[9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
The amazing PATENTED IBM Multi-Pipe! I wanted to post to let 9fans know about an exciting new software patent that was just issued by the US patent office. United States Patent #8,380,765 is for an incredible new Plan 9 related supercomputing technology called the Multi-pipe. If you want to know what a Multi-pipe is, its simple: The basic idea of a multi-pipe is a natural evolution of the original Unix pipes concept, updated to the modern networking era. Instead of just having a single reader and a single writer on the ends of a pipe, a Multi-pipe allows you to multiplex readers and writers. This upgrade to unix pipes - especially when combined with network transparency such as that provided by 9P - lets you do cluster processing techniques like fan-out, fan-in, using very similar semantics to traditional unix pipes, but with arbitrarily complex topologies of multiple readers and writers. The Blue Gene team wrote about multipipes: The result dramatically simplified the architecture and improved overall system performance. It became clear that multipipes were a useful primitive for the construction of applications and other system services. (Quote from the IBM HARE Final Research Report RC25241 (W-212) November 28 2011 Computer Science) I believe the idea of a Multi-pipe is a natural progression of basic unix pipes, and this amazing Patented Invention of IBM's is something that I think everyone should know about. In fact, I am so excited by the Multi-pipe that I have made an effort to allow all Plan 9 users the ability to get the same benefits as offered by this amazing Patented Invention that was purely the result of IBM's original research and innovation. Because IBM has a patent on this technology, it wasn't safe to just try to put out my own version and offer it to the world. IBM has a lot of lawyers - and probably some of those lawyers were trained by my late father, John A. Kidwell. He taught intellectual property law at the University of Wisconsin for a long time, and he gave me a lot of good advice. One piece of his good advice was that you never, ever, ever should disagree with the IBM lawyers. So, I hope that everything in this post shows that I am in complete agreement with all of the opinions of IBM's legal team, whatever they are. Anyway, I thought the world deserved to have a non-patent encumbered version of Multi-pipes that could deliver very similar functionality, but not conflict with IBM's Patented Invention. So, I used /dev/timemachine to send some software back in time to 2009, before I could see any trace of IBM Multi-pipes. I sent the Iosrv and Hubfs software back to the sources server between 7/01/09 and 8/01/09 (you can check the dump) so in this way I thought I could avoid any potential issues with IBM's legal team. I hope that anyone who is interested in US Patent 8380765: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=8380765.PN.OS=PN/8380765RS=PN/8380765 Might be interested in a free open source alternative which should be free of any patent licensing issues in relation to this patent. -Ben Kidwell mycroftiv PS - I have tremendous personal respect and admiration for the individuals who worked on the Blue Gene project. As a hobbyist programmer with a basement of junky old computers, it is exciting to feel a kind of mental kinship with others who are working at a vastly larger scale on more significant projects. I hope someday to meet some of you and we can talk Plan 9 and it will be very friendly. I am an old hippie who is full of peace and love. I do truly love the Patented Invention of multi-pipes so my use of a time machine to send similar software back in time shouldn't be taken as anything other than attempt to give a good idea to the community in a way which is free of patent issues.
