theodp writes "Two years ago, Robert X. Cringely wrote that Google was experimenting with portable data centers built in standard shipping containers. The idea, Cringely explained, wasn't new and wasn't even Google's, backing up his claim with a link to an Internet-Archive-in-a-Shipping-Container presentation (PDF, dated 11-8-2003) that was reportedly pitched to Larry Page. Google filed for a patent on essentially the same concept on 12-30-2003. And on Tuesday, the USPTO issued the search giant a patent for Modular Data Centers housed in shipping containers, which Google curiously notes facilitate 'rapid and easy relocation to another site depending on changing economic factors'. That's a statement that may make those tax-abating NC officials a tad uneasy."
It depends on when Sun started doing the Blackbox project, and the exact wording of the patent. If Sun started in, say, 2000 (I don't know when they did start) then yes, it could be prior art depending on what the patent covers exactly. But, if the patent covers something a bit more specific than "computers hooked up in a shipping crate" then it is possible that black box doesn't infringe on this patent, and isn't prior art.
(IANAL, so copious amounts of sodium chloride recommended with this post.)
I'm pretty sure that Sun was working on the data center in a box before Larry Page met Sergey Brin, let alone before they founded a company and patented computers in containers.
When I was stationed in Germany back in 1974-1977 our supply section had a shipping contain, actually a complete semi trailer and inside it was an NCR-500 computer that read and printed to magnetically striped ledger cards for storage and read punch cards for input and of course that trailer was air conditioned, so much for most of the claims.
a little later we got a HAWK missile platoon command post which was an air-transportable shipping container, once again mounted on a trailer, inside the wire-wrapped cpu of the RCA computer used ferrite cores for memory. I think Google patent really would only have defensive value, there is way too much prior art for them to use it offensively.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday October 09 2007, @11:59AM (#20913593)
I wouldn't claim to possess the insight -- and, I daresay, genius -- required to imagine putting computers in a shipping container.
Nonetheless, I can humbly state that I'm something of an inventor myself. For the past several years, I've been developing a concept which involves assembling computers in 4-foot by 6-foot containers. I know, it sounds incredible, but it is actually possible (despite the intuitive difficulty).
I'm looking to monetize the idea, so if you're interested please contact me about patent licensing and such.
Dr. Hansel Hanselsonson, PhD hanselsonson@ingenious-inventions-seriously.com
Robert X. Cringely writing about Google-Mart on November 17th, 2005: "There, in a secret area off-limits even to regular GoogleFolk, is a shipping container. But it isn't just any shipping container. This shipping container is a prototype data center. [..] Didn't Sun recently establish some kind of partnership with Google?"
I'm not a physicist either, but I think I spotted a couple of flaws in your solution. You don't really want either the inside or the outside to gather heat. If you were dealing with radiated broad-spectrum light that got transferred as heat once it hit a surface on both the inside and the outside, then ideally you'd have it reflective on the outside and transmissive on the inside. There are a few issues with that solution still, though:
That's probably not a material you'd use to make a shipping container. St
I doubt this patent will be enforced in any meaningful way. The Sun Blackbox program you linked to was started about 15 years ago, if my memory serves correctly.
Maybe some minor aspect will get through, but "data center in a box" is old news.
Patenting protects their investment. That said, just because you hold a patent doesn't obligate you to use it in an evil way. In fact, many people patent things merely to ensure that no one else patents the idea and uses the patent to extort money.
Not everyone is evil. That said, how evil Google themselves are remains to be seen. I'm kind of on the fence at this point...
Except that you're not supposed to be allowed to patent obvious things. We buy road cases from Quantum Scientific which are shocked mounted and water proof. I have a 30TB SAN, 12 servers, routing and switching equipment, and battery backup power for about an hour in our road cases. That's on top of the 100 or so cameras we bring with us and all the phones we have specialized containers for shipping. Perhaps we should declare prior art? Except for the fact that the military does this all the time and so do A
Except that you're not supposed to be allowed to patent obvious things.
I've never quite understood what the definition of "obvious" was in patent law. I'm reminded of how Sherlock Holmes would explain his subtle train of reasoning to a mystified Dr. Watson. As soon as Holmes finished his explanation, Watson's mystification would change to complacency, and he'd say, "Well, now that you explain it, it's obvious what happened."
There's all kinds of stuff that we now take for granted that used to be under pate
If Google wanted to keep from being attacked by another party for using this idea, they could simply (and cheaply!) publish an article describing every facet of the idea the patent application covers (which, after all, is what happens when you file a patent application; when the patent is granted, the idea is published).
Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone. So, if Google's intent were strictly defensive, to prevent someone else from patenting the idea and using it against them, publication would suffice. Thus, the idea that they are "merely protecting themselves" is a bit less persuasive. Of course, there are other reasons for patenting something; looks good on the resume, provides ammunition for cross-licensing battles, and so on, but most of them involve "offense" rather than "defense."
This is not to say that Google has evil intent, just to point out that preemptively patenting something isn't the only way to avoid patent exposure.
But... Wasn't this published before? Apparently the fact it was published before didn't deter Google or the USPTO to agree on the patent. I think it is safer to have a patent which you don't intend to use than a mere publication which might be ignored.
