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 Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sanity has never been part of the US patent process. Here's some pre-computer examples.

      1. An inventor was able to patent a design for mule shaped bookends, while another was denied a patent on a mule shaped balloon. The Patent Office ruled that sawing a brass mule in half was non-obvious and original, while blowing up a rubber mule wasn't. In a similar area, dying coal blue wasn't novel, but dying coal blue with your company logo was.

      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.

      3. A patent was once denied on a chemical process because that chemical was already mentioned in industry literature from more than a year before. The problem? What the literature said was: "It is impossible to synthesize chemical X. No one will ever do it."

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    3. 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. Just wait to you see my patent. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!!

    1. Re:Just wait to you see my patent. by darthdavid · · Score: 4, Funny

      The scary thing is that you could probably actually get away with that as long as you make sure to put "On a computer:" at the start...

  3. Re:Now if we only knew what the patent was about! by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about.

    Actually, the summary explains the whole thing:

    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.

    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.'"
  4. Re:CmdrTaco Has A Tiny Penis by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    CmdrTaco patents having a 2 inch penis.

    Don't laugh, you're cited as prior art.
         

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. 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
  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.