4 ms·
This article is terrible. Not only does it fail to give any technical information about the actual innovation being claimed, but it is also factually incorrect
by hendzen 14y ago
This article is terrible. Not only does it fail to give any technical information about the actual innovation being claimed, but it is also factually incorrect as it lists the wrong date for the patent filing.
Here is the actual patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110231447 http://www.google.com/patents/US20110231447
I'll write a longer reply when I have time to digest the legalese.
That said, Jim Starkley seems to be pretty patent-happy. Check out this one from 2008, "Method and apparatus for generating web pages from templates" [1].
[1] - http://www.google.com/patents/US7039658 http://www.google.com/patents/US7039658.
- jandrewrogers 14y agoI waded through the patent (morning coffee reading). After all of that, I am unable to discern the novelty, having designed and implemented quite a few distributed database systems. The patent describes boringly standard internals that can be found in many existing distributed databases. In fact, I stood up a system on an EC2 cluster a couple years ago that had remarkably similar internals to what is described in the patent. Maybe I am missing something but I am skeptical. The design described in the patent still has the same problems and limitations that have plagued distributed OLTP systems for years. The patent appears to be a minor rearrangement of standard architectural elements common to a lot of distributed systems. What is described will work but I could buy equivalent functionality from other vendors. I was hoping for an interesting computer science-y technology but that patent doesn't contain one. It appears to be a description of a particular implementation of a conventional distributed transaction processing system. What am I missing?