Slashdot Mirror
LSI Patents the Doubly-Linked List
An anonymous reader writes "Back in April, LSI was granted patent number 7028023. This is a patent on a stunning new technique in data structures ... the concept that a linked list can in fact have multiple orderings. Of course, this has been used since the beginning of (computer) time in the form of doubly-linked lists. Even if LSI wants to (somehow) claim that the doubly-linked list doesn't count as prior art, maintaining linked lists of graphical objects sorted by both x and y co-ordinates for collision detection has been done since "graphical objects" meant ASCII characters on a green-on-black screen, and has probably been widespread in databases for probably even longer."
What are the patent trolls doing now -- reading computer science textbooks and language tutorial books and trying to figure out clever redefinitions of these techniques because they can't be bothered to create product (e.g., new wealth) to offer in the marketplace?
This is:
- prior art
- obvious use of technology
- using existing technology exactly as intended AND documented
- merely a clever rewording of existing techniques
America really, REALLY needs to eliminate software patents, and the USPTO should issue a statement saying "to protect your software innovations, refer to the Copyright Act." But of course, patent application fees keep the USPTO running and provide job security, so we won't see that common sense rule come into place in the foreseeable future.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Patents do not have to be meaningful... They are weapons in corporate world and you use them mostly to cause damage.
I think it's high time for a "demilitarization" of the corporate world, then - don't you? The collateral damage of these corporate battles is, as always - the little guy. The open source projects. It's the weak that needs to be protected - not the strong. Now any open source program can be sued if it uses a linked list? What's next - the for/next loop or the do/while loop?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They'd have a decent revenue stream from high quality patents and an incentive NOT to just push things through a past a rubber stamp...
They'd have to employ real talent then for patent examiners...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Ah no this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes it takes longer then this without having to go through appeal.
This is often true but usually it is the first one that is clueless. If it is appealed then the second examiner has the comments of the first - as well as the listed prior art. So the end result is that appeal you actually need to come back and show why the claimed prior art is not really prior art. This is tougher. (Been there done that.)
Unlikely that they would be able to protect it but I doubt that they did it for 'bragging rights'. It is too expensive to do it for 'bragging rights.'
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
What you need is not just patent reform.
What you need is legal reform.
And not what has passed as tort "reform" in our political debate. Freedom of the press was once said to belong to the man who owns one. Now justice is the right of every man to the degree he can pay for it.
What passed as tort reform was about restricting access of individuals to the legal system. Such a restriction would limit abuse by individuals, it is true; it would also limit legitimate uss of the legal system by the little guy, leaving the wealthy in full possession of the tools of legal extortion.
Patent reform would take away one tool of legal extortion by parties with deep pockets, so as far as it goes it is good. Also, the existing legal tools against filing false patent claims should be enforced vigorously.
I think that extortion by frivolous legal threat should be a felony. People who use this should be face criminal and civil penalties. Companies that use this tactic should be treated as racketeers. Lawyers who abet this should be disbarred and jailed.
Conceptualy, what could be simpler? Naturally, you want to said the bar for frivolity very high. But once a few bugs have been squashed against that windshield, the rest will learn to avoid it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
For argument's sake, tell me the difference between these two scenarios:
A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing a 3d nuclear imaging robot that burrows into the ground to explore for oil. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
A large oil company spends $1 Billion developing software that takes existing geological maps and analyzes it in a novel way. This robot is so effective at what it does that they patent it to ensure they protect their investment.
The investment and results are the same in either case, the only difference is that we're talking about something physical instead of software. An outright "No Software Patents" stance would say that any company could then duplicate the oil company's unique software, leaving them no protection for their massive investment and intellectual property. Why would software be any different than a machine here?
If we remove all software patents, we also remove part of the incentive for large corporations to invest in software. There needs to be some protections, they just need to be smart.
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
All LSI really produces nowadays is intellectual property. They got rid of their last fabrication facility a year or so ago, and subcontract all their fabrication needs to other companies now.
I've been using the technique in C of using two list pointers: one to keep my objects in a single-linked list, and another to store objects in a hash map, which uses a second series of singly-linked lists to track the objects in a hash bucket. And I've been using this technique since the 80's, easily.
The absurd part about this patent is that it is incredibly obvious, and unlike the one-click patent which is arguably obvious but also because of the age of the 'net possible that Amazon was the first ones to do it, multiply linked lists have undoubtedly been done since we've had pointers in computer architectures.
Give the man a cookie. Finally, someone who actually understands the purpose of patents. The whole deal, here, is that, in the past, people just kept their inventions secret if they could. The end result? Techniques could die with their inventor (read about Damascus steel for a great example of this). And, as you say, meanwhile people have to duplicate the effort.
Patents, therefore, are a tradeoff. They protect the inventor while encouraging them to disclose their techniques. Thus, the inventor gets something (a government protected monopoly for a limited period), and society gets something (access to the details of the technology).
As for software patents, I have no problem with them on the surface (well, except for those that are obvious, but that's a problem with the patent office, not patents in general). However, I think software patents should have a more limited lifespan. After all, 20 years is a *very* long time in the world of computing (just think how different things were in 1986). Something like 4 or 5 years makes far more sense.
If you've done any medical software, you'd know you're forced to reveal algorithms there, too.
