Google Drive Barely Launched... And Google's Already Hit With Patent Infringement Lawsuit
from the but,-of-course dept
It's almost becoming a rule in the tech industry, that actually doing something that people want to use absolutely guarantees that you're going to get sued for patent infringement. It's pretty clear that the current patent system is acting as a massive tax/tollbooth on innovation. The latest in a long line of examples: just as Google has been rolling out its Google Drive offering to users, it's been hit with a patent infringement lawsuit from a company with a patent (5,918,244) that covers a "method and system for coherently caching I/O devices across a network." As the lawsuit notes, the technology behind the patent is to enable the ability of "multiple computers [to] all communicate with each other and... all access data from the same data storage device or devices, such as hard disk." Basically, the patent describes a system of RAM caching. Because I'm sure no one ever would have figured out how to do that without the patent system... So, rather than just allowing the technology to progress in the market as new products are developed, we're left with legal fights and a tollbooth on innovation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: caching, google drive, patent troll
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If this company's patents are indeed for a method that keeps frequently used data loaded into RAM then prior art does exist:
"Research in main-memory database systems started around 1993 at Bell Labs. It was prototyped as the Dali Main-Memory Storage Manager.[3] This research lead to first commercial main-memory database, Datablitz."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-memory_database
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This accounts for why this application was presented in 1996, but has an actual filing date for purposes of prior art corresponding with the date the original application was filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so that shows that coherency is not a requirement, therefore no infringement :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amateurs, obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No person from South Texas would ever consider Houston a part of the region. Regarding Edinburg and McAllen, I may have been a bit biased as I'm from deep South Texas (as in the RGV). So sometimes I overlook/forget that Corpus Christi is part of South Texas (as far as most people are concerned).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That just about describes ANYTHING you do over a network (ie. INTERNET)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...Seriously, this is stupid. >.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Solution: First, we kill all the lawyers
Ever wonder where we'd be if they actually did implement all these things that have been patented? Technologically a thousand years ahead, perhaps. But that takes work and risk and those cost money and spending money is antithetical to providing an immediate return on investment to the owners/shareholders.
It's better just to grab money by the fistful and give an immediate return on investment to the owners/shareholders.
Its fairly safe to imagine that the patent system was created by greedy moneygrubbers using lawyers and not by engineers using common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore patents?
Smaller developers and companies have to ignore most patents because otherwise you couldn't do anything! Zero! They can only hope that they make enough money before the trolls attack!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
infrngment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: infrngment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: infrngment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: infrngment!
It's called an orbital mass driver. =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does'nt a judge or some one, make an initial decision on whether to take these to the courts before wasting time and effort on a possible weak patent? otherwise, whats to stop 100 companies filing 100 claims in one day, and no sort of filter process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am, of course, ever mindful of the "Google exception" to our patent and copyright laws. Presumably, Google will raise it in its inevitable motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action owing to the exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, that does not apply to this case. The patent is neither new or non-obvious. I thought of the idea of something like DropBox or Google Drive many, many years ago. And if I thought it up, many other people did as well; I'm not that smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My second para was made solely tongue-in-cheek.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're toxic waste, not candy.
Even if they did, there is still the question of whether or not this improves the state of the art. Patents are for encouraging people to disclose useful trade secrets. They aren't meant as a virtual land grab.
Reading some Tannenbuam and then tying the industry in knots for the next 20 years is not what patents are for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to stop them is to stop innovating. Seriously. Stop inventing. Let them reap what they sow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"multiple computers [to] all communicate with each other and... all access data from the same data storage device or devices, such as hard disk."
My home network violates this patent every single day.
Come at me bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gets even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt has permission to respond via my registered email address.
Just curious. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Annoyed with it all
Think about defensive patents. The holder in most cases isn't actually doing anything with their "invention", but rather using it as a deterrent to getting sued.
You simply shouldn't be allowed to sue for patent infringement if you are not doing anything with your patent other than holding on to it and hoping someone does something amazing with it so you can sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1999?
If you want my MAC address you'll need to query the NIC directly or license a faster method from this guy? Web page too. You know what, fuck it, you get nothing unless you pay.
Ridiculous. And when can we start taking this stuff seriously again? I can't believe these people get payed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are the owners of a Patent required to prove that their method actually works, and how Google is implementing it?
These TechDirt articles are so limited in their explanations. They seem to go more for the large sensational headline with very little content. what happened to you guys? I can't even read the complaint. It is blurry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...yet another problem.
A company can try to change how they do something and they will still get slammed for violating a patent. So the whole notion of "this only covers a precise method" is largely bogus in practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The title reads "Google Drive Barely Launched... And Google's Already Hit With Patent Infringement Lawsuit"
The filing confirms the headline to be true. How is the headline sensational?
A cleaner copy of the document can be found here:
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/wp-content/uploads//2012/06/Google-Drive-Patent-Filing .pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't there prior art to challenge that patent?
Doesn't the above describe the Internet? I believe it was invented in the 1970s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]