4 ms·

Oh, so someone patented a multiply linked list. That's better? It's not like there's not oodles of prior art or it's nonobvious...

dpark 15y ago
I feel like reading comprehension on HN is dropping lately, or at least that some people are willfully choosing to not read entire comments before replying. I specifically said that the patent should not have been granted. The point is that by being misleading, the anti-patent crowd diminishes their moral standing, and makes it harder for people to take their arguments seriously. This is not simply a "linked list" patent, and anyone with any software development experience who bothers to read past the title should know that.
- mtogo 15y ago
  It is though, did you read any of the above comments?
  - dpark 15y ago
    Yes, I hopped in my time machine and read xilun0's comment 13 minutes before he actually posted it.
    - mtogo 15y ago
      My bad, i thought your comment was in his thread for some reason.
      - dpark 15y ago
        No worries. I'll probably do the same thing to someone else tomorrow. :)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 15y ago
  You are correct in that the patent covers a multiply-linked list. Specifically, one with two or more pointers, where the other pointers allow you to traverse the list in other ways. One example would be a doubly-linked list, though they would presumably limit that claim by pointing out that the other pointers allow you to traverse the list in any way, not merely backwards. That said, I don't think you'll find many programmers who think of this as anything but the obvious general type of a linked list or who are confused about what is claimed. I do get your point that pro-patent types (who seem mostly to be lawyers) will seize on any slight inaccuracy, though. We see obvious generalities. They see them divided up. We're looking for general algorithms that can make our software flexible. They're looking for ideas that are just different enough to patent.
  - dpark 15y ago
    I agree that this is an obvious invention. I think using the unqualified term "linked list" is misleading, though. As I pointed out elsewhere, references typically do not include the "multiply-linked list" when defining the linked list. They'll mention single, doubly, circularly, and possibly sorted linked lists. I don't see any mention of multiply-linked lists (or equivalent) in Intro to Algos or TaoCP. * * It's possible that TaoCP covers them somewhere, but I don't see them in the early discussion of linked lists.
- leon_ 15y ago
  > being misleading Someone says "linked list" when he means "double linked list". How devious! > the anti-patent crowd World conspiracy!
  - dpark 15y ago
    > Someone says "linked list" when he means "double linked list". How devious! Someone patented compression. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4558302 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4558302 Someone patented search engines. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999 Someone patented public-key cryptography. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4405829 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4405829 Obviously none of those statements are misleading in any way. > World conspiracy! Just because someone doesn't hold the same viewpoint as you doesn't mean they're wearing a tinfoil hat. Get over yourself.
    - leon_ 15y ago
      your analogies are flawed. stop trolling.

dpark 15y ago

I feel like reading comprehension on HN is dropping lately, or at least that some people are willfully choosing to not read entire comments before replying. I specifically said that the patent should not have been granted. The point is that by being misleading, the anti-patent crowd diminishes their moral standing, and makes it harder for people to take their arguments seriously. This is not simply a "linked list" patent, and anyone with any software development experience who bothers to read past the title should know that.

mtogo 15y ago
It is though, did you read any of the above comments?
- dpark 15y ago
  Yes, I hopped in my time machine and read xilun0's comment 13 minutes before he actually posted it.
  - mtogo 15y ago
    My bad, i thought your comment was in his thread for some reason.
    - dpark 15y ago
      No worries. I'll probably do the same thing to someone else tomorrow. :)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 15y ago
You are correct in that the patent covers a multiply-linked list. Specifically, one with two or more pointers, where the other pointers allow you to traverse the list in other ways. One example would be a doubly-linked list, though they would presumably limit that claim by pointing out that the other pointers allow you to traverse the list in any way, not merely backwards. That said, I don't think you'll find many programmers who think of this as anything but the obvious general type of a linked list or who are confused about what is claimed. I do get your point that pro-patent types (who seem mostly to be lawyers) will seize on any slight inaccuracy, though. We see obvious generalities. They see them divided up. We're looking for general algorithms that can make our software flexible. They're looking for ideas that are just different enough to patent.
- dpark 15y ago
  I agree that this is an obvious invention. I think using the unqualified term "linked list" is misleading, though. As I pointed out elsewhere, references typically do not include the "multiply-linked list" when defining the linked list. They'll mention single, doubly, circularly, and possibly sorted linked lists. I don't see any mention of multiply-linked lists (or equivalent) in Intro to Algos or TaoCP. * * It's possible that TaoCP covers them somewhere, but I don't see them in the early discussion of linked lists.
leon_ 15y ago
> being misleading Someone says "linked list" when he means "double linked list". How devious! > the anti-patent crowd World conspiracy!
- dpark 15y ago
  > Someone says "linked list" when he means "double linked list". How devious! Someone patented compression. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4558302 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4558302 Someone patented search engines. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999 Someone patented public-key cryptography. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4405829 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=4405829 Obviously none of those statements are misleading in any way. > World conspiracy! Just because someone doesn't hold the same viewpoint as you doesn't mean they're wearing a tinfoil hat. Get over yourself.
  - leon_ 15y ago
    your analogies are flawed. stop trolling.