Slashdot Mirror
HP Patents Bignum Implementation From 1912
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."
...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!
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.
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!
On finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
Scope of the invention:
For right triangle with length of two sides denoted by A, B, the length of the hypotenuse denoted by C:
C^2 = A^2 + B^2
and
Abs(C) = Sqrt(A^2 + B^2)
Oh yes.. and my patent on trigonometric functions.. These things I like to call "Sines", "Cosines", "Secants", "ArcSecants", "Tangents", and "ArcTangents".
And PI itself...
Stand back Eolas, i4i, NTP, Unisys, get ready for Mysidia.
Muahahahahahahahahaha!!
In the example section they give, they are dividing up the "bigdecimal" in decimal, rather than binary components. The number of decimal digits depends on the word size. For example, an 8 bit word has 0-255 as possible storage, but in decimal, you could store 0-99, but not 0-999. So you would store the number 102,345 as 10, 23, and 45 in 3 separate words if you had an 8 bit word. They claim that this is more efficient than binary for rendering back to decimal, though I can't see how this is more efficient than straight binary storage.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about.
Actually, the summary explains the whole thing:
It's okay if you don't understand the explanation, but perhaps you should try reading the summary before complaining about it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
That seems to be the USPTO's over-riding theory. Approve all the patents and then if people want to scream prior art, let them scream it to a judge.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
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)
I'm waiting for Al Gore to patent the internet.
Rick B.
"... with one click..."
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
PostgreSQL starting storing NUMERIC columns in base 10000 six or seven years ago. A nice trick, but not exactly rocket science. If you have a high school level education in computer science, you should know how to do stuff like this. Maybe that is what the patent examiners need.
It's so much easier to be a patent troll if you patent stuff that's already been invented. I don't think HP actually makes... things... these days. The only thing I've seen out of them in recent days is crappy IT outsourcing and lawsuits. I'd have thought super-expensive ink would have been more profitable than any of the above, though.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I used to have a VAX assembly program called "er1e9", which computed e using base 1,000,000,000 numbers (which fit into 32-bit integers). I wrote that in the late 80's, and still have it around somewhere. Multiplying and dividing using the VAX instructions was fairly trivial with that format up to arbitrary lengths. It's a pretty obvious optimization, or at least it was for a college kid.
Do you have ESP?
Don't laugh, you're cited as prior art.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm not fundamentally against software patents, so long as they follow some basic rules:
This would be completely acceptable to me.
Your comment directly says his post was not long enough, so to discard the requested length below is a red herring.
No, it doesn't. It says he should have provided some references for his three stories. It's possible to provide references in a short, concise way. You don't do that either, making your post unnecessarily teduous to read.
Section B - Poster's comment #2.
"2. Aspirin was patented well after a similar process for making Salicylic Acid on an industrial scale was. The office decided, with no precidents, that making the same chemical in pure enough form that it was safe for medicinal use was novel. When challenged on it, the USPO said they were going through a bottle a day deciding patent claims and were not about to reject rewarding this claim no matter what the law said."
Your discussion on the chemistry, production and product history of aspirin is very lengthy, but does not constitute a substantial reference either for or against the GP's claim. It says nothing about the patent status of different *production methods*, only that they were different, which in my eyes seems to at least undermine the GP's argument. The rest is basically just a long list of links and pieces of text about aspirin that adds little to the discussion of patent practice at the USPTO, in addition to being largely orthogonal to either the parent or grandparent poster's statements. Also you mingle patents and trademarks in the discussion, which is careless and misleading at best.
In the spirit of Karl Popper's criticism of what he calls the Neo-Dialecticians (the reference for which you can find on Google) you may add a few items to your signature, such as variations of "Cx, Drowns Fellow Human Beings in a Sea of Words, with x one of "1: Correct", "2: Wrong", and "3, Irrelevant to the Subject". Your post looks like a case of C3.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)