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.
> >>
> >
> 



Reply via email to