Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Grants Google a Patent On MapReduce
theodp writes "Two years ago, David DeWitt and Michael Stonebraker deemed MapReduce a major step backwards (here are the original paper and a defense of it) that 'represents a specific implementation of well known techniques developed nearly 25 years ago.' A year later, the pair teamed up with other academics and eBay to slam MapReduce again. But the very public complaints didn't stop Google from demanding a patent for MapReduce; nor did it stop the USPTO from granting Google's request (after four rejections). On Tuesday, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,650,331 to Google for inventing Efficient Large-Scale Data Processing."
We (that being everybody except the USPTO) could agree not to take out any more software patents, and the industry would breathe a collective sigh of relief. Trouble is, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil that approach. It's the same reason Communism didn't work.
Right on! If everyone were just a bit more like Lenin...
But the real sentiment is that "MY" culture never makes anything that sucks. Incidentally, I'm also always right. I once thought I was wrong, but that was a mistake. If that ever changes it's because evil democrats "healthcared" my good brain cells out and replaced them with more politically correct ones.
The whole "software is math" argument is old and debunked. Anything which requires creativity and careful analysis, and the investment therein, is a potentially valuable addition to human knowledge.
You seem to have no idea what mathematics actually is, if you think it doesn't require creativity and careful analysis.
I don't see any difference between patenting a physical machine and a computer model of a machine if they follow identical rules and required the same amount of thought and work to produce.
When all you've got is a hammer, everything seems like a nail. Grow up please. There are wide areas of technology and life that, by historical accident, are not protected by patents or copyright. And they get along just fine.
In exchange for investing in such a thing, there should be the potential to protect your investment from copycats without resorting to keeping it a secret.
Why? If it advances the state of the art by allowing it to be copied, or reverse engineered, then it makes perfect sense to not interfere by creating artificial scarcity, bureaucratic overhead and legal risk.
I don't see any difference between patenting a physical machine and a computer model of a machine if they follow identical rules and required the same amount of thought and work to produce.
That's because all you've got is a hammer. Try to extend your thinking processes and stop pretending that always being able to patent any any arbitrary thing, obvious or otherwise, will advance the state of that particular art.
---
Has the least patentable unit reached zero yet?