Most companies, especially software ones, take patents as a defensive measure. Nothing is worse than doing something conceptually simple and then getting sued into the ground by someone who bothered to patent it. Owning obvious patents is the only real solution (at this point in time, until laws change), and in fact may be the least evil way to act. Owning a swathe of obvious patents that the USPTO refuses to overturn, and not enforcing it with suits, is probably protecting all of us.
Defensive patents are not used to protect the patented idea. They are usually used as a weapon when the company is sued by a competitor for something completely different. This tactics doesn't work against patent trolls, but works very well against competitors. No computer company can touch IBM because of fear of their patents. I think Google is trying to achieve the same status.
Could someone please remind me how patenting something obvious is not evil?
Many companies keep a defensive collection of patents. Say AT&T sues Google about some algorithm they patented. Google digs and finds a few AT&T infringes on and presents that. They realize a fight would only benefit lawyers and settle on mutual cross licensing. Sort of a corporate brinkmanship/deterrence.
Interesting, a big truck that you could just dump things on...
I was planning on a series of tubes with which to funnel the data centers out, but they might get stuck behind enormous amounts of material.
You're posting on slashdot. You're a geek. You wouldn't be driving off with it. They'd likely catch you in the thing as you're mid-climax.
And you wouldn't? Come on, do you have any idea how much porn one of these shipping containers could store? I bet I could fit my entire collection in like, just three or four of them.
1967: in the event of nuclear war, arpanet will route around damaged nodes, so that communication remains uninterrupted. nothing can stop us now
1987: first worm made. internet communication not guaranteed anymore
2007: in the event of communication problems, one of the world's most powerful companies will mobilize their TPT (trail park technology) army
2027: warhol virus takes out entire web, needs to rebuilt from scratch with ipv8
2047: in the event of worldwide internet outage, GoogleMicrosoftApple will deploy nuclear warheads to silence virus spewing nodes. the circle is complete
2047: in the event of worldwide internet outage, GoogleMicrosoftApple will deploy nuclear warheads to silence virus spewing nodes. the circle is complete
The military has been building and using that concept for decades. Portable satellite ground stations, portable phone switches, portable power generation, portable communication centers, portable damned near anything else you can think of that would be needed in a theater of operation. All built in a container like structure for easy transportation via land, sea and/or air.
I worked in one such container that housed a full Digital Subscriber Terminal Equipment (DSTE) suite with a second container of backup equipment while Saudi Arabia in 1986. (oops, that really showed my age.)
Exactly - my wife worked on writing software for a ground station when she was with lockheed. It was basically a shipping container like they put on ships, but green and it could be pulled around. Inside was the mission planning software and such. That was around 1999 or 2000.
How many branches used VINES (omigod, a pun?), and essentially shipped lan-in-a-container systems to the Middle East around that time? I think they shipped everything but water, assuming that if there were users, there would be water. Latrines too.
This has been done before, and done fairly well. Won't someone please tell the USPTO to knock it off? It isn't funny any more.
facilitate 'rapid and easy relocation to another site depending on changing economic factors'.
Considering the rapid advance of technology, anything that's stood in one place for more than a year or two at most is probably not worth moving. A new one would prove cheaper, faster, at least double the capacity, and all within the same energy budget, or less -- which is what I expect will be the controlling factor for all new data centers.
Back in the late 70's I worked with Marine Air Group 24 over at K-Bay, HI and the group's data center was contained in two big metal containers each about the size of a small semi-trailer - when they needed to move they popped them on a trailer, shoved them in the back of a plane, or whatever.
Each data center was made up of a Univac 1218 processor, an online card reader-punch unit, a drum printer, and a bunch of tape drives.
IIRC there was one datacenter in a shipping container (with satellite connection?), and another heavily automated camper trailer with a T3 (or was it OC3?).
Not sure how they'll get by with this seeing as others have been doing it. But I can see why they'd want. These container ship data centers are becoming very popular. Why build an expensive DC somewhere when I can just drop a container in a spot that has power. If I build a big DC I run the risk of running out of power in the near future leaving my new DC unable to grow. With these containers you can drop and move as conditions dictate.
Indicates that they indeed thought of this first. So what's the problem?
OK, I don't think they're quite THAT bad.. YET... I'm sure the guy granting the patent put almost exactly that much effort into his research as well...
Oops! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't the existence of Blackbox imply prior art for Google's patent?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If Sun started in, say, 2000 (I don't know when they did start) then yes, it could be prior art depending on what the patent covers exactly.
But, if the patent covers something a bit more specific than "computers hooked up in a shipping crate" then it is possible that black box doesn't infringe on this patent, and isn't prior art.
(IANAL, so copious amounts of sodium chloride recommended with this post.)
Re: (Score:2)
(Seriously, I think it was 1992 or so.)
Re:Oops! (Score:4, Insightful)
a little later we got a HAWK missile platoon command post which was an air-transportable shipping container, once again mounted on a trailer, inside the wire-wrapped cpu of the RCA computer used ferrite cores for memory. I think Google patent really would only have defensive value, there is way too much prior art for them to use it offensively.
