Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Granted Cloud OS Patent

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-invented-the-raindrop dept.

An anonymous reader writes "This week, Google was given approval of a network OS patent that it applied for back in 2009. The design of the OS is built for 'providing an operating system over a network to a local device' to provision new versions of operating systems onto hardware devices. Filed in March 2009, the idea for Chrome OS was protected by Google early in the development process of the OS, but it was hardly new and unique, given the general description of its features in the patent itself. It is the best sign yet that Google is working toward seamless hardware and software experiences."

22 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. These type of patents are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like what Google does... most of it anyway. But it's just as bad when Google gets a software patent as when anyone else does.

    END - THEM - ALL

    1. Re:These type of patents are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes and no. Software patents are a weapon. Depending on who wields the weapon, it can be disastrous. Legally, software patents can be used defensively or offensively. I'd say the offensive users are worse than the defensive users. Overall the system is broken, but how "bad" it is that some company got a software patent -- well, that time will tell.

    2. Re:These type of patents are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes and no. Software patents are a weapon. Depending on who wields the weapon, it can be disastrous. Legally, software patents can be used defensively or offensively. I'd say the offensive users are worse than the defensive users. Overall the system is broken, but how "bad" it is that some company got a software patent -- well, that time will tell.

      It's not a matter of who's wielding it. It's a matter of how it's wielded. Google's been pretty friendly but we can't pretend it's always going to be.

    3. Re:These type of patents are bad by White+Flame · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google's been pretty friendly but we can't pretend it's always going to be.

      Also, even if Google remains "friendly" regarding the patents it holds, there's no guarantee Google will be the one continuing to hold them. Patent war chests change hands with various sorts of mergers, splitoffs, lawsuits, stock deals, etc.

      This is the reason benevolent dictatorship doesn't really exist: A benevolent leader would not subject his people to a dictatorship, especially as an entrenchment for those who would follow him. Like you say, just because the current state seems benevolent does not mean anything about how that power will be applied in the future.

      Regardless, this thing should have died given netboot prior art.

    4. Re:These type of patents are bad by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, the weapon analogy is a pretty solid one. It is more or less a similar concept (though massively different consiquences) to any other weapon. Say nukes as our example. I dislike the idea of nukes being out there at all. I am not happy or comfortable with the idea of the US having enough nukes to more or less destroy the planet. I would be less scared if say Canada or Switzerland had said nukes (though the idea of them seeking to get them would still be a bit unnerving). I would shit my pants if this full arsonal say fell into the hands of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan etc... and it would be even worse if it fell directly into the hands of say Al-Queda, the IRA or any other rogue terrorist group that has a history of attacks that specifically are going for the highest possible civilian count. Now that being said, in the case of patents, sadly with the broken system we currently have, someone is going to get the patent either way. Unless a major reform is done on the system, no matter how obvious, how trival or stupid a patent is, someone is going to land the patent, and there is a high chance that the court will grant them huge money even if the darn thing is both obvious and has been used for years. I can't directly condemn google for filing the patent, as the patent being granted to someone is inevitable, and there are worse hands it could have wound up in. I still do firmly believe that the entire patent system needs rewritten, but well that's just fantasy.

  2. Maybe good by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google pretending to have invented the thin client might protect us from somebody else patenting it. Although I did have to check the date and make sure it wasn't April 1st.

  3. specific claim by AdamWill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "1. A system for providing an operating system over a network to a local device, comprising: a base image server configured to transmit a base image of the operating system; a preferences image server configured to transmit at least one preferences image; and an image loader configured to combine the base image and the at least one preferences image into a combined image at the local device in order to provide a full version of the operating system on the local device and automatically remove the full version of the operating system from the local device when logging off or exiting the full version of the operating system on the local device."

    If this ever gets used in a court case, I predict a world of fun in defining exactly what a 'preferences image' is.

    1. Re:specific claim by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the shoulders of netboot, PxE boot, and even CLOAD, this should have never have been granted. This, I believe, was designed to piss off Apple and Microsoft, but it should line the pockets of lawyers for decades.

      USPTO? Rubber stampers.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:specific claim by pointyhat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Definitely prior art then. I did this in 1992 when we booted our PLCs (their programs that is) off RS485 drops. When they were turned off the program memory was cleared.

      In 1996 we did it with Solaris by mounting /usr/local and /opt off an NFS share with automount. When they were turned off, it dismounted.