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
congrats to ericvh. - erik
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
Here's the original iosrv/hub announcement: http://9fans.net/archive/2009/07/278 So what's the real difference between iosrv/hubfs and MULTI-PIPES? Is anyone here good enough at translating patentese to code to tell what the technical differences are? The patent even specifically mentions 9P. khm
[9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
Kurt H Maier wrote: So what's the real difference between iosrv/hubfs and MULTI-PIPES? Is anyone here good enough at translating patentese to code to tell what the technical differences are? The patent even specifically mentions 9P. Well, since I'm trying to deal with this in human way rather than a legalistic way, I'll just share my honest perspective without any kind of sarcasm etc. I didn't really mean to kick any hornet's nests. Software patents are basically BS. I don't think I invented anything in any software I have written. At the end of the manpage for hubfs, I put a big quote from an interview with Ken Thompson where he is talking about Doug McIlroy's ideas in the 60s and how they were too complex. The point I was making was that I perceived hubfs to be a simple way to implement the ideas that Doug McIlroy had invented - and I don't think HE should have gotten a patent either! MULTI-PIPES have a more complicated control interface and I'm sure the implementation is in every single way more robust and better engineered than my little 9pfile 9pfs. When I said I know better than to disagree with the professional opinion of the IBM lawyers, I meant it. I highly doubt any random individual who writes software is going to accomplish anything arguing with them about who the inventor of an idea is. My belief is that Doug McIlroy is the inventor, if anyone. Before I saw this patent, to whatever extent I knew about multi-pipes in relation to anything I'd done, I was just happy if there was some kind of parallel evolution or inspiration or anything between myself as a hobbyist and the big time pros working on Blue Gene. Seeing a patent though makes me feel differently - because I don't think anyone should be paying IBM for using buffered muxed network transparent pipes. Anyway, I meant what I said about how on a personal level I feel friendly toward everyone on the Blue Gene project and I'd love to have a positive and not antagonistic relationship with everyone involved in Plan 9. -Ben Kidwell mycroftiv
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
Is this all a threat? 9fans cold war veterans playing out the old game or something?
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote: Here's the original iosrv/hub announcement: http://9fans.net/archive/2009/07/278 So what's the real difference between iosrv/hubfs and MULTI-PIPES? Is anyone here good enough at translating patentese to code to tell what the technical differences are? The patent even specifically mentions 9P. khm The primary difference is that the multi-pipes patent is probably shorter than that announcement. I probably didn't read the iosrv and hubfs stuff well enough, but multi-pipes are not like gnu screen--unless hubfs and/or iosrv can do barriers and reduces and I just missed that part? john
[9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
John Floren wrote: I probably didn't read the iosrv and hubfs stuff well enough, but multi-pipes are not like gnu screen--unless hubfs and/or iosrv can do barriers and reduces and I just missed that part? The connection to screen is really only in usage. Iosrv and Hubfs were the result of trying to give myself persistent rc shells in Plan 9. Because of the absence of the TTY layer, it seemed like the thing to do was to buffer and multiplex each file descriptor of a shell, and allow multiple clients to connect to those buffers. Even though this architecture was created for keeping persistent rc shells around, I realized that it was actually a very beautiful general purpose extension of the original unix pipes, and could be used for a large number of purposes, including cluster processing type applications. So the connection to screen is not technical at all - just that the main purpose I wrote iosrv/hubfs for (and btw hubfs is vastly superior to iosrv for practical use if anyone is interested) was to keep persistent rc shells around on remote machines for analogous usage to screen. Anyway, I think multipipes/hubs/pipemuxers are just a good idea for Plan 9 (and probably standard unixes too) and that they fit beautifully with 9P and the whole system. I'd like to move forward with trying to make good Plan 9 software and not have this particular little patent kerfuffle turn into anything majorly disruptive. Ben Kidwell mycroftiv -Who would rather go back to trying to explain ANTS and hoping that other Plan 9 users would take an interest and explore it.
