Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time-Series Database patented by GE

patft.uspto.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Time-Series Database patented by GE

#51

Post by hbs »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #43

As someone who has designed a few large-scale time-series databases, I read the entire patent. It was filed in December 2012, long after I last did a clean room design, so pretty much everything I've done could be viewed as prior art. I would have to imagine Splunk has something to say about this too. The primary claim of novelty in this patent is storing index block metadata on a separate server than the storage blo…

Come on, stop your Hadoop hate speech, and simply bring SpaceCurve on the bandwagon against this patent.

Re: Time-Series Database patented by GE

#52

Post by davelnewton »

phkahler wrote: post #46
davelnewton wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I had quit my name would have been on the patent. I'm interested in hearing how I could have stopped it once the process started.

>> Even if I had quit my name would have been on the patent. I'm interested in hearing how I could have stopped it once the process started. Then you'd be a patent owner and could sue for infringement. OTOH you probably agreed to sell them all your IP for $1 or something when you hired in.

No, the patent would be owned by the company.

Re: Time-Series Database patented by GE

#53

Post by easytiger »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #42
easytiger wrote: post #2

I remember trolling the linked list patent people 10+ years ago. I sent them an email saying my software made extensive uses of linked lists and it had come to my attention that they had patented them. They sent me to their legal department to arrange an agreement. Insane. I wonder how influxdb et al will receive this news. Here is the list of people who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves: Lin; Jerry (Latham,…

Trolling aside, the linked list patent doesn't cover what we think of as linked lists. We've had this conversation before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8231954 I don't see many folks here who've actually read the claims of this patent and analyzed them for validity. For all we know, this could be a legit difference over the art. But hey, claims are hard, let's go shopping. Or shame people, whatever. If people…

The uniqueness of a variant on a linked list which I imagine many people have reinvented with variance over the years, is not important. These debates are meaningless because creating a system penalising people for creating something that solves their own problems with no external reference is being made a crime and hurting business. I myself have worked for companies who have had to spend years in legal disputes for trolls. It has a real cost. These people are a cancer and this is a tax on abstract thought.

Re: Time-Series Database patented by GE

#54

Post by easytiger »

pauldix wrote: post #48
easytiger wrote: post #2

I remember trolling the linked list patent people 10+ years ago. I sent them an email saying my software made extensive uses of linked lists and it had come to my attention that they had patented them. They sent me to their legal department to arrange an agreement. Insane. I wonder how influxdb et al will receive this news. Here is the list of people who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves: Lin; Jerry (Latham,…

InfluxDB CEO here. I've already forwarded to our lawyers to ask. Reading through the patent there are some key differences between what they describe and what we built.

Your probably fine but only because this is a company with a business. They aren't an IP litigation based business who would use it against you. The idea of incorporating business in north america frightens me. ITTP will make this a global problem.

Re: Time-Series Database patented by GE

#55

Post by rodionos »

ipsn wrote: post #32

During my tenure at GE, quite a few years ago, there was an intense company-wide drive to patent practically anything at all. We were given incentives to do so, of course. We were told that GE only uses patents defensively, i.e. for negotiations other companies. The incentives got many employees to patent industry-wide practices, or trivially simple stuff, or really convoluted methods that no one in their right minds…

That's what I'm hoping for as well. It would have been a completely different situation if this patent were granted to a non-practicing entity with a track record of litigating in the Eastern District of Texas.

If you search for other patents/patent applications by the same inventors, you get the picture, e.g.:http://patents.justia.com/inventor/kareem-sherif-aggour

Re: Time-Series Database patented by GE

#56

Post by throwawaykf05 »

easytiger wrote: post #53
throwawaykf05 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trolling aside, the linked list patent doesn't cover what we think of as linked lists. We've had this conversation before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8231954 I don't see many folks here who've actually read the claims of this patent and analyzed them for validity. For all we know, this could be a legit difference over the art. But hey, claims are hard, let's go shopping. Or shame people, whatever. If people…

The uniqueness of a variant on a linked list which I imagine many people have reinvented with variance over the years, is not important. These debates are meaningless because creating a system penalising people for creating something that solves their own problems with no external reference is being made a crime and hurting business. I myself have worked for companies who have had to spend years in legal disputes for…

1. This patent is on a variation that, as I mentioned in my comment, is very unlikely to ever be infringed when "people solve their own problems". Really, if you can think of a problem that that linked-list problem solves, I'd be very interested in knowing.

2. There is no tax on abstract thought. There is only a dispute if you make, use or sell infringing products. You are free to think whatever abstract thoughts you want. Given the vast majority of patents are a) highly specific and b) unlikely to be infringed anyway, it's unlikely any of your "abstract" thoughts turn into infringing products. Do you know of anything you've developed that has ever been the precise thing that infringed a specific patent?

Post reply on HN