hadoop-common-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BM <bogdan.maryn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
Date Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:10:28 GMT
Folks.

You still breaking all the damn patents, when you're develop your
software with a progress-bar or popup windows or clicking buttons or
some sort of a window manager.

Mainly this patent is for well known Homer Simpson lookalike
(http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Steve_Ballmer) that basically says
the message: "If you're gonna throw a chair at me in order to f*ing
kill me, I will f*ing kill you in prior to that":
http://battellemedia.com/archives/001835.php

That's it.


--
Bo

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Bill Graham <billgraham@gmail.com> wrote:
> Typically companies will patent their IP as a defensive measure to protect
> themselves from being sued, as has been pointed out already.  Another
> typical reason is to exercise the patent against companies that present a
> challenge to their core business.
>
> I would bet that unless you're making a noticeable dent in google's
> search/ad business, then you really don't need to worry about them enforcing
> the patent against you.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Colin Freas <colinfreas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Developers do themselves, their code, and their users a disservice if they
>> lack some understanding of intellectual property law.  It can be
>> complicated, but it isn't rocket science.
>>
>> In the United States, Google is protected by the "first to
>> invent<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent>"
>> principle: they can safely publish anything they want about their invention
>> prior to applying for a patent if they can prove they came up with the
>> invention first.
>>
>> As others have pointed out, it isn't something to panic over.  This is
>> Google, not Rambus.  It would be nice to see Google proactively and
>> explicitly say "We're not going to enforce this patent."
>>
>> But this patent and a lot of other software and business process patents
>> could be in danger of being summarily overturned, depending on how the US
>> Supreme Court rules in the Bilski case.  It's possible they wanted to
>> acquire this patent before that ruling, since it would give them standing
>> to
>> challenge a lot of potentially unfavorable outcomes.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:07 PM, brien colwell <xcolwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Personally, it
>> > seems like they gave away too much information before they had the
>> > patent.
>> >
>> > I'm not a patent lawyer, but I'd expect they submitted the patent
>> > application or a provisional before they submitted their academic paper
>> or
>> > other public disclosure.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Interesting situation.
>> > >
>> > > I try to compare mapreduce to the camera. Let argue Google is Kodak,
>> > > Apache is Polaroid, and MapReduce is a Camera. Imagine Kodak invented
>> > > the camera privately, never sold it to anyone, but produced some
>> > > document describing what a camera did.
>> > >
>> > > Polaroid followed the document and produced a camera and sold it
>> > > publicly. Kodak later patents a camera, even though no one outside of
>> > > Kodak can confirm Kodak ever made a camera before Polaroid.
>> > >
>> > > Not saying that is what happened here, but google releasing the GFS
>> > > pdf was a large factor in causing hadoop to happen. Personally, it
>> > > seems like they gave away too much information before they had the
>> > > patent.
>> > >
>> > > The patent system faces many problems including this 'back to the
>> > > future' issue. Where it takes so long to get a patent no one can wait,
>> > > by the time a patent is issued there are already multiple viable
>> > > implementations of a patent.
>> > >
>> > > I am no patent layer or anything, but I notice the phrase "master
>> > > process" all over the claims. Maybe if a piece of software (hadoop)
>> > > had a "distributed process" that would be sufficient to say hadoop
>> > > technology does not infringe on this patent.
>> > >
>> > > I think it would be interesting to look deeply at each claim and
>> > > determine if hadoop could be designed to not infringe on these
>> > > patents, to deal with what if scenarios.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Ravi <ravindra.babu.ravula@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >  I too read about that news. I don't think that it will be any
>> problem.
>> > > > However Google didn't invent the model.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Udaya Lakshmi <udaya603@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi,
>> > > >>   As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google
>> > > obtaining
>> > > >> the patent over mapreduce?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks.
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>



-- 
Kind regards, BM

Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.

Mime
View raw message