In a recent job interview I was asked to code a doubly linked list as part of the coding part of the interview. Linked lists are patented, did me implementing this break the law?
That only covers linked lists that have multiple "next" pointers, so you can traverse it in more than one order. It's still stupidly obvious, but does not cover singly-linked lists.
Ah, I misread. In that case it is claimed by that patent, but this almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court, because there's so much prior art for doubly-linked lists.
This situation would be laughable if it weren't backed up by the force of law.
states
"
The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial (or to have a commercial purpose) to constitute patent infringement.[citation needed]
"
Pretty unlikely in this case, but I can think of interviews where I had the same concern. MegaCorp posed a problem they were having (eg. preventing radar self jamming), I told them one solution I knew of, but I was very careful to point out that it was patented less they turn around and use it.
So I share the parent's question: Can you be held liable for infringement due to a job interview answer?
That seems to be specific way of traversing Linked Lists (which ostensibly is different than all the other ways it has been done in textbooks, published code etc.) , not Linked Lists themselves. If you find a way of traversing a list in a way that has not been done before you can apply for a patent fort that technique. If i were to use that technique of traversing linked in a product that i sell, you could sue me. However, if came up with that particular, specific way of traversing a linked list in an interview, no patents are violated anywhere. That's just silly.
I. Software is mathematics.
II. Mathematics are not patentable.
>> Software is not patentable.
Pick a premise and argue against it. Or, don't bother: you and the US legal system are in an argument against reality. It's not a winnable argument, but sense can take a long time to percolate through obstinate stupidity.
i'm not arguing for or against patents on software, mathematics or otherwise. I'm just saying that answering an interview question about how a particular thing might be done is not in violation of any patent laws. Replace "method for traversing linked lists" with "a new technique for cutting wood using a new tool" if you feel so strongly about software patents.
