I was just mentioning that in the sco linux suit , comanies that were using linux as a fileserver or ftp server were targeted, not only companies that developed packaged linux.
Relying on a corporation to be benevolant, is a risk in itself. A change in management could cause a change in policy. a decision maker might avoid hadoop as it is more risky to deploy now. In particular if that company was in some way competitive to google. I imagine google will make some comment. On 1/20/10, Ravi <ravindra.babu.rav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you mean to say companies like yahoo and facebook are taking risk? > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Edward Capriolo > <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Raymond Jennings III >> <raymondj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > I am not a patent attorney either but for what it's worth - many times a >> patent is sought solely to protect a company from being sued from another. >> So even though Hadoop is out there it could be the case that Google has >> no >> intent of suing anyone who uses it - they just wanted to protect >> themselves >> from someone else claiming it as their own and then suing Google. But >> yes, >> the patent system clearly has problems as you stated. >> > >> > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> From: Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >> >> Subject: Re: Google has obtained the patent over mapreduce >> >> To: common-user@hadoop.apache.org >> >> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 12:09 PM >> >> 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 <ravindra.babu.rav...@gmail.com> >> >> 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 <udaya...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> As an user of hadoop, Is there anything to >> >> worry about Google obtaining >> >> >> the patent over mapreduce? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> @Raymond >> >> Yes. I agree with you. >> >> As we have learned from SCO->linux. Corporate users can become the >> target of legal action not the technology vendor. This could scare a >> large corporation away from using hadoop. They take a risk knowing >> that they could be targeted just for using the software. >> >
