Slashdot Mirror


Google Patents Shipping-Container Data Centers

theodp writes "Two years ago, Robert X. Cringely wrote that Google was experimenting with portable data centers built in standard shipping containers. The idea, Cringely explained, wasn't new and wasn't even Google's, backing up his claim with a link to an Internet-Archive-in-a-Shipping-Container presentation (PDF, dated 11-8-2003) that was reportedly pitched to Larry Page. Google filed for a patent on essentially the same concept on 12-30-2003. And on Tuesday, the USPTO issued the search giant a patent for Modular Data Centers housed in shipping containers, which Google curiously notes facilitate 'rapid and easy relocation to another site depending on changing economic factors'. That's a statement that may make those tax-abating NC officials a tad uneasy."

34 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Oops! by Cap'nPedro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This doesn't look good for Sun's Blackbox project.

    1. Re:Oops! by locokamil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm no expert on patent law, so be gentle.

      Doesn't the existence of Blackbox imply prior art for Google's patent?

    2. Re:Oops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wouldn't claim to possess the insight -- and, I daresay, genius -- required to imagine putting computers in a shipping container.

      Nonetheless, I can humbly state that I'm something of an inventor myself. For the past several years, I've been developing a concept which involves assembling computers in 4-foot by 6-foot containers. I know, it sounds incredible, but it is actually possible (despite the intuitive difficulty).

      I'm looking to monetize the idea, so if you're interested please contact me about patent licensing and such.

      Dr. Hansel Hanselsonson, PhD
      hanselsonson@ingenious-inventions-seriously.com

    3. Re:Oops! by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It depends on when Sun started doing the Blackbox project, and the exact wording of the patent.
      If Sun started in, say, 2000 (I don't know when they did start) then yes, it could be prior art depending on what the patent covers exactly.
      But, if the patent covers something a bit more specific than "computers hooked up in a shipping crate" then it is possible that black box doesn't infringe on this patent, and isn't prior art.

      (IANAL, so copious amounts of sodium chloride recommended with this post.)

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    4. Re:Oops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, looking at google's claims it seems to be more to do with the particular arrangement of the cooling system rather than the act of putting a data center in a box. In fact the pdf referred to in the summary is even cited. So, the examiner was aware of it and considered the application to be inventive over it.

    5. Re:Oops! by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I was stationed in Germany back in 1974-1977 our supply section had a shipping contain, actually a complete semi trailer and inside it was an NCR-500 computer that read and printed to magnetically striped ledger cards for storage and read punch cards for input and of course that trailer was air conditioned, so much for most of the claims.

      a little later we got a HAWK missile platoon command post which was an air-transportable shipping container, once again mounted on a trailer, inside the wire-wrapped cpu of the RCA computer used ferrite cores for memory. I think Google patent really would only have defensive value, there is way too much prior art for them to use it offensively.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  2. Sun Blackbox? by toby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not going to make Sun very happy.

    --
    you had me at #!
  3. Evil by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know this popped into lots of peoples' minds, but...

    Could someone please remind me how patenting something obvious is not evil?

    Basically it reduces the freedom of all law-abiding citizens to do something that's fairly obvious.

    1. Re:Evil by XenoPhage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patenting protects their investment. That said, just because you hold a patent doesn't obligate you to use it in an evil way. In fact, many people patent things merely to ensure that no one else patents the idea and uses the patent to extort money.

      Not everyone is evil. That said, how evil Google themselves are remains to be seen. I'm kind of on the fence at this point...

      --
      XenoPhage
      Technological Musings
    2. Re:Evil by p0tat03 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most companies, especially software ones, take patents as a defensive measure. Nothing is worse than doing something conceptually simple and then getting sued into the ground by someone who bothered to patent it. Owning obvious patents is the only real solution (at this point in time, until laws change), and in fact may be the least evil way to act. Owning a swathe of obvious patents that the USPTO refuses to overturn, and not enforcing it with suits, is probably protecting all of us.

    3. Re:Evil by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could someone please remind me how patenting something obvious is not evil? When you patent it but allow anyone to use it free of charge, preventing someone else from patenting it and restricting its use.

      I have no idea if that is what's going on, but that answer your question about "how" :)
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Evil by king-manic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could someone please remind me how patenting something obvious is not evil?

