Comments on: More patent nonsense — Google MapReduce http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/ Choices in data management and analysis Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:51:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Three kinds of software innovation, and whether patents could possibly work for them | DBMS 2 : DataBase Management System Services http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-226652 Three kinds of software innovation, and whether patents could possibly work for them | DBMS 2 : DataBase Management System Services Thu, 09 Jun 2011 04:37:56 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-226652 [...] negative comments about patents in the areas of MapReduce and columnar [...] [...] negative comments about patents in the areas of MapReduce and columnar [...]

]]> By: A Practical Rant about Software Patents http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-212029 A Practical Rant about Software Patents Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:22:19 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-212029 [...] it has obtained patents for some of its major innovations, such as MapReduce. Let’s put aside questions about the validity of the MapReduce patent — especially since patents enjoy the presumption of validity. The bigger question is to whom [...] [...] it has obtained patents for some of its major innovations, such as MapReduce. Let’s put aside questions about the validity of the MapReduce patent — especially since patents enjoy the presumption of validity. The bigger question is to whom [...]

]]> By: anonymous http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-196009 anonymous Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:54:55 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-196009 That was very informative and well written. I look forward for further posts from you. Recently I came across an article titled “A functionality based approach for assessing patentability of software” which I felt, is quite interesting and informative. I would like to bring your kind attention to the above mentioned article. Below given is an excerpt of the article. “The whole idea of software is to avoid making specific hardware for every application. We came up with software to be able to dynamically create a new "machine" out of a standard hardware. A software allows the "new" machine to perform a "new" function based on the instructions as part of the software. Now, saying that a software invention to be claimed must have a specific machine limitation is like asking the inventor to come up with corresponding hardware embodiment for the software based invention. It really defeats the purpose of…” read more at http://www.sinapseblog.com/2010/12/functionality-based-approach-for.html That was very informative and well written. I look forward for further posts from you. Recently I came across an article titled “A functionality based approach for assessing patentability of software” which I felt, is quite interesting and informative. I would like to bring your kind attention to the above mentioned article. Below given is an excerpt of the article.

“The whole idea of software is to avoid making specific hardware for every application. We came up with software to be able to dynamically create a new “machine” out of a standard hardware. A software allows the “new” machine to perform a “new” function based on the instructions as part of the software.

Now, saying that a software invention to be claimed must have a specific machine limitation is like asking the inventor to come up with corresponding hardware embodiment for the software based invention. It really defeats the purpose of…” read more at http://www.sinapseblog.com/2010/12/functionality-based-approach-for.html

]]> By: Chris http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-169663 Chris Mon, 24 May 2010 05:19:09 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-169663 This is a defensive patent to use against someone like say DuckDuckGo or Bing if they conduct a raid. This is a defensive patent to use against someone like say DuckDuckGo or Bing if they conduct a raid.

]]> By: Emil Koutanov http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-164174 Emil Koutanov Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:10:42 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-164174 Actually Curt, you're right. But after filing, don't you need to somehow indicate that a patent is pending on the technology. I think a number of people in the industry may have falsely relied on the fact that MapReduce was free technology and have implemented their own equivalents - some of which (like Hardoop's case) infringe on the patent. In this example, common sense didn't prevail and the US patent office granted something that it should never had. I understand the need for patenting when it comes to large pharmaceutical giants spending billions of dollars on R&D, but I think software patents are a form of fascism and a way of holding the world to ransom for what is in a prevailing majority of cases doesn't amount to anything inventive or innovative, and often is the only logical solution given a problem. Take patents on GUIs, Amazon's one-click and now this garbage from Google. I think if a software house wants to protect its assets, it needs to start by protecting the source code from leaking into the public domain. Otherwise, one could simply copy 90% of the patent, modify the remaining 10% so as to not infringe and I've personally seen this happen. And then there are countries like China that don't give a flying rats ass about protecting intellectual property. Actually Curt, you’re right. But after filing, don’t you need to somehow indicate that a patent is pending on the technology. I think a number of people in the industry may have falsely relied on the fact that MapReduce was free technology and have implemented their own equivalents – some of which (like Hardoop’s case) infringe on the patent. In this example, common sense didn’t prevail and the US patent office granted something that it should never had.

