You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Joscha Feth <jo...@feth.com> on 2010/01/20 13:06:51 UTC
Map/Reduce patent granted
Hi List,
I don't know if anyone of you has a good enough connection to Google,
but it would sure be a good thing to ask about this one:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,650,331 and
CouchDB...
regards,
Joscha
--
Re: Map/Reduce patent granted
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, if they can show you've read the patent they get "willful
infringement damages" and other bits. As a FOSS I've been trained to
never ever read patents. The M/R one just kinda sprung up and caught
me like a deer in headlights.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Daniel Truemper
<tr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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 <pa...@gmail.com>:
>>> 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
>
>
Re: Map/Reduce patent granted
Posted by Joscha Feth <jo...@feth.com>.
Daniel Truemper wrote:
Hi Daniel,
> [1]: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-31
> [2]:
> http://gigaom.com/2010/01/19/why-hadoop-users-shouldnt-fear-googles-ne
> w-mapreduce-patent/
didn't know those two - thanks - seems as if we should be on the safe
side here!
regards,
Joscha
Re: Map/Reduce patent granted
Posted by Daniel Truemper <tr...@googlemail.com>.
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 <pa...@gmail.com>:
>> 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
Re: Map/Reduce patent granted
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
On 20 Jan 2010, at 13:55, David Coallier wrote:
> 2010/1/20 Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>:
>> 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.
Google is one of the main sponsors of the ASF, and has worked tirelessly to help and promote community software.
I would literally fall out my seat if they ever used this patent aggressively against any us or anyone like us.
Re: Map/Reduce patent granted
Posted by David Coallier <da...@gmail.com>.
2010/1/20 Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>:
> 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
Re: Map/Reduce patent granted
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
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...
HTH,
Paul Davis
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Joscha Feth <jo...@feth.com> wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I don't know if anyone of you has a good enough connection to Google,
> but it would sure be a good thing to ask about this one:
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,650,331 and
> CouchDB...
>
> regards,
> Joscha
>
> --
>
>
>