Just about all major role players in the tech industry are copying Google. Facebook, Yahoo, eBay, and others are taping into the open source software program for crunching data called Hadoop. Hadoop was based on a technology originally developed by Google. About ten years ago, Google published a couple papers that explained some of the software that manages data inside its data centers, including a platform called MapReduce. Other major players like Facebook and Yahoo quickly recreated these tools with open source codes.
The problem is that Google owns several patents relating to MapReduce and other data center technologies that have sparked widely used open source projects. Although Google is typically viewed as a friend of open source software, the patents have posed a looming threat to the internet at large. Google's philosophy on open source software could change, or their patents could get sold.
On Thursday, however, Google pledged to not assert 10 patents related to MapReduce unless it is attacked first. The idea here is to create a kind of patent shield around open source software that could potentially inspire other companies to do the same with their open source coding.
Google calls this an Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge which is part of a larger effort to fight aggressive patent tactics in the tech world. This pledge even applies if the relevant patents are sold, which perhaps seems silly since not many companies would buy them if they cannot bear monetary gains.
We've talked so much about needing patent reform, but it seems as though much of the positive change is coming from the major role players themselves. Just last year, Twitter introduced what is called the Innovator's Patent Agreement which stipulates that they will not use patents from employee inventions in "offensive litigation," unless the inventor agrees to it. A coalition of companies including Google, IBM, and Red Hat, created the Open Invention Network, which seeks to provide patent protection for the open source Linux operating systems. Google is looking to create a similar coalition surrounding their most recent pledge, which is a testament to their effort that tries to preserve technological innovations for the public rather than indulging in self-promoting sabotage campaigns to turn a profit at the public's expense.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/google-hadoop-patent/
I am of the opinion that Google's move is an empty one. The 10 patents Google has pledged is less than 1% of its total holdings and there is so so much 'un-pledged' content that Google has reserved the right to sue firms over. I see this pledge as a PR stunt more than anything else.
ReplyDeleteIf we compare Google's move to IBM and Sun, who in 2009, pledged 500 and 1,600 patents for the same purpose, Google's actions seem even more insignificant.
Of the 10 patents, only 1 is actually useful/interesting. I guess it would be helpful for some developers but probably not for those who want to use as much new tech as they can get their hands on. A lot of people are saying it's a PR stunt but I think that this is a pretty big move for a PR stunt, even if its only 10 patents.
ReplyDeleteGreat read Aviv. I wrote about a similar situation with Google where I thought it was interesting how they only pledged 10 patents which is such a minuscule fraction of their patent portfolio. Like Jessica said, IBM and Sun Microsystems pledged way more than Google. This situation is tricky and should be looked at closely over the next coming weeks.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely an interesting perspective that Google is bringing on. But we need to also see the motives behind an act like this, one might be that they will not need to worry about litigation from other companies that want to slow down google's innovation by having them spend millions on courts.
ReplyDelete@Jessica and Lanssie, I wonder what the value of a PR stunt would be for Google. Considering that Google has one of the best images in the tech industry from a PR standpoint, I wonder why they would do this stunt if it were only for a PR campaign. Perhaps they are experimenting the waters with a small cluster of patents (some useful and some not) and depending on the success of this experiment, might continue acts like this in the future.
ReplyDelete