

Patent #7028023: Linked List - yen223
http://www.google.com/patents/US7028023

======
sturmeh
This has been discussed before, it is not just a linked list.

It is a list which has elements that not only point to the next element, but
the element after it, and so on. (As to provide a recovery method if one
element is to be destroyed, or to ease implementation for removal etc.

However that's still fringing on patent trolls.

~~~
vonmoltke
And, as presented in this patent, its a trivial enhancement on a conventional
linked list. This is a patent for a _data structure_. There is no
implementation there. Hell, there is no _algorithm_ there. Its just someone
who said, "Hey, I can put two forward pointers in each element of a linked
list!" and wrapped a bunch of legalistic crap around it. This patent doesn't
need prior art to be invalid.

~~~
dpark
> _its a trivial enhancement on a conventional linked list._

Indeed it is. The patent should not have been granted, and from previous
discussions about this, there is ample evidence of prior art.

However, exaggerating this patent by claiming it is a "linked list" patent
diminishes the conversation around patents. It doesn't make patents sound
worse. It makes those who are anti-patent seem disingenuous. This patent is
bad enough on its own merits without implying that someone was granted a
patent for the linked list concept as a whole. If Subaru were issued a patent
for a new method of fuel injection, would it be appropriate to claim that they
were issued a patent for the internal combustion engine?

> _This is a patent for a data structure. There is no implementation there._

What is a data structure if not an implementation?

~~~
vonmoltke
> _However, exaggerating this patent by claiming it is a "linked list" patent
> diminishes the conversation around patents._

The title of the patent is "Linked List". How is that an exaggeration?

> _If Subaru were issued a patent for a new method of fuel injection, would it
> be appropriate to claim that they were issued a patent for the internal
> combustion engine?_

I think you misunderstand my point. I did not claim that this person patented
linked lists. I claimed this person patented a trivial enhancement to a
conventional linked list, and did not provide any implementation detail (which
is really what makes it trivial).

On the subject of implementation, I do not see a data structure description as
an implementation, any more than I see an algorithm as an implementation.
Being an electrical engineer I am biased towards thinking of implementation as
an actual, functional system (not necessarily hardware). I know there are many
patents where this definition of implementation doesn't hold, but that is why
I am uncomfortable with software and business method patents in general, and
think chemical and drug patents should be a special category.

~~~
rayiner
> The title of the patent is "Linked List". How is that an exaggeration?

Now you are being disingenuous. The title has no legal significance. The only
thing that has legal significance is the list of claims, and the are to be
read as a conjunction (A & B & C...)

~~~
ncallaway
I don't think he ever claimed Linked Lists were patented. The title of the
post is "Patent #7028023: Linked List". That's entirely factual based on the
number and title of a patent.

At no point in his comments do I see him say "A linked list has been patented"
or something similar.

------
mhp
I posted it on <http://askpatents.com> if you'd like to list prior art.
[http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-
for...](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for-linked-
list)

Even an issued patent can still be invalidated.
[http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/587/if-a-
patent-h...](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/587/if-a-patent-has-
been-issued-can-it-still-be-invalidated-by-prior-art)

~~~
Jare
Multiple internal storage linked lists should be a prime example. I was using
them on my 1995 racing game [1], where each car was contained in a global list
of cars (for game logic and rendering), a list of cars for each sector of the
track (for driving AI), and a list of cars for each map tile (for collisions).

Not sure if this is formally valid prior art, as each list a car is part of
can be considered different lists (i.e. different set of members), not
different sequences on the same set.

Frankly, I'd rather see this abomination be dismissed on the grounds of being
obvious.

