If the community will focus on only three claims in the S3 pending patent, prior art references can certainly be located. Why only three claims our of 75 you ask? Good question. Patents are structured in a hierarchy where there are root nodes (independent claims) and leave nodes (dependent claims). All you need to really do is focus on the root nodes (independent claims) and if you can refute those, you no longer have to worry about the independent (leaf node) claims.
The claims to look at are: 1, 28 and 55 which I have included here for reference.
1. A system, comprising: a plurality of computing nodes configured to implement: a web services interface configured to receive, according to a web services protocol, client requests for access to data objects, wherein a given one of said client requests for access to a given one of said data objects includes a key value corresponding to said given data object; a plurality of storage nodes configured to store replicas of said data objects, wherein each of said replicas is accessible via a respective locator value, and wherein each of said locator values is unique within said system; a keymap instance configured to store a respective keymap entry for each of said data objects, wherein for said given data object, said respective keymap entry includes said key value and each locator value corresponding to each stored replica of said given data object; and a coordinator configured to receive said client requests for access to said data objects from said web services interface, wherein in response to said given client request, said coordinator is configured to access said keymap instance to identify one or more locator values corresponding to said key value and, for a particular one of said one or more locator values, to access a corresponding storage node to retrieve a corresponding replica.
28. A method, comprising: receiving client requests for access to data objects via a web services interface according to a web services protocol, wherein a given one of said client requests for access to a given one of said data objects includes a key value corresponding to said given data object; storing replicas of said data objects on a plurality of storage nodes, wherein each of said replicas is accessible via a respective locator value, and wherein each of said locator values is unique within said system; storing a respective keymap entry for each of said data objects, wherein for said given data object, said respective keymap entry includes said client-specified key value and each locator value corresponding to each stored replica of said given data object; and in response to receiving said given client request, accessing said respective keymap entries to identify one or more locator values corresponding to said key value and, for a particular one of said one or more locator values, accessing a corresponding storage node and retrieving a corresponding replica.
55. A computer-accessible medium comprising instructions, wherein the instructions are executable to: process client requests for access to data objects, wherein said client requests for access to said data objects are received via a web services interface according to a web services protocol, and wherein a given one of said client requests for access to a given one of said data objects includes a key value corresponding to said given data object; instruct that replicas of said data objects be stored on a plurality of storage nodes, wherein each of said replicas is accessible via a respective locator value, and wherein each of said locator values is unique within said system; and instruct that a respective keymap entry for each of said data objects be stored, wherein for said given data object, said respective keymap entry includes said client-specified key value and each locator value corresponding to each stored replica of said given data object; wherein processing said given client request includes accessing said respective keymap entries to identify one or more locator values corresponding to s
Please see http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/ for the Peer to Patent Project, a Community Patent Review. It allows you to review currently pending patents and provide prior art references.
One of the more significant issues with patents is that the holder (plaintiff) is presumed to be the wronged party in any legal proceeding. The defendant is presumed wrong. A suit can be brought for as little as $350 and to answer the complaint from the plaintiff can cost upwards of $10,000 and that's just the beginning. Think about spending $15,000 to $20,000 per month for at least 12 months in any patent litigation. Now consider having multiple simultaneous litigations regarding different patents. The problem is that the defendants costs are orders of magnitude higher than those of the plaintiff. Most plaintiffs simply cannot afford to fight and therefore settle for some amount of money close to or slightly less than what it would cost to go to trial. Trial cost is about $500,000 and you have no guarantee of winning. If you do win, you have little recourse against the plaintiff unless they were clearly in the wrong. Then, sometimes the plaintiff simply has no money!
Patents used to be used by companies to protect themselves from other companies by virtue of Mutually Assured Destruction. Microsoft couldn't really sue Apple and Apple couldn't really sue Microsoft because they both did things that probably infringed on each others patents. Therefore neither side sued, and in fact, they executed a deal to share each others patent portfolios.
