Hi, see also Doug Cutting's comment in the Mahout project [1]:
> > you or any other apache guy are NOT qualified to judge if a patent applies > +1, nor whether its owner objects to your use of any patent. > > I would generally discourage folks from doing patent research when > implementing Apache code. It is usually both a waste of time and dangerous, > since it opens you to the possibility of treble damages. In particular, if > you are involved in patching this issue, please do not read the above cited > patent. > > A patent holder may tell us if they believe we have infringed their patents. > We should generally wait for that event, and not pro-actively seek permission. The Hadoop people probably don't care as well [2]. There is IBM and Yahoo and many others using it that have the money for other suits to oppose this patent. If there were a case I doubt the patent would withstand the fact that map and reduce are around for some time now and that this really is nothing new... Daniel [1]: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-31 [2]: http://gigaom.com/2010/01/19/why-hadoop-users-shouldnt-fear-googles-new-mapreduce-patent/ Am 20.01.2010 um 14:55 schrieb David Coallier: > 2010/1/20 Paul Davis <[email protected]>: >> I'm not concerned. Our implementation isn't really like Google's. >> Single M/R invocations don't get spawned across multiple hosts or have >> automatic restart when nodes fail which is suggested as the crux of >> their patent. They cite implementations for working with large data >> sets that don't have those features as prior art. Not that I spent >> three years of my life in law school... >> > > Good to hear, I could hear the suits getting animated here. > > -- > Slan, > David
