
Someone patented linked lists - jarin
http://www.google.com/patents?id=26aJAAAAEBAJ
======
dpark
This is not a patent on the linked list. It's a patent on a modification of
the linked list that provides a secondary (and possibly tertiary, etc.)
traversal path.

The patent should not have been granted, and should be deemed invalid if it
ever goes to court, but it is not a patent on just the linked list. The anti-
patent crowd makes themselves look bad by trotting out examples like this and
being deceptive about the actual content of the patent.

~~~
davorak
It is the title of the patent located on the upper left in google patent. If
you search for linked list patent it comes up on patent storm. This does not
seem to be a case of deception.

Can you provide other examples of the "anti-patent crowd" being deceptive with
their examples?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
54, the title, at least in UK (and IIRC in Europe) has no bearing on the field
or scope of the invention. I've the vaguest recollection of a case in the UK
facing this issue and being judged that the title was not allowed to be used
in determining the scope.

If the title could be used for such purposes then you need the title to be as
broad as possible to avoid reducing the scope of the patent unnecessarily.
Suppose you patent "an improvement to a automobile engine" and it's later seen
that the same improvement is good for boat engines, rocket engines maybe,
etc.. This would be equivalent to file wrapper estoppel¹.

However, the claims define the invention and the title (again at least in the
UK) must only signify the field of the invention. If you improve "linked
lists" in your invention then you don't make up a new field you call it that.
Simply "Linked Lists" is broad, it could easily be shorthand for "Linked Lists
used in non-traditional fields" or "An alternative to linked lists", etc., and
so is highly unlikely to limit the patent but still meets the regulatory
obligation to provide a relevant title.

There I said it. Titles don't matter. Granted claims matter, in this case the
claims in the B2,
[http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=c...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=claims&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
(which don't look modified but I didn't really check).

\--

¹ Firefox spellcheck says it's "estoppal" but I think I'm right (for a change
;0)>)

------
jleader
Remember, by discussing this, you are leaving a permanent record that you are
aware of its existence. If you are ever sued for violating it, and by some
bizarre horrible legal accident the patent is upheld, you will be liable for
treble damages. If the patent owner couldn't prove you were aware of the
patent, you'd only be liable for ordinary damages.

This is why some large companies have a "never discuss patents in email"
policy.

It's another way in which patent law is broken; the law actively discourages
practitioners from discussing patents, even bad ones.

------
srl
This patent appears to have gone almost 4 years between being filed and being
issued. One wonders what they spent that time doing. Looking through their
car's user manual for prior art, perhaps? (Or perhaps they took that phrase
literally, and conducted a search of the Louvre...)

Even if USPTO was actually doing a good job of vetting patents, that would
still have been four years during which anybody seeking to use a multiply
linked list would have to do so under the shadow of a possible lawsuit (which
would be expensive, even if trivially winnable) if and when the patent was
accepted.

~~~
monochromatic
Looks like it was just sitting there for about 3 years, then it got rejected
once, then it was amended and allowed.

------
mark242
It's unenforceable. Check page 19 of "Programming the Logic Theory Machine",
by Newell and Shaw, published in 1957, for prior art.

~~~
brlewis
Legally, 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.

~~~
grabastic
Exactly. Many smaller businesses can't afford a lengthy legal battle even if
they are likely to win.

~~~
pointyhat
Lady justice's scales are balanced by cash.

That's why the legal system is wrong.

------
jsmcgd
Would there be any basis to suing the USPTO? If it could be shown that their
incompetence/negligence led to an organization suffering loss due to an
patently invalid patent? (pun not intended but acknowledged).

~~~
monochromatic
Google "sovereign immunity."

~~~
jsmcgd
Interesting. I just did a bit but I can't tell if it covers the USPTO? Do you
know if it does?

~~~
monochromatic
No, I don't know offhand if it would apply in a case like this. But I've never
heard of a suit against the patent office for damages from allowing a patent
they shouldn't have... and that tells me that there's probably something in
the way of such a suit proceeding. Sovereign immunity was just my first guess
as to what that might be.

------
spc476
Sounds like Ming-Jen Wang patented Ted Nelson's ZigZag structure
(<http://xanadu.com/zigzag/>) which is prior art (fully described at least by
1999-see
[http://himalia.it.jyu.fi/ffdoc/fenfire/history/Milestones.ge...](http://himalia.it.jyu.fi/ffdoc/fenfire/history/Milestones.gen.html))
and quite possibly patented by Ted Nelson as well (<http://lambda-the-
ultimate.org/node/233#comment-1715>). And I'm only familiar with ZigZag
because of my interest in Ted Nelson's work, otherwise, it doesn't seem to
have gone anywhere.