      Many companies keep a defensive collection of patents. Say AT&T sues Google about some algorithm they patented. Google digs and finds a few AT&T infringes on and presents that. They realize a fight would only benefit lawyers and settle on mutual cross licensing. Sort of a corporate brinkmanship/deterrence.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  4. Think I'll invest in a big rig truck... by Franklin+Brauner · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wouldn't mind driving off with 5000 Opteron processors. Seriously, there's a downside to portability.

    1. Re:Think I'll invest in a big rig truck... by Gregb05 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interesting, a big truck that you could just dump things on...
      I was planning on a series of tubes with which to funnel the data centers out, but they might get stuck behind enormous amounts of material.

      --
      --
    2. Re:Think I'll invest in a big rig truck... by Kingrames · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're posting on slashdot. You're a geek. You wouldn't be driving off with it. They'd likely catch you in the thing as you're mid-climax.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    3. Re:Think I'll invest in a big rig truck... by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Funny
      You're posting on slashdot. You're a geek. You wouldn't be driving off with it. They'd likely catch you in the thing as you're mid-climax.

      And you wouldn't? Come on, do you have any idea how much porn one of these shipping containers could store? I bet I could fit my entire collection in like, just three or four of them.

  5. Server Farm in a Trailer Park? by nate+nice · · Score: 4, Funny

    So if I have a bunch of servers in a trailer and an ethernet cable sticking out of the door, I'm violating this patent?

    I'm sorry, but white trash nerds have been doing this for a long time.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  6. the history of the internet by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    1967: in the event of nuclear war, arpanet will route around damaged nodes, so that communication remains uninterrupted. nothing can stop us now

    1987: first worm made. internet communication not guaranteed anymore

    2007: in the event of communication problems, one of the world's most powerful companies will mobilize their TPT (trail park technology) army

    2027: warhol virus takes out entire web, needs to rebuilt from scratch with ipv8

    2047: in the event of worldwide internet outage, GoogleMicrosoftApple will deploy nuclear warheads to silence virus spewing nodes. the circle is complete

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the history of the internet by drseuk · · Score: 2, Funny

      You missed out 2017: Moore's Law holds, Google patents "mobile matchbox data-centres", largest ever eBay auction held for bulk sale of 800 billion shipping containers, /. debates the meaning of a twentieth birthday now we're all universally spaced out of time, Amiga OS 5 "nearly ready", Microsoft releases Vista SP1.

  7. Uncle Sam beat em to it... by BiloxiGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The military has been building and using that concept for decades. Portable satellite ground stations, portable phone switches, portable power generation, portable communication centers, portable damned near anything else you can think of that would be needed in a theater of operation. All built in a container like structure for easy transportation via land, sea and/or air.
    I worked in one such container that housed a full Digital Subscriber Terminal Equipment (DSTE) suite with a second container of backup equipment while Saudi Arabia in 1986. (oops, that really showed my age.)

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
    1. Re:Uncle Sam beat em to it... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      IIRC the DoD didn't shift from CONEX boxen to standard shipping containers until the 90's. It's the latter that is the key innovation.

  8. The non-Useful Part by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    facilitate 'rapid and easy relocation to another site depending on changing economic factors'.

    Considering the rapid advance of technology, anything that's stood in one place for more than a year or two at most is probably not worth moving. A new one would prove cheaper, faster, at least double the capacity, and all within the same energy budget, or less -- which is what I expect will be the controlling factor for all new data centers.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:The non-Useful Part by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

      640 PB should be enough for anybody.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  9. What's new about this? by saltydog56 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the late 70's I worked with Marine Air Group 24 over at K-Bay, HI and the group's data center was contained in two big metal containers each about the size of a small semi-trailer - when they needed to move they popped them on a trailer, shoved them in the back of a plane, or whatever.

    Each data center was made up of a Univac 1218 processor, an online card reader-punch unit, a drum printer, and a bunch of tape drives.

    Seems like the same concept to me.