Today, you have companies like Acacia Research, and more importantly, Intellectual Ventures, who don't have a business other than hording patents and licensing them. There's very little for them to loose when they attack another company with their patents.
IV and others will be increasing their use of patents to extort money from just about every company. Just watch and see.
Slashdot Mirror
The claims to look at are: 1, 28 and 55 which I have included here for reference.
1. A system, comprising: a plurality of computing nodes configured to implement: a web services interface configured to receive, according to a web services protocol, client requests for access to data objects, wherein a given one of said client requests for access to a given one of said data objects includes a key value corresponding to said given data object; a plurality of storage nodes configured to store replicas of said data objects, wherein each of said replicas is accessible via a respective locator value, and wherein each of said locator values is unique within said system; a keymap instance configured to store a respective keymap entry for each of said data objects, wherein for said given data object, said respective keymap entry includes said key value and each locator value corresponding to each stored replica of said given data object; and a coordinator configured to receive said client requests for access to said data objects from said web services interface, wherein in response to said given client request, said coordinator is configured to access said keymap instance to identify one or more locator values corresponding to said key value and, for a particular one of said one or more locator values, to access a corresponding storage node to retrieve a corresponding replica.
28. A method, comprising: receiving client requests for access to data objects via a web services interface according to a web services protocol, wherein a given one of said client requests for access to a given one of said data objects includes a key value corresponding to said given data object; storing replicas of said data objects on a plurality of storage nodes, wherein each of said replicas is accessible via a respective locator value, and wherein each of said locator values is unique within said system; storing a respective keymap entry for each of said data objects, wherein for said given data object, said respective keymap entry includes said client-specified key value and each locator value corresponding to each stored replica of said given data object; and in response to receiving said given client request, accessing said respective keymap entries to identify one or more locator values corresponding to said key value and, for a particular one of said one or more locator values, accessing a corresponding storage node and retrieving a corresponding replica.
55. A computer-accessible medium comprising instructions, wherein the instructions are executable to: process client requests for access to data objects, wherein said client requests for access to said data objects are received via a web services interface according to a web services protocol, and wherein a given one of said client requests for access to a given one of said data objects includes a key value corresponding to said given data object; instruct that replicas of said data objects be stored on a plurality of storage nodes, wherein each of said replicas is accessible via a respective locator value, and wherein each of said locator values is unique within said system; and instruct that a respective keymap entry for each of said data objects be stored, wherein for said given data object, said respective keymap entry includes said client-specified key value and each locator value corresponding to each stored replica of said given data object; wherein processing said given client request includes accessing said respective keymap entries to identify one or more locator values corresponding to s
Please see http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/ for the Peer to Patent Project, a Community Patent Review. It allows you to review currently pending patents and provide prior art references. One of the more significant issues with patents is that the holder (plaintiff) is presumed to be the wronged party in any legal proceeding. The defendant is presumed wrong. A suit can be brought for as little as $350 and to answer the complaint from the plaintiff can cost upwards of $10,000 and that's just the beginning. Think about spending $15,000 to $20,000 per month for at least 12 months in any patent litigation. Now consider having multiple simultaneous litigations regarding different patents. The problem is that the defendants costs are orders of magnitude higher than those of the plaintiff. Most plaintiffs simply cannot afford to fight and therefore settle for some amount of money close to or slightly less than what it would cost to go to trial. Trial cost is about $500,000 and you have no guarantee of winning. If you do win, you have little recourse against the plaintiff unless they were clearly in the wrong. Then, sometimes the plaintiff simply has no money! Patents used to be used by companies to protect themselves from other companies by virtue of Mutually Assured Destruction. Microsoft couldn't really sue Apple and Apple couldn't really sue Microsoft because they both did things that probably infringed on each others patents. Therefore neither side sued, and in fact, they executed a deal to share each others patent portfolios. Today, you have companies like Acacia Research, and more importantly, Intellectual Ventures, who don't have a business other than hording patents and licensing them. There's very little for them to loose when they attack another company with their patents. IV and others will be increasing their use of patents to extort money from just about every company. Just watch and see.