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."
While one could at least make a somewhat intelligent argument why software that costed companies like Apple or Microsoft Millions (or even Billions) of dollars to create should be patented, there's no logical argument for patenting data structures. This patent was first submitted in 2002, which probably means it was turned down and appealed at least twice. As anyone who has gone through the patent process knows, if you appeal enough times eventually you might find an examiner who is clueless enough to grant the patent.
I couldn't imagine LSI ever intends to protect the patent (since it obviously would never stand up in court). Most likely, they are just seeking bragging rights "Hey look, we had 30 patents approved this year".
Our government needs to more clearly delineate what software can and cannot be patented in order to prevent more ridiculous patents. I'm more in the 'No Software Patents' camp, but I think there are exceptions, particularly for very specialized software in specific industries.
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
1. Take a fundamental concept
2. Describe it as complicated as possible
3. Put the result through a patent-lawyers office in order to make sure the claims get even more obfuscated
4. Apply successfully for a patent
5. Profit!
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The author seems to think that rational thought, logic and common sense plays some part in the patent granting process in the USA.
AT&ROFLMAO
Patents do not have to be meaningful, or even have a remote chance of standing up in court. They are weapons in corporate world and you use them mostly to cause damage. If your public company is sued you lose money in legal fees, might lose investor confidence in a critical moment and overall end up in a loss even if you easily won it. Just look at Research In Motion if you need to see how much damage can frivolous patent deal.
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
As someone that's currently working on some of LSI's driver code (as a customer, bought in), I wouldn't be at all surprised if they think its something new. Their code is terribly unstructured, uncommented, makes use of dynamically changing function pointers, has random inline assembler and has little in the way of API layering to make it understandable. Its a nightmare from a developers point of view. They probably think its a new and exciting breakthrough. :(
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.
a patent on "An array data structure that automatically grows itself when it's current size is exceeded"...
:)
That patent is already owned by Microsoft, and is in use in their operating systems and device drivers. Most people call it "bloat"
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A double linked list implies reverse pointers allowing forward and backward traversal of a list. The patent in question is more broad than that. It is talking about multiple links allowing different orderings at the same time for the same elements. So you could have a list of, say, files with links giving alphabetical order, and links giving size order, and thirdly links giving file types without having to resort the list. You might use this in a file-list screen.
The patent is still absurd, but the summary is (as usual) inaccurate.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This very same examiner (John Breene) has also granted patents #6944634 (file caching) and #6745181 (query based search).
If you describe something in a complicated enough manner then it is quite possible to pwnfuse someone into accepting it. Now if there was only some way to demonstrate prior art or the fact that it is an obvious function..
Until that day comes along, I guess we just have to see Parent and ensure we keep patenting appropriately.
Oops, I now have a doubly-linked post. I suppose I should expect a call from LSI soon.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
..holy sh*t, this is incredible (Well, sadly not). For convenience, here's the PTO's version of the patent, better to use because it has links to some of the cited prior art patents. Additionally, consider looking at the prosecution of the application. You can download a pdf of the "image file wrapper" which includes the examiner's action and applicant's response.
..." Now Porter goes on to add an auxiliary array of
pointers (but for a more refined use than just an index) but the basic
concept of a doubly linked list is here. Even the examiner very briefly
acknowledged in passing that Porter showed a doubly linked list, but
obviously failed to recognize that this fully meets claim 1 (including
the redrafted version); she obviously did not understand what the
applicant was showing. If there are any doubts about what arrangement
of data are being disclosed and claimed here then just look a Figure
one in the drawings (You have to use the "Images" link at the top which
will take you to a clumsy page that displays the sheets of the actual
patent specification using some specific tiff format, so your browser
must be capable of displaying these images).
There was a nominal rejection under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter, which applicant easily overcame by typical claim redrafting used in software patents. There was also a rejection under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by the patent to Schwartz. The latter patent discloses a singly linked list and an separate array of pointers to individual items (kind of like an index?). Clearly, this is not the same as the doubly linked list of the application, and the applicant responded by pointing this out. The application was then allowed and issued.
What was clearly missed here was the patent to Porter which discloses a "...doubly-linked list search and management method
I'm sure there are lots of other prior art showing this plus the use of more than two lists (like Fig. 3). In any event I can't see claim 1 surviving even a cursory challenge. Anyone have $ 2,520.00 free to file a reexamination request?