  10. The US military has been doing this for years. by DigitalReverend · · Score: 5, Informative

    MOBIDIC was one such project and was a part of Operation FRELOC.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOBIDIC

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
  11. Sun 'project blackbox' photos by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sun has this already done and working, too. (I was there at the menlo park 'ceremony' and shot some photos of it):

    http://www.netstuff.org/Sun_blackbox/

    sorry, no index.html yet - but I put together a thumbnail view in the time being:

    http://www.netstuff.org/Sun_blackbox/contact_sheet.jpg

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  12. They COULD publish instead of patenting. by OmniGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Google wanted to keep from being attacked by another party for using this idea, they could simply (and cheaply!) publish an article describing every facet of the idea the patent application covers (which, after all, is what happens when you file a patent application; when the patent is granted, the idea is published).

    Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone. So, if Google's intent were strictly defensive, to prevent someone else from patenting the idea and using it against them, publication would suffice. Thus, the idea that they are "merely protecting themselves" is a bit less persuasive. Of course, there are other reasons for patenting something; looks good on the resume, provides ammunition for cross-licensing battles, and so on, but most of them involve "offense" rather than "defense."

    This is not to say that Google has evil intent, just to point out that preemptively patenting something isn't the only way to avoid patent exposure.

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
    1. Re:They COULD publish instead of patenting. by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But... Wasn't this published before? Apparently the fact it was published before didn't deter Google or the USPTO to agree on the patent.
      I think it is safer to have a patent which you don't intend to use than a mere publication which might be ignored.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  13. A Quick Google... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny
    Indicates that they indeed thought of this first. So what's the problem?

    OK, I don't think they're quite THAT bad.. YET... I'm sure the guy granting the patent put almost exactly that much effort into his research as well...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  14. Defensive patents by mike449 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Defensive patents are not used to protect the patented idea. They are usually used as a weapon when the company is sued by a competitor for something completely different. This tactics doesn't work against patent trolls, but works very well against competitors.
    No computer company can touch IBM because of fear of their patents. I think Google is trying to achieve the same status.

  15. Re:The bad thing about Sun's blackbox... by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm not a physicist either, but I think I spotted a couple of flaws in your solution.

    You don't really want either the inside or the outside to gather heat. If you were dealing with radiated broad-spectrum light that got transferred as heat once it hit a surface on both the inside and the outside, then ideally you'd have it reflective on the outside and transmissive on the inside. There are a few issues with that solution still, though:

    • That's probably not a material you'd use to make a shipping container. Steel or aluminum are, and it's pretty easy to make the outside reflective with those either by polishing them or by painting them white. You don't want them polished too smooth of course, because then they'd be mirrors, but think polished brushed stainless like a DeLorean.
    • You probably don't want people seeing the equipment inside anyway, which is what a transmissive material would allow (unless it's translucent and partially transmissive).
    • The exterior color is more important, because you don't want to pick up additional heat by gathering the energy radiated in sunlight. You've already got the heat on the inside of the container, so getting it out requires ventilation or plumbing. Just capturing it on the ceiling and walls isn't going to cool the interior. The computers are not radiating their heat as light to be trapped by a surface and reconverted into heat. Well, not if you still have a data center instead of a smoldering scrapheap, anyway. There are hot surfaces surrounded by metal, air, or possibly something more exotic like glycol or vegetable oil. You need to not just keep from capturing the heat, but actively move the heat away from the components generating it in order to cool your systems.


  16. In other news... by m.ducharme · · Score: 2, Funny

    Google announces the "One Datacenter Per Child" project.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  17. But is it obviously obvious? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except that you're not supposed to be allowed to patent obvious things.
    I've never quite understood what the definition of "obvious" was in patent law. I'm reminded of how Sherlock Holmes would explain his subtle train of reasoning to a mystified Dr. Watson. As soon as Holmes finished his explanation, Watson's mystification would change to complacency, and he'd say, "Well, now that you explain it, it's obvious what happened."

    There's all kinds of stuff that we now take for granted that used to be under patent. Did you know that there's an expired patent for the concept of a supermarket? The idea of having customers fetch their own merchandise might seem "obvious" now, but back in 1917, it was original enough to earn patent 1242872.

    I don't know what the legal definition of "obvious" is, but in ordinary language, it's just another word for "familiar".
  18. While I didn't read the patent... by junk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I didn't read the patent, I'm sure I can assume a ton about what it says and totally guess about its validity!

    RTFP! Then complain. I'm not saying the patent isn't totally bogus, but if you're not going to read the patent first STFU!