yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/03/19/112247.shtml
From the abstract, "A computerized list is provided with auxiliary pointers for traversing the list in different sequences. One or more auxiliary pointers enable a fast, sequential traversal of the list with a minimum of computational time. Such lists may be used in any application where lists may be reordered for various purposes." We should also give praise to the extensive patent review performed by Cochran Freund & Young LLP."
Wednesday March 07, @08:51AM) Screw that I'm filing a patent on lodging patents. I'll make millions as gullible companies try to protect their "original" ideas. This guy will be required to pay me a fee for filing that patent.
I've done make, make install, make clean, make menuconfig, make xconfig, make modules make modules install, but I've never done make cast... But obviously I've never compiled anything with a linked list in it anyhow, since this dude just barely invented them.
To make the links, you take about 5-6 inches of reel-to-reel tape, wrap it around to form a loop, and then seal it with a bit of sticky tape. Then you take the next piece of reel-to-reel, and loop it through the first before sealing it, thus forming the link. The prior art the GPP mentioned is found in every school for five-year-olds in the country, around 15 December every year, and has been since long before your new-fangled punch cards were invented!
Monday March 19, @11:35AM) Well, if your read the patent, it's for triply-linked lists, the purpose for which I can only fathom. Possibly, it's easier to sequence them for block encryption or somesuch. Though, I also imagine that the patent will get killed for its obviousness; adding a tertiary pointer when you need to access a list via another sequence is pretty damned obvious.
Useful for replacing sparsely populated two-dimensional arrays. Or skip lists, which are rather nifty, though I've never had a real-world application for them beyond job-interview brainteasers. Hrm, I wonder if there's anything else patentable in my old Data Structures and Algorithms class notes...
com/) Well, if your read the patent, it's for triply-linked lists True. So it is just slightly less ridiculous than the headline makes it out to be. For crying out loud, I implemented various sorting methods on my linked lists by adding multiple pointers to them two decades ago as a teenager, and I don't believe for a second that I was doing anything remarkable at all. Once you have heard of linked lists then doubly-linked lists, triply-linked lists or whatever-linked lists are pretty much obvious. Anyhow, what is really missing in all of this discussion is a response from the patent submitter or the persons in charge of accepting the patent; we never get this on Slashdot nor the stories referred to. Since the patent appears to be so unbelievable, I am very curious as to what their official response would be.
Patenting an algorithm like this would be like me patenting, "A method of transportation involving the repeated placement of one foot in front of the other, thereby conveying motion upon the transportee."
org/) I think the poster's original point is that it is not enough that there is prior art - these things shouldn't get to the point where prior art defense is necessary. We know the system is broken because a patent like this should never have been granted, while someone who is part of the system could say, "you see? Prior art is a defense if they try to enforce the patent on you. They never should have been given the ability to enforce the patent in the first place. Just to be clear, for people who might read this and have no idea what all this linked-list business is about, this ia a data structure that is taught in every 200-level com sci "algorithms and data structures" class, and is so ubituitous that it would certainly be on any exam based on that material. Put in terms in another domain, this would be like patenting "the use of horse hair for the application of water, oil, or acrylic-based substances in an effort to produce a visually aesthetic experience" - that is, a paint brush. Linked lists are in the basic toolset that software engineers use every day. If you are reading this post electronically, then there are probably hundreds of them swirling around inside your computers memory at this very second.
Patenting a device that uses this to draw a line, that is different. Algorithms that describe basic ways of doing things are not novel. The biggest difference though is that with a device, if someone discovers some neat effect they can patent a certain way of doing it, but others can come an innovate on that device, inventing something that has the same effect but does it differently and is therefore not covered under the original patent. In software they are patenting the effect, here we have a mutli-way linked linked list, something that CS students have to do in freshman level classes. But now, we can't use it in any way without having to worry about defending ourselves. As someone who writes software for a living I would rather give up on ever getting a patent than having to worry for the rest of my life about implementing something someone else came up with and patented. The there is the issue that computer science moves along at such a clip that one company having a monopoly on an idea for the standard patent term could seriously stifle innovation in the field, which is directly against what the entire point of patents are.
Monday March 19, @11:35AM) "I have yet to hear a convincing argument why Babbage's engine, which uses physical mechanical gears to implement an algorithm, is inherently more patentable than the same algorithm in software. Easy: Babbage had to design the gears, switches, etc, and the arrangement thereof to get the effect of calculation. The algorithm he intended to use it to accomplish is not; it's just an artifact of math, and subject to the natural laws clause. If you used an FPGA, you could patent the arrangement of gate-feilds, possibly, but the algorithm you're trying to achieve would (should) still not be patentable.
org/) Finding compounds that are potentially active against some disease, especially compounds with relatively new mechanisms of action, is considered "basic research" - academia does a good job in this area, because it makes for good papers, PhD dissertations and academic plaudits. Taking those compounds and ensuring they are safe to administer in humans (rather than just animal models), and that they are as efficacious or more efficacious than other existing treatments is a costly, time-consuming process that requires managing a huge staff, coordinating clinics and hospitals, managing information systems, etc. This is not something universities or most research labs are set up to do properly. If you eliminated patents, you clearly wouldn't stop the scientists, but you'd put a huge damper on industry and financiers wanting to back the latter part of this process. This would result in far fewer drugs getting through the FDA approval process. It may be the case that there is a more societally efficient way to do this than the current system, but I'm not sure what it is. One problem with the current system is that one effect of it is that the US effectively subsidizes other countries drug availability, because drug companies expect to earn a large portion of their profits here, and have to deal with centrally negotiated pricing and other issues in foreign markets. But I don't see how you'd think that eliminating patents entirely would help the situation.
Thursday April 27, @08:47AM) its nice that drug companies each invested $100m and more drug research, got their patents, and they are now selling the drugs for reasonable prices to public and drugs are accessible anywhere in the world. not only that, but they are also making discounts and providing easy access, and even giving out drugs in most poor and needy countries so that things like aids or other dangerous diseases do not spread out. oh wait - none of these are valid in this universe - all these are happening in alternate universes.
Just as soon as you explain to me how, without patents, a drug comp...
|
http://csua.com/feed/