Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon S3 is Patent-Pending

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the seriously-we-got-patent-pending-on-that dept.

theodp writes "If your startup is counting on a copycat service to emerge for Amazon S3 disaster recovery, you might want to start thinking about a Plan C. On Thursday, the USPTO disclosed that Amazon wants a patent for its Distributed storage system with web services client interface invention, aka Amazon Simple Storage Service."

4 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. That's a great idea! by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that? Luckily I've still got my patent for a water holding container.

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  2. It's a crazy patent world after all... by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the Abstract:

    A system may include a web services interface configured to receive, according to a web services protocol, a given client request for access to a given data object, the request including a key value corresponding to the object...


    Hey, we're doing this everyday right? I had used webservices to send and receive all sorts of objects before, text, images, passwords in plain text and stores/reads them from a storage where I use a key value to access it...
  3. Re:Obvious 75 times by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Informative

    Surely someone's done a redundant db with a web services interface before? How else could they have done it than that? You see, this is what happens when non-lawyers read patents. Now, I am not a lawyer either, but I at least read what Wikipedia says about this matter. As I understand it, claim #1 that you mention is an 'independent' claim. Later claims (some of those 74) are 'dependent' claims. They refine and specify what the independent claim states.

    So, yes, the independent claim #1 is very broad. It probably wouldn't hold up in a court. But since no legal precedent exists, Amazon don't know if it will or not. So they keep it as independent claim #1. If in fact prior art invalidates it, then the patent still pertains to whatever the far-more-specific dependent claims #2-#75 refer to. Presumably a very specific manner of implementing #1. Amazon actually hope to patent that specific implementation, but they write it in this notation of independent-dependent claims because that is how patents are written.

    But, as I said, IANAL. So perhaps we all shouldn't speculate too much.
  4. Example by Jaaay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Example of why patent reform cant happen. Most problems with the system could be fixed by replacing the idiots with people who wont look at this sort of obvious nonsense but these guys like Amazon have the money and a vested interest in abusing the system like this so unless overnight 100 million people make this a campaign issue it just cant happen. It's a pretty sad situation because in theory patents are a very good idea, so if some poor guy invents some amazing genuine invention he cant get usurped by big companies and can profit from his brains. Of course in practice this isn't working out so well the last decade in particular.