incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: distributed map-reduce views
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:59:00 GMT
patent lawyers are deterministic in my experience. all things
involving computers can be patented as long as your explanation is
impenetrable (assertion void outside the US).

B.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Paul Davis
<paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Robert Dionne
> <dionne@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> A nice explanation. I've never quite known how to respond to people
>>>> that, when I discuss CouchDB with them, say "why not use Hadoop?".
>>>> Admittedly it's mostly because I'm trying to hold back a biting
>>>> comment, since there's really no commonality besides the use of
>>>> (distinct variants of) the Map/Reduce (family of) algorithm(s).
>>>>
>>>> B.
>>>
>>> M/R := Map/Reduce
>>>
>>> Generally, when I hear people comparing CouchDB M/R to Google M/R, I
>>> remind them that Google M/R isn't real M/R.
>>
>> that would explain why they received a patent for it :)
>>
>
> Well, that and patents involve lawyers which are about as
> deterministic as Schrödinger's cat.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> That generally shocks
>>> people enough that they're able to reconsider the differences and how
>>> the two things really aren't the same. Although if someone disagrees
>>> with you because they read the Google white paper on M/R you should
>>> feel free to make extended use of biting comments.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Paul Davis
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message