      In 2008 we did this with thin clients (which pull their OS and configuration from a TFTP server).

      In 2011 we did this with Office using App-V (not an OS but the principle is the same).

      More proof that patents are a load of shit.

    3. Re:specific claim by rgbrenner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did any of your examples do the following (all of which it must do to be prior art):

      Keep ALL OS and preference changes in sync with the server (so that when the local device is rebooted, OS and preference changes are restored). Note the patent also includes a remotely-mounted disk image for the user's files -- so that is not what it is talking about here.

      An image loader than downloads the OS and preference images and combines them to create the full version of the OS

      When the changes are synced with the server, the changes are compressed, encrypted, and transmitted incrementally.

  4. Vs. Diskless boot? by MikeTheGreat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Didn't Unix (specifically, NFS) have a diskless boot option decades ago? Between that and whatever VMWare's been doing (they must have a way of choosing which image you want to load onto your server, right?) how is this in any way an original, patent-able idea?

    1. Re:Vs. Diskless boot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but that didn't have the word "cloud" in it so it doesn't count as prior hype erm art.

  5. Re:good, bad or the big gray between? by jasper160 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given Apple's track record they will file a lawsuit Monday.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  6. Prior art? by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... I think as I look over at my BOOTP/NFS diskless client that has been sitting on my desk for over a decade.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Prior art? by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

      thin and diskless clients are not what is described in the patent.

      If you think they are close enough, then point out the differences, and then say that what Google has done is not sufficiently novel to qualify for a 20 year patent.

      Many would agree with you.. including myself.

      But the patent definitely does not describe a thin client, and simply holding them up and saying they are the same as the patent won't win you any arguments

  7. The best sign yet! by CODiNE · · Score: 2

    It is the best sign yet that Google is working toward a bright future as a patent troll."

    FTFY

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  8. Re:good, bad or the big gray between? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

    And perhaps they should. From the description it sounds like there's plenty of prior art, including Apple's netboot.

  9. Here's how it's different by rgbrenner · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you read the patent? I'm guessing not, since you're asking how it's different than netboot.

    Google's patent basically says:

    The BIOS loads an image loader
    The image loader downloads the OS image + a preferences image from a server
    The image loader combines these two images to create the full version of the OS and loads the image on to the local device
    When changes are made to the image on the local device (file change, settings, etc), these changes are kept in sync with the OS/preferences image server(s)
    When the device is shutdown the image is removed from the device

    The patent has more details.. but that's the basic idea (at least from my interpretation.. correct me if I'm wrong)

  10. Re:PXE called by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

    1) the patent says when the data is synced, it is compressed and encrypted
    2) BootP does not keep OS changes in sync (if the OS image is changed, those changes are not saved w/ BootP... the patent has an OS image server that keeps those changes in sync)

  11. Re:Sigh... netboot? by DeBaas · · Score: 2

    hard to tell, but to me it seems that the big difference is that with netboot, you boot from the network, whereas this boots locally, gets a boot image, puts it to local disk and boots that. So you boot locally, just first get the bootimage over the network and store it.

    It looks in my view similar to http://simpc.nl/ Although SimPC (at least way back, when I worked on it) always booted locally and just got a new new image when a it was newer. Considering that they mention it may be 'synchronized version of a locally cached version' it may be argued that it is similar.

    I would say, hard to defend this patent. But I am not really an expert in patent laws

    --
    ---
  12. Re:PXE called by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

    Damnit. You've foiled my plan. I registered for this account in 1999/2000, and I've waited 12 years to build my reputation on slashdot just for this very moment when I could shill for Google. Now it's all been ruined!

    F'ing moron

  13. Work around it by epa · · Score: 2
    It is always easier to avoid a patent than invalidate it.

    Netboot is not an anticipation of the claim because it does not have the "preferences image server".

    It is dead easy to avoid, though. Just don't "remove the full version of the operating system from the local device when logging off". Note the word "remove"? Do something like invladiate an encryption key that is needed to make the full version work. That is part of the OS's data, not part of the OS itself. Even just by overwiting a small but crucial part of the "full OS", such as a jump table, will get you the result you want, but not infringe the patent.

    The thing about patent is to COMPLETELY ignore the abstract, read and interpret the main claims, and if you really do not know what the claims mean, condescend to read the description.

    Above all, remember: It's the independent claims that matter -- almost nothing else does!

    --
    Time is life: speed saves it. LJK Setright