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.
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.
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.
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".
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>
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.
"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."
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."
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?
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
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.
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.
There are many companies who make a living by finding software patent infringement for their clients, sometimes through analyzing decompiled source code.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] sturmeh|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DennisP|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhp|13 years ago|reply
Even an issued patent can still be invalidated. http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/587/if-a-patent-h...
[+] [-] Jare|13 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] amalcon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superqd|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
Patent Troll!
[+] [-] chris_wot|13 years ago|reply
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=...
[+] [-] _phred|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
"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|13 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] verroq|13 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873795
[+] [-] Tyr42|13 years ago|reply
Someone has already started:
http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/738/prior-art-for...
[+] [-] Tipzntrix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PatentTroll|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reader5000|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zerostar07|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] usea|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markokrajnc|13 years ago|reply
Since J2SE 1.2 (December 8, 1998)
[+] [-] tsahyt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikehoward|13 years ago|reply
Additional pointers are trivially implied so I don't think that this patent should not stand.
What a mess!
[+] [-] rxc178|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manaskarekar|13 years ago|reply
As long as there's a legal way you can exploit something, someone will do it.
[+] [-] kyrra|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trebor|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantillberg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dlitz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brador|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgemcbay|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crusso|13 years ago|reply