Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HP Patents Bignum Implementation From 1912

Posted by kdawson on from the can-you-spell-prior-art dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The authors of GMP (the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library) were invited to join Peer-to-Patent to review HP's recent patent on a very old technique for implementing bignums because their software might infringe. Basically, HP's patent claims choosing an exponent based on processor word size. If you choose a 4-bit word size and a binary number, you end up working in hexadecimal. Or for a computer with a 16-bit word and a base-10 number, you use base 10,000 so that each digit of the base-10,000 number would fit into a single 16-bit word. The obvious problem with that is that there's plenty of prior art here. Someone who spent a few minutes Googling found that Knuth describing the idea in TAOCP Vol. 2 and other citations go back to 1912 (which implemented the same algorithm using strips of cardboard and a calculating machine). None of this can be found in the 'references cited' section. Even though the patent examiner did add a couple of references, they appear to have cited some old patents. The patent issued a few months ago was filed back in October of 2004, and collected dust at the USPTO for some 834 days."

10 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. What I want to know is... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...how many of these blatant abuses actually get overturned?

    In particular, is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:What I want to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In particular, is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court?

      The whole idea is not that the patent has any basis but that it is ridiculously expensive to go to court. This puts a huge entry barrier around the market and protects the large incumbents. In essence, patents are now being used to protect large corporations from small entrepreneurs - exactly the opposite of their original intention.

    2. Re:What I want to know is... by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [citations needed]

      very badly since you seem to be the only person on the entire internet to have ever heard any of these stories.

  2. Put down the pitchforks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess that there is some good news in this article. The patent hasn't been issued yet, it is only being reviewed right now. And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to: showing that the patent claim is ridiculous. Yeah, HP shouldn't try patenting this, and the USPTO probably should have thrown this away in November of 2004, but still it was caught and (hopefully) won't be issued. The system is working, kinda, and this patent at least will hopefully not be issued. We will only need to get out the torches and pitchforks if the USPTO grants this patent anyways despite the outcry and prior art.

    1. Re:Put down the pitchforks. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes AOL was. The information being sought out in this case was not.

  3. WikiPatents? Good idea! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think this is the first time I've heard of WikiPatents at all, and I don't think it's been featured on the front page yet.

    I'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process, not just after the fact. Suppose it worked like this: The second you file a patent, it would be published. Before it could be approved, it would have to be public for some length of time, during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".

    On the other hand, I think they're being entirely too kind. From their FAQ:

    Patent Examiners do an excellent job reviewing patents in the limited amount of time they are allotted to review patents. However, no single individual can accumulate all of the most relevant information to review a patent within 10 hours, 100 hours, or even 1,000 hours.

    On the other hand, based on the "quality" of the patents which get through (like this one!), it really doesn't seem like Patent Examiners even bother to Google it before approving.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:WikiPatents? Good idea! by Ciggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...The patent examiner cannot have understood the patent...

      Errm, patents are supposed to be usable by someone skilled in the art to produce the invention; no? If the patent examiner can't understand what the patent is about then either:

      • a) The patent examiner isn't skilled in the art; or
      • b) The patent isn't disclosing the [full] details of the patent [clearly enough for a skilled person];

      or both. In the case of (b), the patent should be instantly rejected as it doesn't fulfil the criteria of disclosing details for a limited monopoly,

      In the case of (a) the examiner should refer to someone who is [so skilled] to give guidance and to fail to do so is negligence (and so either personally or the USPTO should be liable for costs incurred in defending against such a patent when the patent is shown to be issued wrongly).

      --

      A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
      A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
  4. Simple solution by bobdotorg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have the patent office add a Slashcode forum so commenters from the peanut gallery can yell:

    DUPE!!!

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  5. Patent system fundamentally broken by dwheeler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The current patent system presumes that "everything worth inventing, that has been invented, already has a patent". That wasn't really true in the late 1700s, and is completely nonsense today.

    Eben Moglen made an interesting point about patents back in 2009. Today, any time the government wants to create a new rule/regulation, they must normally ensure that the public can participate/review/comment on it. Also, the government must show that the benefits of the rule/regulation exceeds its costs. All of this is courtesy of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (aka the APA). The APA is no garden of perfection, but it has helped. The big exception is the patent system, which predates the APA, and thus patents are exempt from the APA. In the patent system, there is no opportunity for the public to participate/review/comment on each patent, and there is no requirement to show that the benefits of granting a patent exceeds its costs. Which is weird, because patents (as government-granted monopolies) can have as wide an effect as any other rule or regulation. We need to get rid of software and business method patents, at least, but changing the patent system to require public review and a demonstration that costs exceeded benefits would help too.

    --
    - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
  6. Suggested standard for patent reviews by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not fundamentally against software patents, so long as they follow some basic rules:

    • If prior art is found, but wasn't mentioned on the application, the person applying for the patent is shot.
    • If finding that prior art took less than 2 hours of Googling by a PhD in the field, the inspector is shot.
    • If all of the above are true, and the patent was asserted against someone, the lawyer is shot, and since corporations are "people", the entire corporation (if one was involved) is put in jail for its "lifetime" (e.g., until its incorporation is dissolved).
    • A patent is considered "obvious" if 10 top-notch PhD's in the field are put into a room (with access to the Internet), posed with the problem to be solved, and can't come up with a solution similar to the one being proposed within a week.
    • If a patent is overturned, whoever field the patent must pay all costs (including labor, and interest) to the person who did the work of getting it overturned. And must also participate in a last-man-standing cage match with Michael Tyson after having tatooed on his ass, "Mike Tyson, I'm going to make you my bitch!"
    • Patents last for 7 years.

    This would be completely acceptable to me.