I understand the need for patenting when it comes to large pharmaceutical giants spending billions of dollars on R&D, but I think software patents are a form of fascism and a way of holding the world to ransom for what is in a prevailing majority of cases doesn’t amount to anything inventive or innovative, and often is the only logical solution given a problem. Take patents on GUIs, Amazon’s one-click and now this garbage from Google.

I think if a software house wants to protect its assets, it needs to start by protecting the source code from leaking into the public domain. Otherwise, one could simply copy 90% of the patent, modify the remaining 10% so as to not infringe and I’ve personally seen this happen. And then there are countries like China that don’t give a flying rats ass about protecting intellectual property.

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-164052 Curt Monash Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:02:08 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-164052 @Emil, Under US patent law, you just have to get the filing in before publication. What's published after you file -- even or especially by you -- doesn't hurt patentability. Interesting thought that being even more parallel would be a patent workaround. I haven't read closely enough to see whether I agree. @Emil,

Under US patent law, you just have to get the filing in before publication. What’s published after you file — even or especially by you — doesn’t hurt patentability.

Interesting thought that being even more parallel would be a patent workaround. I haven’t read closely enough to see whether I agree.

]]> By: Emil Koutanov http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-164039 Emil Koutanov Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:21:28 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-164039 Following on, it seems that a workaround for this patent is a fairly trivial one. Google's system and method scope a centralised "master" controller to co-ordinate the mapped jobs. It should be quite straightforward to use a non-centralised approach (where one job could be coordinated by one server, but another job by another server), thereby not infringing. And because I've just published it on this forum (and I'm confident others have proposed similar things before me), this very text now constitutes both prior art and public domain exposure, so no-one can patent it. You're all welcome. Don't mention it. :) Following on, it seems that a workaround for this patent is a fairly trivial one. Google’s system and method scope a centralised “master” controller to co-ordinate the mapped jobs. It should be quite straightforward to use a non-centralised approach (where one job could be coordinated by one server, but another job by another server), thereby not infringing. And because I’ve just published it on this forum (and I’m confident others have proposed similar things before me), this very text now constitutes both prior art and public domain exposure, so no-one can patent it.

You’re all welcome. Don’t mention it. :)

]]> By: Emil Koutanov http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-164036 Emil Koutanov Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:14:55 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-164036 Breaking news: Google has patented the internet. All you comment posters are infringing! But on a slightly more serious note, one argument that most people have left out is that this technology is not only prior art, but it was release by Google itself into the public domain (not the source code, but the concepts and the workings of it), automatically precluding it from being patentable. Breaking news:
Google has patented the internet. All you comment posters are infringing!

But on a slightly more serious note, one argument that most people have left out is that this technology is not only prior art, but it was release by Google itself into the public domain (not the source code, but the concepts and the workings of it), automatically precluding it from being patentable.

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-160013 Curt Monash Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:54:30 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-160013 In principle, Google could publish its own MapReduce distribution, put a price on it, and insist that Hadoop users pay Google that price even if they wanted to keep using Hadoop. In principle, Google could publish its own MapReduce distribution, put a price on it, and insist that Hadoop users pay Google that price even if they wanted to keep using Hadoop.

]]> By: Parag Arora http://www.dbms2.com/2010/02/11/google-mapreduce-patent/#comment-159988 Parag Arora Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:01:05 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1565#comment-159988 I don't understand the consequences of this patent. Will that mean that people who are using map/reduce would need to shift or what? I don’t understand the consequences of this patent. Will that mean that people who are using map/reduce would need to shift or what?

]]>