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."

6 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 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.
  4. 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)