3 ms·
That seems to be specific way of traversing Linked Lists (which ostensibly is different than all the other ways it has been done in textbooks, published code et
by vvhn 14y ago
That seems to be specific way of traversing Linked Lists (which ostensibly is different than all the other ways it has been done in textbooks, published code etc.) , not Linked Lists themselves. If you find a way of traversing a list in a way that has not been done before you can apply for a patent fort that technique. If i were to use that technique of traversing linked in a product that i sell, you could sue me. However, if came up with that particular, specific way of traversing a linked list in an interview, no patents are violated anywhere. That's just silly.
- sethrin 14y agoI. Software is mathematics. II. Mathematics are not patentable. >> Software is not patentable. Pick a premise and argue against it. Or, don't bother: you and the US legal system are in an argument against reality. It's not a winnable argument, but sense can take a long time to percolate through obstinate stupidity.
- vvhn 14y agoi'm not arguing for or against patents on software, mathematics or otherwise. I'm just saying that answering an interview question about how a particular thing might be done is not in violation of any patent laws. Replace "method for traversing linked lists" with "a new technique for cutting wood using a new tool" if you feel so strongly about software patents.
- sh_vipin 14y agoThat's what I believed too.