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 > > > obtaining > > > >> the patent over mapreduce? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
