm X", which is equivalent to a patent on the algorithm itself.
Re: Judy arrays are patented
#40It'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.
Unfortunately, the copyright terms have nothing to do with whether you can actually use the algorithm/datastructure. It only means you can copy the source-code of a particular implementation of the algorithm/datastructure under the terms of the LGPL. If you want to actually run the code on a computer then you must contend with whatever enforcement or non-enforcement mechanism the author has in place for the patent.