[1]
[https://github.com/TheJare/SpeedHasteSrc/blob/master/game/th...](https://github.com/TheJare/SpeedHasteSrc/blob/master/game/things.h)

~~~
enduser
You would need to have been storing cdrs as well as cars for it to be
considered valid prior art.

------
superqd
I am stunned. Seriously, seriously stunned.

I've complained about patents once before, and I think this sort of patent is
a perfect example of something that wouldn't be worth a single day of patent
protection. It's a colossal over-payment. Does it really make sense for our
society to "pay" 20 years of protection for an idea that is so trivial to most
of the practitioners in the art?

It's like a street magician selling the secret to their cup and ball routine
for $100,000. It's not a mystery, and it isn't worth the price. But for some
reason, the USPTO reasons, "well, I haven't seen _your_ cup and ball routine
before, so here's the check." They have far too low a standard, and we are
paying far too high a price for the vast majority of patents. We can't keep
doling out decades of protection for such common-place "inventions".

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4153732>

...

------
RutZap
This guy is amazing... he invented everything.. from air purifiers and
supplementary bicycle handlebars, shoe tongue securing devices to linked lists
(as early as 2002!!!) </sarcasm>

Patent Troll!

~~~
chris_wot
The only sorts of patents that should be granted are ones where you fire giant
snowballs into the desert in order to irrigate it.

[http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=...](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&NR=1047735&KC=&locale=en_ep&FT=E)

------
_phred
Somewhat like a Skiplist, which is introduced in a 1990 paper:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list>

I'm certain that at least one older algorithms text I own mentions skiplists,
and there is no doubt much other prior art here, seems like the kind of thing
that might find its way into kernel scheduling queues.

------
chris_wot
By the same author:

"A method includes addressing, through a command generated by an application
executing on a computing platform, one or more device(s) in storage
communication with the computing platform based on an appropriate
communication link. The method also includes accessing, based on the
addressing, a physical register of the one or more device(s) through an
appropriate interface therein. Further, the method includes obtaining
statistical information associated with a performance of the one or more
device(s) at the computing platform through the access of the physical
register."

<http://www.google.com/patents/US20120144069>

~~~
Breakthrough
How do you get a patent regarding "A method includes addressing, through a
command generated by an application [...] based on an appropriate
communication link" to be issued?

All I read was "This patent regards using a software-controlled computer to
communicate with another computer in an arbitrary manner which can allow for
data statistics and performance tracking. Oh, wait, that's not specific...
Hmm... Oh wait! Yes, _and_ you have to get the data from a register."

~~~
antidoh
"How do you get a patent ..."

The only way I can make sense of these ridiculous patents is if the patent
examiners are under pressure to grant patents as part of their yearly
performance metrics.

~~~
rayiner
Patent examiners actually take pride in their high rejection ratio.

~~~
antidoh
And yet the environment in which they work encourages more granted patents, as
the new patent examination facilities being promoted by the administration
imply (to me). Obama's/admin's stated reasons are to grant more patents
faster.

------
verroq
Previous discussion

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873795>

------
Tyr42
Hey, if you have solid prior art, post it to patents.stackexchange.com

Someone has already started:

[http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-
for...](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for-linked-
list-secondary-and-tertiary-traversal)

------
Tipzntrix
So this is a linked list that's ordered in two different ways? If I create a
third pointer to reorganize the same data in a third way, can I patent that on
top?

~~~
gnat
Nope, Claim 2 is for a tertiary pointer as well. Your attempt to patent a
triply-sequenced linked-list would be rejected as insufficiently innovative.
Unlike the patent in question. _cough_

~~~
Tipzntrix
Damn, guess I have to step it up one more level and put a fourth pointer on
there...