------
menardp
Look more closely. The publishing date is April 1st.

[http://www.google.com/patents?id=26aJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=26aJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Clearly this isn't serious.

~~~
dpark
That's when the USPTO published it. The filing date was Sep 26, 2002. Maybe
the USPTO doesn't consider themselves serious anymore?

------
kens
The Solaris kernel (for example) has lots of data structures that have
multiple linked lists. For example, the cpu structure has at least 6 linked
list pointers.

For a reference published in 2001 (before the patent was filed):
[http://books.google.com/books?id=r_cecYD4AKkC&lpg=PA413&...](http://books.google.com/books?id=r_cecYD4AKkC&lpg=PA413&ots=oCpgc5AzGU&dq=cpu_prev_onln&pg=PA413#v=onepage&q=cpu_prev_onln&f=false)

Also note that a doubly linked list is described by claim one.

~~~
tedunangst
The cpu structure is on several _different_ lists. That's not exactly the same
as being on _one_ list with multiple links.

~~~
nitrogen
_The cpu structure is on several different lists. That's not exactly the same
as being on one list with multiple links._

Sure it is: one list with multiple links is the exact same thing as multiple
_different_ lists that coincidentally contain the same items.

------
romey
This is really strange. At the career fair at my school, the USPTO was there
recruiting engineers and CS students. Assuming one single person with even a
modicum of programming knowledge looked at this application, I can't see any
way that this was issued, let alone after 4 years of sitting in purgatory(?).
If this was sold to Lodsys could they sue any company that used a doubly
linked list without licensing it? How would they even find out about what data
structures you used in your code?

------
lukejduncan
Not just someone, www.lsi.com or @lsicorporation on twitter did

------
fleitz
That actually sounds more like a skip list than a linked list.

------
yason
My head aches and my mind boggles. I don't know what the heck the patent text
actually describes but I see vague visions of linked lists, skip lists, and
graphs. I can't imagine what it would say to an USPTO officer or a judge.

------
lightblade
I'm surprised that this patent was granted.

~~~
alecbenzer
What exactly does a patent office do to determine if something is actually
original or not? Like did some clerk look at this and say "Yeah, I'm no
computer scientist, but this sounds original to me"?

~~~
Daniel_Newby
My understanding is that the patent office checks if the patent is
substantially similar to previous patents. A non-novel idea can easily get
through if it is phrased in a different way or never appeared in an earlier
patent.

I do not feel this is a problem. A patent just provides a legal presumption
that you are allowed to file a lawsuit. Some people argue that this enables
patent trolls, but patent trolls exist because con artists will always try to
ride on the coattails of success. My view is that low standards for
patentability provides protection against patent trolls: a company can patent
early and often in the years before they hit it big and start attracting con
men. Easy patentability also deepens the pool of well-documented prior art,
providing more clubs with which to beat up patent trolls.

~~~
akeefer
Defending against a patent lawsuit, regardless of how absurd or invalid the
patent is, can often cost millions of dollars:

[http://www.inventionstatistics.com/Patent_Litigation_Costs.h...](http://www.inventionstatistics.com/Patent_Litigation_Costs.html)

Filing patents isn't exactly free either, in terms of time or money.

Also, how exactly do you "beat up" patent trolls? They threaten to sue you,
and you . . . threaten to spend millions of dollars on court fees to have
their patent invalidated? That doesn't work so well unless you have millions
of dollars you don't happen to need.

Are you really suggesting that all those small-time devs sued by lodsys over
BS patents would have some recourse if only they'd filed a bunch of patents
themselves? Or if only their predecessors had somehow flooded the patent
office with enough BS patents that the lodsys ones got thrown out as prior
art?

The whole "patent everything, let the courts sort it out" philosophy sounds
nice in theory, but the whole problem is that it's freakishly expensive to
sort those issues out in court, so patent lawsuits end up as shakedowns: you
either pay up in licensing, or you pay up in laywer fees. Either way you're
paying _someone_.

------
danielharan
Epic troll too subtly epic?

------
Sigi
it would be funny if this wasn't this sad..

------
lanstein
Patent _application_

~~~
cleverjake
that was issued. <http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ>

