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. >