------
PatentTroll
I am a strong supporter of the patent system, and in general an advocate for
software patents. This, however, is a likely example of an error. We accept a
certain error rate in any process, and if the USPTO is expected to be
infallible, then fees would skyrocket and people would complain that patents
cost a million dollars. Anyone who tried to enforce this patent would more
likely than not have it invalidated in court or on re-exam. Apparently the
assignee (LSI Logic, hardly a 'troll') has chosen not to enforce this patent
on Google and Microsoft because it is so weak. So before we grab the pitch
forks, remember that the "system" as a whole has worked here, even if the PTO
let one through. The tech world has not come crumbling down, Google was not
shut down, and everybody who has ever modified a linked list has not been sued
out of oblivion. If you have a much better method, I'm genuinely interested to
hear it.

~~~
reader5000
It doesn't matter. The non-zero probability of having to defend against this
turd patent is real. Maybe the "owner" of the patent is reasonable and decides
not to enforce it, maybe not. Maybe they sell it later and it is enforced.
There is still a nonzero cost to this patent. The greater problem is companies
see the PTO is willing to let shit like this through and therefore patent
everything in sight. The "system as a whole" failed utterly here.

~~~
zaroth
The closest solution for this is the SHIELD act. Write your elected officials
and rally support!

------
zerostar07
So, unless it s open source software, how would they know who implements their
patented list?

~~~
usea
There are many companies who make a living by finding software patent
infringement for their clients, sometimes through analyzing decompiled source
code.

------
markokrajnc
Java LinkedList:
[http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/LinkedLis...](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/LinkedList.html)

Since J2SE 1.2 (December 8, 1998)

~~~
tsahyt
I believe linked lists are _much_ older than that though.

------
mikehoward
I believe that doublely linked lists are described by Knuth in the Art of
Computer Programming volume (something). My recollection is that it may have
been in a problem or note. They are definitely used in UNIX for the run queue
where rapid traversal was necessary. I recall them from an internals course I
took at UNIX expo back in the mid '80's.

Additional pointers are trivially implied so I don't think that this patent
should not stand.

What a mess!

------
rxc178
This guy has to have some massive balls to do this.

~~~
manaskarekar
Why? He has nothing to lose. If it's rejected, it's rejected. But if it's
accepted.. well you have something going now don't you?

As long as there's a legal way you can exploit something, someone will do it.

------
kyrra
I am a former employee of LSI, and I actually had a chance to participate in a
meeting with one of the patent lawyers at the company. This patent was
specifically talked about in that meeting.

1) LSI is not a patent troll. They generate a small portion of their revenue
through patents, but most of that is through its purchase of Agere (cell phone
tech patents).

2) The patent in-question is near impossible to prove that it is being used by
anyone unless the code is available to look at. And even then would require
going over their code to find the issue. Most lawyers don't want to put in
that much work to find a violation, they would rather have more broad patents
to litigate or monazite with.

3) As there is a good chance that there is prior art to this patent, it
probably won't be used by LSI. Worst-case is LSI hits financial troubles and
sells the patent to a troll that tries to use it.

~~~
marshray
In my opinion, it should be obvious to anyone skilled in the art that this
patent should not have been issued and those who filed it and approved it have
participated in a fraud against the US legal system.

~~~
kyrra
Sadly, that's not how the patent system is setup in the US. It rewards
companies who try to file as many patents as possible and see if they can get
those patents granted. It falls on the USPTO to validate and grant those
patents.

As the USPTO is underfunded and understaffed, a lot of possibly invalid
patents are granted.

------
trebor
I think we need to coin a new acronym: Yet Another Bogus Patent.

------
dantillberg
Isn't this basically what e.g. MySQL secondary indexes are?

------
dlitz
It's a troll patent. Is it owned by a patent troll?

------
brador
Anyone know the cost of getting a patent like this?

~~~
georgemcbay
It varies based on claims and size of the filing entity. There's a fee list
here:

<http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee100512.htm>

Of course those are just the filing fees, most filers will file using patent
attorneys which bring the ~$500-ish dollar cost up to $5k-10k per application.

------
joelthelion
The examinators should probably be fired.

~~~
crusso
Examiners and the filers should be exiled to Zimbabwe with one day of water
and bread crumbs.

~~~
joelthelion
What makes you think there is no food in Zimbabwe?

------
Fando
Wow what a load.

------
seigel
Awesome

