[roadcat]

I've been writing computer programs for almost 50 years, and sorting programs are one of the primary functions that are programmed into computers for use. However, there are many different types of sorting algorithms. So maybe this litigation is about a particular method used in an algorithm to sort data.

A very common type of sort algorithm is the Bubble Sort technique. Easy to program and use, but highly inefficient. I've rewritten machine code sort routines in IBM mainframes, swapping out bubble sorts for different types of shell sorts that run thousands of times faster in sorting data.

Just saying, maybe there was an infringement on the method of sorting. I hate to think someone would patent a sort technique rather than publishing it for the public to use. Many books have been written on sort techniques given to the public domain without compensation to the originators.

[roadcat]

Visualization of 15 different sorting algorithms (they do not compare the same data, and are not compared for speed, just a display of their workings in a visual and audio way on YouTube).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg

[Swordmaker]

Take a look at the patent and see what you think:

US6006227

[cynwoody]

I've been writing computer programs for almost 50 years, and sorting programs are one of the primary functions that are programmed into computers for use. However, there are many different types of sorting algorithms. So maybe this litigation is about a particular method used in an algorithm to sort data.

Can't be that. The "prior art" would be overwhelming to any patent case.

This case has to be about applying said prior art to previously unthought of sortables, such as documents folks might want to store in the "cloud". As such, it is obvious, and should not be patentable. Sorting algorithms are obvious. Applying them to thingies in the cloud is obvious.

In general, software and business method innovations should not be patentable!