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

Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 222 posts

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#11

Post by tsimionescu »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #10

I looked up the first of the patents. Here's its PDF: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/7... I'm not a patent lawyer, just a programmer, but reading just the abstract, this seems to be covering a DNS system that can be configured via an API, which I guess does cover S3, but also, like, almost every other domain-related thing?

My reading of the claims is that they are mostly for a DNS server implemented using an object-oriented database, mapping the object tre with the DNS hierarchy and dedudcing IP at each level.

The rest is just this principle as pure software or as a hardware appliance with pre-installed software, and with a GUI to control the object mappings. But the central idea seems to be the OO aspect.

Edit: also, this doesn't seem to be the right patent. Another poster cites three different patents, one with a similar number to this one (the correct patent is 7,814,170, the one you cite is 7,814,180).

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#12

Post by tsimionescu »

chessgecko wrote: post #5

Links to two of the patents that were infringed https://patents.google.com/patent/US7103640B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7233978B2/en I really hope Kove loses, I don't know too much about networking, but a few header fields don't really seem patentworthy to me.

This doesn't seem like a few protocol fields, but about the entire mechanism of distributing the information and how to get from a request to any one server in the distributed network to the one that actually stores the information you requested (at least looking at the claims in your first patent).

I have no idea if there was prior art or how close the procedure they describe was to known storage algorithms in 2000 when the application was made, so I'm not saying this is a valid patent, but it doesn't seem like a completely frivolous patent to me at first glance.

Of course, if indeed AWS came to a very similar implementation themselves, as the jury found, then that further suggests that the idea is not that novel.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#13

Post by chessgecko »

tsimionescu wrote: post #12
chessgecko wrote: post #5

Links to two of the patents that were infringed https://patents.google.com/patent/US7103640B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7233978B2/en I really hope Kove loses, I don't know too much about networking, but a few header fields don't really seem patentworthy to me.

This doesn't seem like a few protocol fields, but about the entire mechanism of distributing the information and how to get from a request to any one server in the distributed network to the one that actually stores the information you requested (at least looking at the claims in your first patent). I have no idea if there was prior art or how close the procedure they describe was to known storage algorithms in 2000…

My read of patent one is that they basically created DNS for storage. But DNS was invented in 1983 so I'm not really sure what was novel here other than pointing it at data, which uses a few extra headers, ala my comment.

Even if there was nothing closer to this than DNS I don't think this patent should be valid.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#14

Post by DarkmSparks »

Im still very undecided on software patents and have been since they were first awarded

software patents in general are a bad idea imho, go trade secret and never let the ideas enter the public domain.

otoh

society benefits a lot from good ideas entering the public domain, and the patent system is fairly effective at stopping everyone keeping their secret sauce a secret.

Since the US has them, and this decision seems fairly clear cut (or Amazon and google would have got them thrown out as invalid already) about all I can say is congratulations to Kove.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#15

Post by mbreese »

tsimionescu wrote: post #12
chessgecko wrote: post #5

Links to two of the patents that were infringed https://patents.google.com/patent/US7103640B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7233978B2/en I really hope Kove loses, I don't know too much about networking, but a few header fields don't really seem patentworthy to me.

This doesn't seem like a few protocol fields, but about the entire mechanism of distributing the information and how to get from a request to any one server in the distributed network to the one that actually stores the information you requested (at least looking at the claims in your first patent). I have no idea if there was prior art or how close the procedure they describe was to known storage algorithms in 2000…

Not reading the patents, having a metadata server separate from the stored object data has been around for a long time. For example: IIRC, Lustre does this and was around well before the cloud (to the point where any patents that may have applied would have expired). Many HPC storage systems work with split metadata and object storage nodes, I’m just not sure how long others have been around. But, I’m sure AWS tried to get the patents invalidated first… right?

If this covered separate store networks, then maybe that’s somewhat unique, but that’s not a far leap for me.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#16

Post by nulbyte »

tsimionescu wrote: post #12
chessgecko wrote: post #5

Links to two of the patents that were infringed https://patents.google.com/patent/US7103640B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7233978B2/en I really hope Kove loses, I don't know too much about networking, but a few header fields don't really seem patentworthy to me.

This doesn't seem like a few protocol fields, but about the entire mechanism of distributing the information and how to get from a request to any one server in the distributed network to the one that actually stores the information you requested (at least looking at the claims in your first patent). I have no idea if there was prior art or how close the procedure they describe was to known storage algorithms in 2000…

I stopped after claim 9 on the first patent linked. It had, up until that point, described: peer-to-peer routing, downloading data and programs, running downloaded programs using downloaded data, redirection, and variable length strings.

The next of claims seemed to begin to regurgitate the previous ones with some indiscerbable minute difference.

