

Linked list patent - tlrobinson
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract

======
kiba
In the interest of advancing the level of debate regarding intellectual
property, once again as countless time before, I beg everyone to read Against
Intellectual Monopoly at
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

 _It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright
and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and
inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music,
literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of
a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and
example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a
practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty._ \-- David K.
Levine and Michelle Boldrin in _Against Intellectual Monopoly_

This book has absolutely change my thought about how economic progress are
made, who is the real good guys and bad guys of civilization, and everything
else. I never quite look at innovation and entrepreneurs quite the same way
ever again.

Please, everyone, read it. It's free to download!

~~~
Estragon
I haven't read the book, but the interview with the author on Econtalk was
great:
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.html)

~~~
jacoblyles
I love Econ Talk but I haven't listened to that episode yet. Thanks for the
pointer!

------
fnid2
Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the
summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one:
<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf>

It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean _all_
software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and
valuable.

I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that
computes instructions, but not software that does the same thing.

It seems like we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know patents
cause trouble, but what about the case where a patent helps an entrepreneur
get the value out of an invention when big corporations steal it, market it,
and make money without giving the inventor a dime?

There's good and there's bad, but it seems like around here there's only mud
slung at software patents. Some inventors of software algorithms are every bit
as clever as inventors of anything else that may get patented. Why shouldn't
they be treated the same under the law?

Equal rights under the law. That's the way it should be.

~~~
alanthonyc
Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of
software patents.

I personally think they are absurd, as demonstrated by the OP, but am open to
changing my thinking if proven wrong.

The internet has leveled the playing field for everyone. But one of the few
ways that big corporations can take advantage of their size against smaller,
more innovative entities is by throwing money into a legal battle which the
smaller entity can't afford to fight.

Equal rights under the law. But currently, the more money you have, the
equaler you get.

~~~
fnid2
Okay, then the problem is not software patents, or patents in general, but
that they unfairly tip the scales in favor of the big corporations.

How do we fix _that_ problem? That problem exists outside the world of patents
and software. Monsanto patents seeds and those are just strings of DNA which
are essentially just _four_ characters repeated in a seemingly random order.
And yet farmers lose their farms over those strings of four letters. Not
because they were even choosing to use the seeds, corn is just pollinated by
the air and some of that code got into their crop as it blew in from the
neighbors' field -- a farmer who _did_ use Monsanto's DNA. It's absurd, I
know.

One case on the not absurd side of the spectrum, is, as it turns out, the
original case that ruled software could be patented in the first place. It was
by a guy who had to fight, iirc, all the way to the supreme court to protect
his right to patent his software invention. I'll try to find a link, but is a
true story indeed.

~~~
evanrmurphy
> Okay, then the problem is not software patents, or patents in general, but
> that they unfairly tip the scales in favor of the big corporations.

Agreed. Legal issues (patents included) tend to favor big corporations because
you're more likely to win a case if you spend more money on it. I don't know
about all the factors contributing to this, but I think a big one is that law
(in the U.S., anyway) is difficult to understand for laypeople, and so you
need lawyers to defend you, and the lawyers that cost more have higher success
rates.

~~~
ciniglio
More likely, lawyers with higher success rates cost more.

~~~
evanrmurphy
Sure, but it's beside my point, which is that the small g(uy|al) would be
better off if lawyers were either obsoleted by a ``Law 2.0'' or made into a
purely public resource.

------
lutorm
To be fair, it's not just a linked list. It's a _triply_ linked list. Must be
at least 3 times as hard to figure out as a singly linked one...

------
daveungerer
Just to be clear, this is not a patent on a plain vanilla linked list. It's a
patent on a linked list where each node in the list has 1 or more extra next
pointers, to facilitate different orderings.

Now, if the US is serious about innovation and economic recovery, they will
employ software patent evaluators who are actually aware of the state of the
art in software engineering / computer science and who can judge the
obviousness of an invention. Their failure to do so has resulted in a lot of
extra friction that prevents economic growth. Every frivolous patent suit
filed, every agreement to give in and pay up, is another bit of economic
growth lost to friction.

Good luck with the recession.

~~~
GFischer
Amen to that. I love your analogy, I've always thought of the government as
"friction"

------
char
I'm really too tired to read this, but is someone seriously trying to patent a
linked list? This is really a "palm to the forehead" moment for me.

~~~
kelnos
It's not exactly what you'd think when someone says "linked list." The "next"
pointers are there, but there's also an "aux" pointer that the patent suggests
can point to any other element in the list, not just next or previous, and can
be used for any purpose to form any kind of sequence desired.

I think it's "new" and "novel" because really there's no use for it.

(Ok, I jest... I expended barely 30 seconds worth of thought and couldn't come
up with anything. Maybe there is a use for it, but the patent's still pretty
lame.)

------
philwelch
Duplicate: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1165089>

~~~
tlrobinson
Oops. I saw it on Twitter (likely by someone who saw it here or on Reddit...)
and posted it not knowing it was already posted. Sorry.

------
colinprince
My first reaction is, oh no, Google has patented the linked list, forsooth.

Instead, it's a company called LSI Logic Corporation.

------
bediger
Oh no! Now that I've read the patent all the software I've written that uses
linked lists (and that's rather a lot) is now in violation of the patent, and
I'm liable for treble damages, right?

Damn you, Hacker News!

------
anigbrowl
Ridiculous. I have books older than that patent application containing the
same diagrams, and so do most programmers.

------
arethuza
The only "novel" part of this appears to be the use of the aux pointer to make
navigation more efficient in some circumstances.

Which sounds awfully like skip lists to me:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list>

