"Method for the creation of order from chaos in the memory of a digital computing device".
I thought of patenting well-known, widely-used techniques (e.g. doubly linked lists) as something that happened back in the 80s and 90s, but it seems I was wrong.
They cannot honestly believe this will stand up to scrutiny, and I understand that filing a patent isn't free, so what on earth are they hoping to accomplish?
Edit: changed Their to There (sorry grammar nazis)
I assume s/there/their/g ??
Here's something I posted last month explaining how claims are like AND statements -- if even one element of a particular claim is missing from a method or device, then the claim doesn't cover it: http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2010/04/how-patent-claims-wor...
Now, mathematics had this debate a long time ago: some viewed it as something you discover, others viewed it as something you build. Those two philosophies spur different ways of doing mathematics. Those who viewed mathematics as being build, for instance, tended to reject the `∀P ¬¬P = P` principle.
Also note that neither side really won the argument.
Regarding patents, the two philosophies obviously differ: the discoverers will unconditionally reject patents, while the builders could embrace it. So, for your argument to work, you'd first have to convince everyone that math is indeed discovered.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6675354.html
I just noticed, this is an IBM patent. What are they playing at.
Here's the flowchart for this "invention":
More info at http://patentabsurdity.com/
add.: oh come on, you bitter, sad downvoters.. this is good satire!