Applying for the patent in fact _forces_ you to reveal the algorithm to the entire world. That's the entire point of the patent process. You reveal it to the world instead of hiding it, and as a result you get exclusivity for a period of time. If you don't want to reveal it, you have no leg to stand on if someone else manages to also invent it. There are very good historical reasons for this system, the most significant of one was that it was felt to be in the *public's* best interest for inventors to reveal their ways and means, and thereby fuel more innovation in the same area. Virtuous circle and all that rot, roight?
Now, 14 year software patents are a little more powerful than 14 year drug patents, of which half the term is expired before you even manage to get the drug to market. There's probably room to tweak the system a bit for software. But fundamentally the system does what it's designed to do.
I am not a computer science programming guy, so I wouldn't know how to find prior art on this. I am not a lawyer, so I don't quite know how to make an Amicus Brief that would be useful in court against any suit.
However, it appears that a bunch of the posters are, and do know of possible prior art.
So how about creating a little space on Sourceforge, or Groklaw, that is a repository for anti-patent prior art. We (community) use this example as a nugget for action. Use this patent's number as an index, and make a searchable repository of information, like "I saw the prior art against this in 'Introduction to Database Design by Ewe Eediot, published by Killatree, 1978'. Even better to include the ISBN number of the book. Then we just need a lawyer to convert it into a usable amicus brief. Leave it all open information so that anyone can use this to kill this dumb patent. Lather rinse repeat for any other patent.
Oh, and maybe a link to donate to the owner of the repository for their costs. You know, for when a $billion$ dollar lawsuit is filed, and this repository saves someone's corporate donkey. And the lawyer (or company owner) realizes that this has been a help, and wants to play nice. It'd be cool for Groklaw to suddenly be fully funded due to having solved the patent mess.
If this has been taught in computer science, it has been published, right? Even the obvious stuff has to be shown to a beginner.
Oh, does referencing code that Does This Action count? Can we reference a block of MySql that shows in 1997 this was already possible, and obvious? Doesn't the release date of Open Source material count as 'publishing'? It is being released for replication, and viewing by multiple people. And it does carry a copyright with certain restrictions.
This would be a good disincentive for the pursuit of these patents, and if done right (searchable) might create a way for the (clueless) patent examiners to more easily find prior art. We could work with the patent exaiminers instead of complaining about them.
I'm serious here. Sorry to only be an idea guy. Please reply to this with why it will/won't work. Or better off, go implement this. Happy Thanksgiving!
Give the man a cookie. Finally, someone who actually understands the purpose of patents. The whole deal, here, is that, in the past, people just kept their inventions secret if they could. The end result? Techniques could die with their inventor (read about Damascus steel for a great example of this). And, as you say, meanwhile people have to duplicate the effort.
And where is the evidence that the system is working? In practice, it looks like companies are primarily using software patents to protect (1) things they have to disclose anyway as part of doing business, (2) application areas without actually disclosing how to do anything, and (3) ideas that are basically just straightforward engineering.
Patent protection keeps other people from using their own ideas and the results of their own labor. That is something extraordinary, and it should require extraordinary evidence to keep it in place. So far, software patent proponents have provided not a shred of evidence that software patents are beneficial.
Recentlly Bush administration, in coordination with their effort to combat piracy tryied to get brazilian government to adopt patents for software togheter with enforcing piracy combat, otherwise we would be in a black list and loss millions on tax reduction for products like orange juice (yeah, buying computers and selling juice is stupid, but we are starting to change, give us some time). They received a, yes, we will figh more piracy (and belive me, this is really happening), and a big NO about patents.
Why you ask? We can not be a rich country, but hell, we aren't stupid apes! Patents on software methos id just idiotic
It's likely that the "treap" data structure is prior art. And it's more interesting than the linked lists case.
See a brief description here: Paul E. Black, "treap", in Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures [online], Paul E. Black, ed., U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 12 September 2005. (accessed TODAY) Available from: http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/treap.html
Treaps were introduced by Seidel and Aragon at the FOCS conference in 1989.
Could someone please explain what that term means? Honestly, it get (ab)used all the time, and, for the life of me, I can't see any way of creating a definition that would have a chance in hell of ever being anything but ambiguous and self-contradictory.
Intellectual - Of the mind. That's pretty clear, taken alone.
Property - Something that belongs to one person, entity or group, and to them alone.
How in tarnation, I would like to know, can someone rationalise the use of the first as a modifier for the second? It defies logic, plain and simple.
Please let's stop being so disingenuous about the terms we use. There is nothing in the right to be rewarded for one's work that implies the ownership of ideas. Throughout human history, people have tried and failed to push that concept, and it doesn't work. It doesn't work because it doesn't follow.
You know, we might some day have a constructive discussion on this issue if we didn't constantly have to deal with the childish concept of 'my idea', as if it sprung sui generis from someone's God-like brow. Nobody should have such hubris as to believe that they act alone. Anybody who does deserves ridicule, not enabling legislation.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Most research groups and companies use patents as a metric for success. It's something they point to when searching for investors, when reporting progress, when evaluating raises and promotions. Spending a few thousand dollars of corporate money on a useless patent is a bargain if it gains your company, division, or personal salary a boost.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Did you know that the XOR function was patented and earned the Patent Holder countless millions until it recently expired? are also patented!? This patent was actually enforced in 1994 to stop the sale of the Amiga Computer in the USA after Commodore stopped paying royalties on the patent. The XOR function was used to move the cursor around the screen.
Patents on algorithms and software should be disallowed.. as these types of patents are ripe for abuse!
Yahma
ProxyStorm - An anonymous, free, apache based proxy server.