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:17 AM, mycrof...@sphericalharmony.com wrote: John Floren wrote: I probably didn't read the iosrv and hubfs stuff well enough, but multi-pipes are not like gnu screen--unless hubfs and/or iosrv can do barriers and reduces and I just missed that part? The connection to screen is really only in usage. Iosrv and Hubfs were the result of trying to give myself persistent rc shells in Plan 9. Because of the absence of the TTY layer, it seemed like the thing to do was to buffer and multiplex each file descriptor of a shell, and allow multiple clients to connect to those buffers. Even though this architecture was created for keeping persistent rc shells around, I realized that it was actually a very beautiful general purpose extension of the original unix pipes, and could be used for a large number of purposes, including cluster processing type applications. So the connection to screen is not technical at all - just that the main purpose I wrote iosrv/hubfs for (and btw hubfs is vastly superior to iosrv for practical use if anyone is interested) was to keep persistent rc shells around on remote machines for analogous usage to screen. Anyway, I think multipipes/hubs/pipemuxers are just a good idea for Plan 9 (and probably standard unixes too) and that they fit beautifully with 9P and the whole system. I'd like to move forward with trying to make good Plan 9 software and not have this particular little patent kerfuffle turn into anything majorly disruptive. Ben Kidwell mycroftiv -Who would rather go back to trying to explain ANTS and hoping that other Plan 9 users would take an interest and explore it. Well, you made it a kerfuffle, and then somebody decided to post it to HN, so well done that. If you come in saying Oh look somebody made a patent but I think this is prior art, expect a kerfuffle. (That's a good word. Kerfuffle) Looking through my mail archives, I found a link from Eric that led me to http://graverobbers.blogspot.com/search/label/brasil which I think contains the seeds of multi-pipes. Note that these were all posted prior to your time-traveling expedition. john
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Mar 15, 2013, at 6:21 AM, mycrof...@sphericalharmony.com wrote: Anyway, I thought the world deserved to have a non-patent encumbered version of Multi-pipes that could deliver very similar functionality, but not conflict with IBM's Patented Invention. So, I used /dev/timemachine to send some software back in time to 2009, before I could see any trace of IBM Multi-pipes. I sent the Iosrv and Hubfs software back to the sources server between 7/01/09 and 8/01/09 (you can check the dump) so in this way I thought I could avoid any potential issues with IBM's legal team. Patents are different from copyright. I don't think it matters whether you saw the IBM patent info or not when you developed your code. From what I understand, if you used the same technique you *may be* violating the patent even if you independently came up with the idea. If it is same or close enough, what matters is if your code can be shown as prior art. Whether software patents are evil or not and whether the current patent system is broken are meta issues and don't really influence how specific patent issues are resolved. Usual caveats apply.
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
great, from mac os and virtual machines we're back to what really matters: bureaucracy
[9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
John Floren wrote: Looking through my mail archives, I found a link from Eric that led me to http://graverobbers.blogspot.com/search/label/brasil which I think contains the seeds of multi-pipes. Note that these were all posted prior to your time-traveling expedition. I apologize for not making myself clear. I believe that the basic ideas of multipipes/hubfs and probably MANY OTHER pieces of software from 1970-now were all established as prior art far in the past - literally decades before multipipes or hubfs. Hubfs was simply an attempt to implement already existing ideas stated by Doug McIlroy and others. I make ZERO claim of invention or originality in Hubfs or Iosrv. However, software patents are a Very Bad Thing no matter what, and a software patent on the idea of multiplexing unix pipes is a truly terrible one, making a simple and generic concept that should be widespread in computing into the monopoly property of a single company which I do not believe can actually take credit for the core idea. So, the tl; dr is - this is an area of interest to me which my own work makes me care very much about. I do not believe it is my own work in particular which has any significance, but my own work gives me emotional motivation to object strongly to this absurd software patent. Ben Kidwell mycroftiv
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:29:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: If it is same or close enough, what matters is if your code can be shown as prior art. I don't see how. The US is first-to-file land, now. khm
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:46:54 EDT Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:29:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: If it is same or close enough, what matters is if your code can be shown as prior art. I don't see how. The US is first-to-file land, now. I believe prior art does matter. Otherwise I can trawl through all old tech papers and start filing patents left and right -- wouldn't be surprised if someone has already tried that! I am not a lawyer etc.
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Fri Mar 15 14:18:28 EDT 2013, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote: On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:46:54 EDT Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:29:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: If it is same or close enough, what matters is if your code can be shown as prior art. I don't see how. The US is first-to-file land, now. I believe prior art does matter. Otherwise I can trawl through all old tech papers and start filing patents left and right -- wouldn't be surprised if someone has already tried that! I am not a lawyer etc. ianal, but i believe no disclosure is allowed before filing. it's a deal. disclosure for patent. if it's already disclosed there can't be a deal. - erik
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Mar 15, 2013, at 13:46, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:29:09AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: If it is same or close enough, what matters is if your code can be shown as prior art. I don't see how. The US is first-to-file land, now. khm I only thought that was starting in April?
Re: [9fans] The PATENTED IBM MULTI-PIPE : the evolution of unix pipes
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 03:20:56PM -0400, Matthew Veety wrote: I only thought that was starting in April? Actually, it starts tomorrow. http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/aia-effective-dates.pdf
