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

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: Linked list patent

#61

Post by bartl »

lutorm wrote: post #23
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 paten…

I think your assertion of patenting a way to do something vs. just patenting doing something is really the core of the problem.

Re: Linked list patent

#62

Post by osswid »

lutorm wrote: post #45
fnid2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, perhaps to add more content here w.r.t. the Monsanto case, I mean, the court should have been able to determine if the wind just blew the pollen in to pollinate the plants. IANAL, perhaps an IP attorney who is knows what they are talking about can explain why that case worked out the way it does. Anyway, it's pretty unfortunate how that one example worked out, but the point I failed to make, was that the engine…

While the outcome of the Monsanto case was beyond absurd, that wasn't what I was referring to wrt genome patents. If you invent a lifeform, then I think it's fine that you patent it. What makes no sense to me is how the genomes of naturally occurring life forms can be patented. By the same rationale, Clyde Tombaugh could have patented Pluto, and Galileo would have patents to Jupiter's moons. It makes no sense whatsov…

Nobody "invents" lifeforms. They hack a few strands of dna cobbled together from other sources and wait until a batch actually grows.

Which is what the plants do all by themselves. Copyright, maybe. But not patent.

Re: Linked list patent

#63

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

fnid2 wrote: post #59
nostrademons wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Then spend $20,000 to have an attorney draw up a patent for you. I know some. I can connect you. Then, market the patent to corporations. Start a bidding war." This doesn't work either (unless you have an ex-Microsoftie whose initials are N.M. backing you). Think of it from the corporation's POV. They could buy the patent now. Or they could wait - since you just spent $20k patenting your invention, you're probably d…

There are several options at this fork. A) go back to work with owning a patent on your resume. Lots of companies would hire you. Use the patent to make money and support yourself and avoid the need to sell at fire sale prices. More success keeping the invention secret is precisely why patents are a good idea. It lets the inventor release the idea and still protect it.

And what do you do if a large corporation uses your invention anyway, and doesn't tell anyone they're doing so? Firstly, you have to find out they've infringed. Secondly, you have to sue for protection.

How will you accomplish either of those steps, let alone both?

Re: Linked list patent

#64

Post by dutchflyboy »

lutorm wrote: post #29
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 the…

Well, actually the purpose of patents IS to allow you to get rich. Why? Well, by protecting the invention, you allow the inventor to make money with it for some time. This means that if you put millions in R&D, you have a guarantee that if there's a result, you can also win back the investment. Do you really think pharmaceutical companies would pour so much money into research if whatever they invented was immediatly copied by another company which doesn't put any money in R&D.

But I agree that patents are sometimes absurd, software patents are quite absurd most of the time.

Re: Linked list patent

#65

Post by daveungerer »

Just to be clear, this is not a patent on a plain vanilla linked list. It's a patent on a linked list where each node in the list has 1 or more extra next pointers, to facilitate different orderings.

Now, if the US is serious about innovation and economic recovery, they will employ software patent evaluators who are actually aware of the state of the art in software engineering / computer science and who can judge the obviousness of an invention. Their failure to do so has resulted in a lot of extra friction that prevents economic growth. Every frivolous patent suit filed, every agreement to give in and pay up, is another bit of economic growth lost to friction.

Good luck with the recession.

Re: Linked list patent

#66

Post by swixmix »

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 patent was canceled according to page 8.

The patent system worked in this case.

Re: Linked list patent

#67

Post by jacoblyles »

Estragon wrote: post #41
kiba wrote: post #40

In the interest of advancing the level of debate regarding intellectual property, once again as countless time before, I beg everyone to read Against Intellectual Monopoly at http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, co…

I haven't read the book, but the interview with the author on Econtalk was great: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...

I love Econ Talk but I haven't listened to that episode yet. Thanks for the pointer!

Re: Linked list patent

#68

Post by kelnos »

char wrote: post #56

I'm really too tired to read this, but is someone seriously trying to patent a linked list? This is really a "palm to the forehead" moment for me.

It's not exactly what you'd think when someone says "linked list." The "next" pointers are there, but there's also an "aux" pointer that the patent suggests can point to any other element in the list, not just next or previous, and can be used for any purpose to form any kind of sequence desired.

I think it's "new" and "novel" because really there's no use for it.

(Ok, I jest... I expended barely 30 seconds worth of thought and couldn't come up with anything. Maybe there is a use for it, but the patent's still pretty lame.)

Re: Linked list patent

#69

Post by GFischer »

daveungerer wrote: post #65

Just to be clear, this is not a patent on a plain vanilla linked list. It's a patent on a linked list where each node in the list has 1 or more extra next pointers, to facilitate different orderings. Now, if the US is serious about innovation and economic recovery, they will employ software patent evaluators who are actually aware of the state of the art in software engineering / computer science and who can judge th…

Amen to that. I love your analogy, I've always thought of the government as "friction"
Post reply on HN