3 ms·

While I totally agree with you (the problem is not actually the trolls) but these kind of patents can be easily identified as trolling.

by rick_2047 16y ago

redthrowaway 16y ago
By someone who knows what they're doing, sure. Consider, however, the patent for Linked List that was granted: Any programmer would have balked at it, but the unspecialized clerk reviewing it wouldn't have had a clue.
- kajecounterhack 16y ago
  Whoa Linked Lists got patented?!?! That's crazy. Do you happen to have a link about it, I'm really curious about this. That's friggin crazy...
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    Yeah, it's pretty damned discouraging. http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...
    - alain94040 16y ago
      Sorry, but that patent does not cover linked lists. It covers the merging to two lists using linked lists so that there are multiple ways to loop though a list of items. Fairly obvious? I would say so. But not the sensational claim that "linked lists are patented". By making such bogus claims, you actually hurt the cause of people who want real patent reform. This opinion coming from someone who had to go through the legal system to file and defend bogus patent infringement cases.
      - Natsu 16y ago
        Would it make you feel better if he'd said that it covers doubly linked lists? Because those appear to satisfy every element of claim #1 that I can find. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's the same as being patented. Specifically, we have a "plurality" of objects in a doubly-linked list because it's a list and we have a primary and auxiliary pointer that lets the computer go through all the items without resorting them. In a doubly-linked list, the primary pointer points forwards, the auxiliary pointer points backwards and it lets a computer program go through the list without sorting. Notably, there's no limitation I can see on claim #1 that forbids the auxiliary pointers from all going backwards and the field of invention might as well just say "computers." Maybe there's something limiting it in the prosecution history, but I'm not going to hold my breath. EDIT: Also note that nothing in that claim's text requires merging two lists. If I'm misreading anything, feel free to cite the exact portion that says otherwise. At first, I honestly thought this was from a decade or more ago. But then I noticed this: Filing date: Sep 26, 2002 Issue date: Apr 11, 2006 Yeah, because nobody was using more than one pointer on a linked list before then. I feel like I should grep some old FOSS code and see how many published examples of this "invention" I can find. I don't know enough LISP to be sure, but I wonder if the cons cell itself can't almost be prior art.
        alain94040 16y ago
        Agreed. I'm all for a wall of shame. In 2002, if you didn't know that double linked lists exist, you deserve to have your name and picture on every billboard in Silicon Valley. Will a generous sponsor (EFF, FSF), spend the $2,000 to get a banner on highway 101?
        Natsu 16y ago
        I think they prefer to get reexaminations to get rid of the patent and have a "Patent Busting Project" to that effect. While a wall of shame is an interesting idea, killing the patent outright is likely a more effective use of their funds. Some of the entities in question aren't really known for their shame and only programmers are likely to appreciate the absurdity of patenting a doubly-linked list in this day and age.
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  I'd argue: The ability for one man to know what "real innovation", is always <, the ability of a team with every incentive of faking them out to overcome.
  - inerte 16y ago
    Yes. But you can not crowd-review a patent, since it sometimes gives hints about whole business models, and getting others to know your inventions is dangerous (small differences are easily defensible in patent claims). Therefore you can not have (> reviewing applying).

While I totally agree with you (the problem is not actually the trolls) but these kind of patents can be easily identified as trolling.

redthrowaway 16y ago

By someone who knows what they're doing, sure. Consider, however, the patent for Linked List that was granted: Any programmer would have balked at it, but the unspecialized clerk reviewing it wouldn't have had a clue.

kajecounterhack 16y ago
Whoa Linked Lists got patented?!?! That's crazy. Do you happen to have a link about it, I'm really curious about this. That's friggin crazy...
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  Yeah, it's pretty damned discouraging. http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...
  - alain94040 16y ago
    Sorry, but that patent does not cover linked lists. It covers the merging to two lists using linked lists so that there are multiple ways to loop though a list of items. Fairly obvious? I would say so. But not the sensational claim that "linked lists are patented". By making such bogus claims, you actually hurt the cause of people who want real patent reform. This opinion coming from someone who had to go through the legal system to file and defend bogus patent infringement cases.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      Would it make you feel better if he'd said that it covers doubly linked lists? Because those appear to satisfy every element of claim #1 that I can find. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's the same as being patented. Specifically, we have a "plurality" of objects in a doubly-linked list because it's a list and we have a primary and auxiliary pointer that lets the computer go through all the items without resorting them. In a doubly-linked list, the primary pointer points forwards, the auxiliary pointer points backwards and it lets a computer program go through the list without sorting. Notably, there's no limitation I can see on claim #1 that forbids the auxiliary pointers from all going backwards and the field of invention might as well just say "computers." Maybe there's something limiting it in the prosecution history, but I'm not going to hold my breath. EDIT: Also note that nothing in that claim's text requires merging two lists. If I'm misreading anything, feel free to cite the exact portion that says otherwise. At first, I honestly thought this was from a decade or more ago. But then I noticed this: Filing date: Sep 26, 2002 Issue date: Apr 11, 2006 Yeah, because nobody was using more than one pointer on a linked list before then. I feel like I should grep some old FOSS code and see how many published examples of this "invention" I can find. I don't know enough LISP to be sure, but I wonder if the cons cell itself can't almost be prior art.
      - alain94040 16y ago
        Agreed. I'm all for a wall of shame. In 2002, if you didn't know that double linked lists exist, you deserve to have your name and picture on every billboard in Silicon Valley. Will a generous sponsor (EFF, FSF), spend the $2,000 to get a banner on highway 101?
        Natsu 16y ago
        I think they prefer to get reexaminations to get rid of the patent and have a "Patent Busting Project" to that effect. While a wall of shame is an interesting idea, killing the patent outright is likely a more effective use of their funds. Some of the entities in question aren't really known for their shame and only programmers are likely to appreciate the absurdity of patenting a doubly-linked list in this day and age.
nickpinkston 16y ago
I'd argue: The ability for one man to know what "real innovation", is always <, the ability of a team with every incentive of faking them out to overcome.
- inerte 16y ago
  Yes. But you can not crowd-review a patent, since it sometimes gives hints about whole business models, and getting others to know your inventions is dangerous (small differences are easily defensible in patent claims). Therefore you can not have (> reviewing applying).