Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

While I ended up arguing a lot of tangents, my original point was that the title diminishes the standing of the anti-patent crowd. Whether "linked list" is taken as a generic term that describes a whole class of data structures or whether it's restricted to just the basic "linked list" types, the title is misleading. The patent does not cover the basic linked list types nor does cover the entire the entire class.

This patent is ridiculous enough without exaggeration. I believe that the patent system is broken, but making misleading claims about frivolous patents weakens the arguments. The truth is already ridiculous enough.

As for your comment about "excessive infighting over apparently trivial concerns", I wish I could dispute that. I feel that geeks as a group tend to be pedantic jackasses, and I'm often guilty of that myself. It does hurt our credibility as a whole.

By the way, your interpretation of multiply-linked lists is correct. You can look at it as multiple separate lists crammed together for minor space savings or as a directed graph with labeled edges (labels here represents which "list" an edge is for). This is why I don't think it's an especially useful data structure; there are better alternatives for most cases.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: