Udaya Lakshmi
2010-01-20, 16:17
Ravi
2010-01-20, 16:29
Edward Capriolo
2010-01-20, 17:09
Raymond Jennings III
2010-01-20, 17:23
Edward Capriolo
2010-01-20, 17:36
Ravi
2010-01-20, 19:02
松柳
2010-01-20, 20:03
Bill Habermaas
2010-01-20, 20:12
Edward Capriolo
2010-01-20, 20:58
brien colwell
2010-01-20, 21:07
Colin Freas
2010-01-20, 21:42
Bill Graham
2010-01-21, 01:45
BM
2010-01-21, 02:10
Steve Loughran
2010-01-21, 10:29
BM
2010-01-22, 07:37
-
Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceUdaya Lakshmi 2010-01-20, 16:17
Hi,
As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google obtaining
the patent over mapreduce?
Thanks.
As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google obtaining
the patent over mapreduce?
Thanks.
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceRavi 2010-01-20, 16:29
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google obtaining
> the patent over mapreduce?
>
> Thanks.
>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google obtaining
> the patent over mapreduce?
>
> Thanks.
>
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceEdward Capriolo 2010-01-20, 17:09
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google obtaining
>> the patent over mapreduce?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google obtaining
>> the patent over mapreduce?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceRaymond Jennings III 2010-01-20, 17:23
I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another. So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has no intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect themselves from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But yes, the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
--- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> worry about Google obtaining
> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
>
--- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> worry about Google obtaining
> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
>
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceEdward Capriolo 2010-01-20, 17:36
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another. So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has no intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect themselves from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But yes, the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
>
> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
>> worry about Google obtaining
>> >> the patent over mapreduce?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
@Raymond
Yes. I agree with you.
As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
that they could be targeted just for using the software.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another. So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has no intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect themselves from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But yes, the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
>
> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
>> worry about Google obtaining
>> >> the patent over mapreduce?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
@Raymond
Yes. I agree with you.
As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
that they could be targeted just for using the software.
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceRavi 2010-01-20, 19:02
Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a
> patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another.
> So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has no
> intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect themselves
> from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But yes,
> the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> >> worry about Google obtaining
> >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> @Raymond
>
> Yes. I agree with you.
>
> As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
> target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
> large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
> that they could be targeted just for using the software.
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a
> patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another.
> So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has no
> intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect themselves
> from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But yes,
> the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> >> worry about Google obtaining
> >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> @Raymond
>
> Yes. I agree with you.
>
> As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
> target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
> large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
> that they could be targeted just for using the software.
>
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce松柳 2010-01-20, 20:03
Just want to ask, how about AWS? Many services/programms runing on AWS are
based on M/R mechanism.
Does this mean, they owners of these softeware may be targeted in law, How
about Amazon itself?
Song
2010/1/20 Ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk?
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times
> a
> > patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from
> another.
> > So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has
> no
> > intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect
> themselves
> > from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But
> yes,
> > the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> > >> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> > >> worry about Google obtaining
> > >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > @Raymond
> >
> > Yes. I agree with you.
> >
> > As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
> > target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
> > large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
> > that they could be targeted just for using the software.
> >
>
based on M/R mechanism.
Does this mean, they owners of these softeware may be targeted in law, How
about Amazon itself?
Song
2010/1/20 Ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk?
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times
> a
> > patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from
> another.
> > So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has
> no
> > intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect
> themselves
> > from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But
> yes,
> > the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> > >> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> > >> worry about Google obtaining
> > >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > @Raymond
> >
> > Yes. I agree with you.
> >
> > As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
> > target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
> > large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
> > that they could be targeted just for using the software.
> >
>
-
RE: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceBill Habermaas 2010-01-20, 20:12
It is likely that Google filed the patent as a matter of record for their own protection - to make sure someone else could not do the same and put them at risk for a patent violation suit.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: 松柳 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
Just want to ask, how about AWS? Many services/programms runing on AWS are
based on M/R mechanism.
Does this mean, they owners of these softeware may be targeted in law, How
about Amazon itself?
Song
2010/1/20 Ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk?
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times
> a
> > patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from
> another.
> > So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has
> no
> > intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect
> themselves
> > from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But
> yes,
> > the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> > >> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> > >> worry about Google obtaining
> > >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > @Raymond
> >
> > Yes. I agree with you.
> >
> > As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: 松柳 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
Just want to ask, how about AWS? Many services/programms runing on AWS are
based on M/R mechanism.
Does this mean, they owners of these softeware may be targeted in law, How
about Amazon itself?
Song
2010/1/20 Ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk?
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times
> a
> > patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from
> another.
> > So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has
> no
> > intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect
> themselves
> > from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But
> yes,
> > the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
> > >> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
> > >> worry about Google obtaining
> > >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > @Raymond
> >
> > Yes. I agree with you.
> >
> > As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceEdward Capriolo 2010-01-20, 20:58
I was just mentioning that in the sco linux suit , comanies that were
using linux as a fileserver or ftp server were targeted, not only
companies that developed packaged linux.
Relying on a corporation to be benevolant, is a risk in itself. A
change in management could cause a change in policy.
a decision maker might avoid hadoop as it is more risky to deploy now.
In particular if that company was in some way competitive to google.
I imagine google will make some comment.
On 1/20/10, Ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk?
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a
>> patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another.
>> So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has
>> no
>> intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect
>> themselves
>> from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But
>> yes,
>> the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
>> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
>> >> worry about Google obtaining
>> >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> @Raymond
>>
>> Yes. I agree with you.
>>
>> As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
>> target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
>> large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
>> that they could be targeted just for using the software.
using linux as a fileserver or ftp server were targeted, not only
companies that developed packaged linux.
Relying on a corporation to be benevolant, is a risk in itself. A
change in management could cause a change in policy.
a decision maker might avoid hadoop as it is more risky to deploy now.
In particular if that company was in some way competitive to google.
I imagine google will make some comment.
On 1/20/10, Ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk?
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a
>> patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another.
>> So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has
>> no
>> intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect
>> themselves
>> from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But
>> yes,
>> the patent system clearly has problems as you stated.
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Edward Capriolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM
>> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to
>> >> worry about Google obtaining
>> >> >> the patent over mapreduce?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> @Raymond
>>
>> Yes. I agree with you.
>>
>> As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the
>> target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a
>> large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing
>> that they could be targeted just for using the software.
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreducebrien colwell 2010-01-20, 21:07
>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google
> obtaining
> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google
> obtaining
> >> the patent over mapreduce?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
>
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceColin Freas 2010-01-20, 21:42
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google
> > obtaining
> > >> the patent over mapreduce?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google
> > obtaining
> > >> the patent over mapreduce?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceBill Graham 2010-01-21, 01:45
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to worry about Google
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceBM 2010-01-21, 02:10
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >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.
>> > >
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >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.
>> > >
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceSteve Loughran 2010-01-21, 10:29
Edward Capriolo wrote:
> I was just mentioning that in the sco linux suit , comanies that were
> using linux as a fileserver or ftp server were targeted, not only
> companies that developed packaged linux.
>
> Relying on a corporation to be benevolant, is a risk in itself. A
> change in management could cause a change in policy.
>
> a decision maker might avoid hadoop as it is more risky to deploy now.
> In particular if that company was in some way competitive to google.
>
SCO sued people who had bought Unix source code licenses and threatened
end-users of linux over copyright. No patent lawsuits, just doomed
copyright T&Cs.
Generally those companies that want to work with open source don't waste
time trying to enforce patents because its a losing battle. You lose a
lot of goodwill, and when you consider that the Android stack is built
on truckloads of Apache and other open source java code, the loss of
that goodwill can be quite significant. Add in that Google is a platinum
sponsor of apache, and you can see the conflicts of interest that will
develop.
I have no idea what they will do with the MR patent, but note that the
ASF license says "Sue someone over some apache code you have a patent
for and you lose the right to use that apache code yourself". While
Google don't use Hadoop internally, they have been using it for their
academic testbed.
Finally, I don't think the patent applies outside the US, and if they
published before filing, its harder to get an EU/UK patent. So host your
code here in europe and not only are you free from this patent concern,
your customers benefit from your requirement to follow EU data
protection laws. Everyone wins.
-Steve
> I was just mentioning that in the sco linux suit , comanies that were
> using linux as a fileserver or ftp server were targeted, not only
> companies that developed packaged linux.
>
> Relying on a corporation to be benevolant, is a risk in itself. A
> change in management could cause a change in policy.
>
> a decision maker might avoid hadoop as it is more risky to deploy now.
> In particular if that company was in some way competitive to google.
>
SCO sued people who had bought Unix source code licenses and threatened
end-users of linux over copyright. No patent lawsuits, just doomed
copyright T&Cs.
Generally those companies that want to work with open source don't waste
time trying to enforce patents because its a losing battle. You lose a
lot of goodwill, and when you consider that the Android stack is built
on truckloads of Apache and other open source java code, the loss of
that goodwill can be quite significant. Add in that Google is a platinum
sponsor of apache, and you can see the conflicts of interest that will
develop.
I have no idea what they will do with the MR patent, but note that the
ASF license says "Sue someone over some apache code you have a patent
for and you lose the right to use that apache code yourself". While
Google don't use Hadoop internally, they have been using it for their
academic testbed.
Finally, I don't think the patent applies outside the US, and if they
published before filing, its harder to get an EU/UK patent. So host your
code here in europe and not only are you free from this patent concern,
your customers benefit from your requirement to follow EU data
protection laws. Everyone wins.
-Steve
-
Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduceBM 2010-01-22, 07:37
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SCO sued people who had bought Unix source code licenses and threatened
> end-users of linux over copyright. No patent lawsuits, just doomed copyright
> T&Cs.
Yes, and Oracle was the very first company that said "Screw you, SCO:
prove or shut up". The only stupid end-users started to purchase silly
copies. I'd say, SCO should be sued for this, because basically they
said for that Linux is stolen from them and is illegal, while it is
not true at all.
So I don't see the point here about Map Reduce... :-)
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
> SCO sued people who had bought Unix source code licenses and threatened
> end-users of linux over copyright. No patent lawsuits, just doomed copyright
> T&Cs.
Yes, and Oracle was the very first company that said "Screw you, SCO:
prove or shut up". The only stupid end-users started to purchase silly
copies. I'd say, SCO should be sued for this, because basically they
said for that Linux is stolen from them and is illegal, while it is
not true at all.
So I don't see the point here about Map Reduce... :-)
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
