43 ms·
It's unenforceable. Check page 19 of "Programming the Logic Theory Machine", by Newell and Shaw, published in 1957, for prior art.
by mark242 15y ago
It's unenforceable. Check page 19 of "Programming the Logic Theory Machine", by Newell and Shaw, published in 1957, for prior art.
- brlewis 15y agoLegally, it's presumed valid. It may be easy to prove that the invention is not novel, but doing so would still involve time, effort, and money. The patent holder needs only to settle for a smaller amount of money than would be required to invalidate the patent.
- dpark 15y agoSorry, this patent is invalid, but your prior art covers a different invention. Page 19 shows a singly-linked list. Page 20 shows nested lists (a list where some elements are also lists). I don't see anything in this document that covers the same type of multiply-linked lists that the patent claims.
- nitrogen 15y agoAs I vaguely alluded to in another response to one of your comments, the argument could go like this: 1. The linked list was described in 1957 or earlier. 2. The cited mention of the linked list also considers more complex permutations of lists. 3. This patent effectively describes adding a single set of items to multiple lists (I haven't read the patent, so I may be glossing over details). 4. #2 demonstrates that such a permutation of the concept of a list would be obvious to anyone skilled in the art. 5. Therefore, the patent is invalid.
- dpark 15y agoAside from it being obvious, I'm pretty sure there's prior art for specifically what this patent describes. One of the times this was posted to Reddit someone posted a link to a book that describes pretty much exactly what's in this patent, with a diagram no less. http://my.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1bbb3/congratulations_mingjen_wang_on_patenting_the/c1bc13 http://my.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1bbb3/congratula...