I followed the link to the patent, and just want to make sure I understand things correctly. I'm not very knowledgeable about legal jargon, or formal CS terminology.
>> Performing storage and retrieval that uses the hashing technique with the external chaining method for collision resolution.
Isnt this just describing a hash table?
>> In order to prevent performance deterioration due to the presence of automatically expiring data items, a garbage collection technique is used that removes all expired records stored in the system in the external chain targeted by a probe into the data storage system.
So the software doesn't run slowly, we're going to do something special to get rid of those pesky expired records.
I believe, "removes all expired records stored in the system in the external chain targeted by a probe into the data storage system." is just preparing you for the description of what they're going to do, without actually saying anything.
>> Each insertion, retrieval, or deletion of a record is an occasion to search an entire linked-list chain of records for expired items and then remove them.
Whenever an action is taken on a record, remove expired records near the record targeted by the action.
>> Because an expired data item will not remain in the system long term if the system is frequently probed, it is useful for large information storage systems that are heavily used, require the fast access provided by hashing, and cannot be taken off-line for removal of expired data.
Expired items don't stay long. System doesn't have to be taken offline to remove expired items... Because they remove expired items after CRUD of a record takes place, I guess.
Surely I'm missing something here. Or is it just that silly that you can get a patent on something like this?
That's the gist of it. It should point out how fucked up the patent system in the US is. Also, it was originally patented in 1992, and it's just now being legislated with.
What I imagine happened is some programmers at a now defunct company wanted to get their names on a patent because it's cool. They come up with the most generic algorithm ever, easily get it patented, and then they get to brag to their drinking buddies.
Then, the company they work for goes out of business/gets bought and the patent is transferred to a patent troll like this Bedrock company who then try to find where it 'infringes'.
That's all my imagination, but similar things have happened.
What I just learned with this article is the Bedrock company is no longer active...how can you win a case when you're not even an active company anymore!?
Note: I don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy for any large company like Google, Oracle, Apple, Amazon, etc. who get sued for silly patent 'infringements' because they would do the same in a heartbeat. ALL software patents should be abolished.
> I don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy for any large company like Google, Oracle, Apple, Amazon, etc. who get sued for silly patent 'infringements' because they would do the same in a heartbeat. ALL software patents should be abolished.
Apple is only 5 characters? Amazon doesn't end in "le"?
Oracle is the only one in the second half of the alphabet? Google is the only one whose name isn't also a thing? Apple is the only edible thing? Apple only has two vowels the others have three? Apple doesn't have an "o"?
20 years. It looks to me like this one was actually filed on 2 Jan 1997 and granted on 6 Apr 1999. [1]. I think the 1992 date came from on of the patents used as a reference in the application.
I flipped through and there doesn't seam to be anything about weak hash tables, but that's not surprising seeing as TAOCP is written around an assembly language, while weak hash tables make most sense in a GCed environment.
If they referenced it and the patent was still granted, that's bad. It means that the USPTO still considered the patent to be "novel" in spite of all the information found in TAOCP.
I put "novel" in quotes because the courts seem to use a hair-splitting definition of it. I honestly think that, when faced with a pile of Lego blocks, there are patent lawyers who could argue that it's non-obvious that one could combine them.
You have to read the claims if you want to know what the patent covers. Everything else is just background information and helps in understanding what the claims mean.
>> Performing storage and retrieval that uses the hashing technique with the external chaining method for collision resolution.
Isnt this just describing a hash table?
>> In order to prevent performance deterioration due to the presence of automatically expiring data items, a garbage collection technique is used that removes all expired records stored in the system in the external chain targeted by a probe into the data storage system.
So the software doesn't run slowly, we're going to do something special to get rid of those pesky expired records.
I believe, "removes all expired records stored in the system in the external chain targeted by a probe into the data storage system." is just preparing you for the description of what they're going to do, without actually saying anything.
>> Each insertion, retrieval, or deletion of a record is an occasion to search an entire linked-list chain of records for expired items and then remove them.
Whenever an action is taken on a record, remove expired records near the record targeted by the action.
>> Because an expired data item will not remain in the system long term if the system is frequently probed, it is useful for large information storage systems that are heavily used, require the fast access provided by hashing, and cannot be taken off-line for removal of expired data.
Expired items don't stay long. System doesn't have to be taken offline to remove expired items... Because they remove expired items after CRUD of a record takes place, I guess.
Surely I'm missing something here. Or is it just that silly that you can get a patent on something like this?