Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design
itwbennett writes British engineering company BladeRoom Group says it contacted Facebook in 2011 about using its technique, which involves constructing data centers in a modular fashion from pre-fabricated parts. What happened next isn't clear, since much of the public version of BRG's lawsuit is redacted. But it claims Facebook ended up stealing its ideas and using them to build part of a data center in Lulea, Sweden, that opened last year. 'Facebook's misdeeds might never have come to light had it decided that simply stealing BRG's intellectual property was enough,' the company said in its lawsuit, filed Monday at the federal district court in San Jose, California. "Instead, Facebook went further when it decided to encourage and induce others to use BRG's intellectual property though an initiative created by Facebook called the 'Open Compute Project.'"
... it's apparently an exclusive concept to BRG [facepalm]
Did BRG have that concept patented?
Doesn't matter (but would help their case if it were). Note that the lawsuit isn't for infringement (patent or copyright) but for breach of contract and theft of trade secrets (that Facebook allegedly only had access to in confidence, i.e. via aforementioned contract). It all depends on if Facebook's agents signed anything similar to a NDA when negotiating with BRG for a design contract, in order to review a proposal using their "modular techniques". If BRG was smart they would have papered it up very specifically before they showed any sensitive bits to Facebook.
Like TFS says we don't have enough info to know if something super specific about the design was copied (like some allegedly optimal ratio of airflow to floorspace to TDP). This is most likely just a contract chase, hoping that the words of whatever Facebook signed are broad enough to catch them for designing anything similar to what BRG had proposed.
I'm not debating that. I presume that the company doing the complaining here is suggesting that despite the existing and well-discussed concept of modularity, they had something proprietary that was new or especially creative in leveraging that general concept. That's the sort of nitty-gritty detail that an NDA is supposed to protect.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Most of the claims aren't listed so it's hard to draw a conclusion. There is a difference between "we pitched them a modular building and they had a contractor build a modular building" and "we pitched them a design for a modular building under contract, they stole the design, and had a competitor build it"
Yup, why do you think IBM and their Nazgul went after SCO so heavily despite it probably costing 10x what a settlement would have? Because it's cheaper in the long run to kill the invaders and put their heads on pikes outside your walls than to pay them off.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
An NDA for a released product makes no sense.
Sure it does. Just because a product is available to buy doesn't meant that every aspect of its design, operation, or future plans for evolution and enhancement by the manufacturer are something they consider public domain.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.