None of this sounds novel. I read another of their patents where they invented a directory backed DNS service and web browser connections. This company sounds like one massive troll.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#17

Post by tsimionescu »

mbreese wrote: post #15
tsimionescu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem like a few protocol fields, but about the entire mechanism of distributing the information and how to get from a request to any one server in the distributed network to the one that actually stores the information you requested (at least looking at the claims in your first patent). I have no idea if there was prior art or how close the procedure they describe was to known storage algorithms in 2000…

Not reading the patents, having a metadata server separate from the stored object data has been around for a long time. For example: IIRC, Lustre does this and was around well before the cloud (to the point where any patents that may have applied would have expired). Many HPC storage systems work with split metadata and object storage nodes, I’m just not sure how long others have been around. But, I’m sure AWS tried…

According to Wikipedia, Lustre was released in 2003, while these patents were filed in 2000 and 2001 (they were only granted much later, in 2007, but the filing date is the most relevant), so that's not a good example. The patents are expired today, but they weren't in 2018 when this suit was filed.

Still, even if the patents were in some way novel at their time, I think the details are far more important, especially: how close is AWS' implementation to the exact algorithm they describe? How many others came to the exact same implementation not knowing about this patent, potentially proving that it didn't actually meet the bar for novelty at the time it was granted?

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#18

Post by CobrastanJorji »

tsimionescu wrote: post #11
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #10

I looked up the first of the patents. Here's its PDF: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/7... I'm not a patent lawyer, just a programmer, but reading just the abstract, this seems to be covering a DNS system that can be configured via an API, which I guess does cover S3, but also, like, almost every other domain-related thing?

My reading of the claims is that they are mostly for a DNS server implemented using an object-oriented database, mapping the object tre with the DNS hierarchy and dedudcing IP at each level. The rest is just this principle as pure software or as a hardware appliance with pre-installed software, and with a GUI to control the object mappings. But the central idea seems to be the OO aspect. Edit: also, this doesn't seem…

There were three counts the jury found in favor of Kove, one for each of these patents:

> as follows: (a) On Count 1 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,814,180; (b) On Count 2 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978; (c) On Count 3 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,640.

-Verdict ( https://tmsnrt.rs/49wWwvB )

The patent I listed was Count 1.

However, other online sources ( https://casetext.com/case/kove-io-inc-v-amazon-web-servs-3 ) list patent 7814170 instead of 180, so the verdict form may have gotten it wrong?

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#19

Post by tsimionescu »

chessgecko wrote: post #13
tsimionescu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem like a few protocol fields, but about the entire mechanism of distributing the information and how to get from a request to any one server in the distributed network to the one that actually stores the information you requested (at least looking at the claims in your first patent). I have no idea if there was prior art or how close the procedure they describe was to known storage algorithms in 2000…

My read of patent one is that they basically created DNS for storage. But DNS was invented in 1983 so I'm not really sure what was novel here other than pointing it at data, which uses a few extra headers, ala my comment. Even if there was nothing closer to this than DNS I don't think this patent should be valid.

I think that in general, "use solution A to problem X to solve problem Y instead" is, in principle, a valid patent - assuming that it's not obvious that solution A would help with problem Y. After all, patents are about "how do I solve problem Y", not about the general algorithms themselves.

However, the "it's not obvious" part is very important. Not working in the field, it's not at all clear to me if using DNS for data was an obvious idea in ~2000 for building a distributed DB or not.

Re: Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury says

#20

Post by tsimionescu »

nulbyte wrote: post #16
tsimionescu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem like a few protocol fields, but about the entire mechanism of distributing the information and how to get from a request to any one server in the distributed network to the one that actually stores the information you requested (at least looking at the claims in your first patent). I have no idea if there was prior art or how close the procedure they describe was to known storage algorithms in 2000…

I stopped after claim 9 on the first patent linked. It had, up until that point, described: peer-to-peer routing, downloading data and programs, running downloaded programs using downloaded data, redirection, and variable length strings. The next of claims seemed to begin to regurgitate the previous ones with some indiscerbable minute difference. None of this sounds novel. I read another of their patents where they i…

Another poster I think put it better: what the patent is describing is essentially building a DNS system for data. Claim 1 describes how DNS forwarders work (the "client" is a DNS client, the "server" is a DNS forwarder, and the "data location server" is a DNS authoritative name server). Claim 10 then describes how a DNS recursive resolver works (the "client" is the rescursive resolver, and the "data location servers" are authoritative name servers). Claims 17 and 18 then essentially describe the full distributed DB that uses this DNS-like mechanism for retrieval.

The sub-claims are just covering minor variations of the implementation, and can safely be ignored in general in any patent.

Post reply on HN