Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
Also, this patent has been re-examined and a reexamination certificate issued on 2011-04-12. The last few TIFF images are the pages from the reexamination.
There are now other patents listed as well as more citations to documents and publications. The net effect was to amend the patent by modifying 4 of the original 8 claims and ADDING 4 MORE.
Google Linux servers hit with $5m patent infringement verdict (The Register)
Posted Apr 24, 2011 5:37 UTC (Sun) by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
I did read the written description, though, and presuming that it's not totally fubar'd from the original application, and presuming the patent office and trial court reasonably stuck to the rule (IIRC) that amended claims must fit within the scope of the written description, then it still seems painfully obvious to me, even by my skeptical, biased, anti-patent standards.
Reviewing the Patent
Posted Apr 24, 2011 18:52 UTC (Sun) by orcmid (guest, #74478)
The amended claims do fit. Also, the revision to claims 3 and 5 close a loophole in the wordings that would have had the claims apply to access to the same-hash list for any purpose whatever, rather than only "accessing the linked list of records to search for a target record."
Unless covered by some other patent, it would appear that having a separate process that scans buckets for the sole purpose of scavenging automatically-expired records is not covered, so long as it does not involve the "record search means" for finding a record by its key.
Posted Apr 24, 2011 20:06 UTC (Sun) by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
I'm not very adept at analyzing patent claims; e.g. means-plus-function and anticipation, both of which I would guess were fairly critical to this case.
Posted Apr 27, 2011 8:37 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
Thus there's little point trying to support "TIFF". libtiff tries but it works only for whatever TIFF formats were common enough in the wild at the time the version you have was written. Over the years there has been JPEG-encoded TIFF (early references to a 'JPEG file' are to any of the various incompatible ways to store JPEG data in a TIFF, and not to the simple JFIF standard file format eventually used today), and more recently there are numerous high-bit-per-channel TIFF variants for professional photography, most of them mutually unintelligible of course...
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds