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
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.
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.