There may or may not be that much performance gain from compiling from source, but depending on what your sysadmins cost, having the ability to run
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
and have your system be automatically updated could end up being more cost effective than additional support even if that means that you have to buy more/bigger hardware.
Actually it is quite possible to get the best of both worlds - or even better - at least if the cluster nodes are reasonably identical. Just use one box for building the binary packages and have a local repository. Set all the cluster nodes to only use your own repository, and have them update automatically with a cron job.
On your build box, you update as normally from standard repositories, but those packages you want to build yourself, you set a pin for, so they don't update.
When you build a package, you can use the source package and apply patches and options to suit your environment, or you could even build a package from scratch. (Since you have a cluster, distcc might be useful when building.)
When everything works put the packages in the repository.
In case you require all nodes to have the same version, it might be smarter to have a script which handles the updating.
Only the claims are relevant
It does not matter what the abstract or description says. In other words: A product can be non-infringing even if the abstract or description seems to perfectly cover that product. Likewise, a product can be infringing even if the abstract or description doesn't seem to match at all.
Drawings are also irrelevant unless they are specifically referenced in claims, and then they are only relevant for claims that reference them. In this case, the drawings are not referenced by claims, so they can be safely ignored.
Each individual claim matters
If a product infringes on just one claim, it infringes the patent. However see next paragraph.
Look at independent claims first
Most patents have several claims that reference previous claims. These claims are only infringed upon if a product also infringes on the referenced claim. Therefore one starts by reviewing those claims that do not reference other claims.
In the patent at hand, the independent claims are: 1, 13, 21, 25 and 28.
Steps or components
Claims are either system claims, which may contain several components or method claims, which may contain several steps. For something to infringe on such a claim, it must consist of all the steps or components in the claim. If one is missing or replaced with something else, it is a different (and thereby non-infringing) system or method.
My Analysis
Claims 1-12
In claim 1, the system requires a musical instrument, which generates an audio output. In my opinion, the GuitarHero controller does not qualify as a musical instrument, but this does not actually matter here, because the system as claimed specifically uses the audio output from the instrument. The GuitarHero controller has no audio output and at no time does an audio signal for the controller exist, so the GuitarHero system does not have the component of 1e. Claim 1 is not infringed upon, and therefore the same goes for 2 through 12.
Claims 13-20
These also require an instrument with an audio output, so GuitarHero is not infringing.
Claims 21-24
These specifically require a guitar, and while it could be contested whether the GuitarHero controller is a musical instrument, and while the controller is shaped like one, it is definately not a guitar. No infringement here either.
Claims 25-27
These are method claims, but not much new here otherwise. Claim 25c specifies that the output is modified by audio signals from the player, so no infringement.
Claims 28-30
And once again the claims fall for specifying an instrument with an audio output.
Oops. Seems there are no claims left. My conclusion: Not infringing!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is quite possible to get the best of both worlds - or even better - at least if the cluster nodes are reasonably identical. Just use one box for building the binary packages and have a local repository. Set all the cluster nodes to only use your own repository, and have them update automatically with a cron job.
On your build box, you update as normally from standard repositories, but those packages you want to build yourself, you set a pin for, so they don't update.
When you build a package, you can use the source package and apply patches and options to suit your environment, or you could even build a package from scratch. (Since you have a cluster, distcc might be useful when building.)
When everything works put the packages in the repository.
In case you require all nodes to have the same version, it might be smarter to have a script which handles the updating.
From previous comments it is obvious that most have no idea how to read a patent or how to determine infringement. So here goes:
The actual patent can be read at System and method for generating and controlling a simulated musical concert
Only the claims are relevant
It does not matter what the abstract or description says. In other words: A product can be non-infringing even if the abstract or description seems to perfectly cover that product. Likewise, a product can be infringing even if the abstract or description doesn't seem to match at all.
Drawings are also irrelevant unless they are specifically referenced in claims, and then they are only relevant for claims that reference them. In this case, the drawings are not referenced by claims, so they can be safely ignored.
Each individual claim matters
If a product infringes on just one claim, it infringes the patent. However see next paragraph.
Look at independent claims first
Most patents have several claims that reference previous claims. These claims are only infringed upon if a product also infringes on the referenced claim. Therefore one starts by reviewing those claims that do not reference other claims.
In the patent at hand, the independent claims are: 1, 13, 21, 25 and 28.
Steps or components
Claims are either system claims, which may contain several components or method claims, which may contain several steps. For something to infringe on such a claim, it must consist of all the steps or components in the claim. If one is missing or replaced with something else, it is a different (and thereby non-infringing) system or method.
My Analysis
Claims 1-12 In claim 1, the system requires a musical instrument, which generates an audio output. In my opinion, the GuitarHero controller does not qualify as a musical instrument, but this does not actually matter here, because the system as claimed specifically uses the audio output from the instrument. The GuitarHero controller has no audio output and at no time does an audio signal for the controller exist, so the GuitarHero system does not have the component of 1e. Claim 1 is not infringed upon, and therefore the same goes for 2 through 12. Claims 13-20 These also require an instrument with an audio output, so GuitarHero is not infringing. Claims 21-24 These specifically require a guitar, and while it could be contested whether the GuitarHero controller is a musical instrument, and while the controller is shaped like one, it is definately not a guitar. No infringement here either. Claims 25-27 These are method claims, but not much new here otherwise. Claim 25c specifies that the output is modified by audio signals from the player, so no infringement. Claims 28-30 And once again the claims fall for specifying an instrument with an audio output.Oops. Seems there are no claims left. My conclusion: Not infringing!