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. >> > > >> > > 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. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