Parent
Re:Oops! (Score:5, Funny)
Nonetheless, I can humbly state that I'm something of an inventor myself. For the past several years, I've been developing a concept which involves assembling computers in 4-foot by 6-foot containers. I know, it sounds incredible, but it is actually possible (despite the intuitive difficulty).
I'm looking to monetize the idea, so if you're interested please contact me about patent licensing and such.
Dr. Hansel Hanselsonson, PhD
hanselsonson@ingenious-inventions-seriously.com
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Robert X. Cringely writing about Google-Mart on November 17th, 2005: "There, in a secret area off-limits even to regular GoogleFolk, is a shipping container. But it isn't just any shipping container. This shipping container is a prototype data center. [..] Didn't Sun recently establish some kind of partnership with Google?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't really want either the inside or the outside to gather heat. If you were dealing with radiated broad-spectrum light that got transferred as heat once it hit a surface on both the inside and the outside, then ideally you'd have it reflective on the outside and transmissive on the inside. There are a few issues with that solution still, though:
Sun Blackbox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe some minor aspect will get through, but "data center in a box" is old news.
Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Could someone please remind me how patenting something obvious is not evil?
Basically it reduces the freedom of all law-abiding citizens to do something that's fairly obvious.
Re:Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone is evil. That said, how evil Google themselves are remains to be seen. I'm kind of on the fence at this point...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But is it obviously obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never quite understood what the definition of "obvious" was in patent law. I'm reminded of how Sherlock Holmes would explain his subtle train of reasoning to a mystified Dr. Watson. As soon as Holmes finished his explanation, Watson's mystification would change to complacency, and he'd say, "Well, now that you explain it, it's obvious what happened."
There's all kinds of stuff that we now take for granted that used to be under pate
They COULD publish instead of patenting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone. So, if Google's intent were strictly defensive, to prevent someone else from patenting the idea and using it against them, publication would suffice. Thus, the idea that they are "merely protecting themselves" is a bit less persuasive. Of course, there are other reasons for patenting something; looks good on the resume, provides ammunition for cross-licensing battles, and so on, but most of them involve "offense" rather than "defense."
This is not to say that Google has evil intent, just to point out that preemptively patenting something isn't the only way to avoid patent exposure.
Parent
Re:They COULD publish instead of patenting. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is safer to have a patent which you don't intend to use than a mere publication which might be ignored.
Parent
Re:Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Defensive patents (Score:3, Interesting)
No computer company can touch IBM because of fear of their patents. I think Google is trying to achieve the same status.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no idea if that is what's going on, but that answer your question about "how"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many companies keep a defensive collection of patents. Say AT&T sues Google about some algorithm they patented. Google digs and finds a few AT&T infringes on and presents that. They realize a fight would only benefit lawyers and settle on mutual cross licensing. Sort of a corporate brinkmanship/deterrence.
Think I'll invest in a big rig truck... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I was planning on a series of tubes with which to funnel the data centers out, but they might get stuck behind enormous amounts of material.
Re:Think I'll invest in a big rig truck... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Think I'll invest in a big rig truck... (Score:5, Funny)
And you wouldn't? Come on, do you have any idea how much porn one of these shipping containers could store? I bet I could fit my entire collection in like, just three or four of them.
Parent
Server Farm in a Trailer Park? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, but white trash nerds have been doing this for a long time.
My Name is Earl - Intarweb Startup Episode (Score:2)
Sounds like a new episode of My Name is Earl [nbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
the history of the internet (Score:5, Funny)
1987: first worm made. internet communication not guaranteed anymore
2007: in the event of communication problems, one of the world's most powerful companies will mobilize their TPT (trail park technology) army
2027: warhol virus takes out entire web, needs to rebuilt from scratch with ipv8
2047: in the event of worldwide internet outage, GoogleMicrosoftApple will deploy nuclear warheads to silence virus spewing nodes. the circle is complete
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google May get Nuclear Power (Score:2)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606 [google.com]
Uncle Sam beat em to it... (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked in one such container that housed a full Digital Subscriber Terminal Equipment (DSTE) suite with a second container of backup equipment while Saudi Arabia in 1986. (oops, that really showed my age.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This has been done before, and done fairly well. Won't someone please tell the USPTO to knock it off? It isn't funny any more.
Re: (Score:3)
Now we know... (Score:2)
(I wish they did. the gCube he's written about would be well worth having!)
The non-Useful Part (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the rapid advance of technology, anything that's stood in one place for more than a year or two at most is probably not worth moving. A new one would prove cheaper, faster, at least double the capacity, and all within the same energy budget, or less -- which is what I expect will be the controlling factor for all new data centers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's new about this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Each data center was made up of a Univac 1218 processor, an online card reader-punch unit, a drum printer, and a bunch of tape drives.
Seems like the same concept to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The US military has been doing this for years. (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOBIDIC [wikipedia.org]
Prior art in fiction? (Score:2)
US Military (Score:2)
What, no 'non obvious' & 'prior art' tests? (Score:2)
This smacks of 'patent defense' - Theyve got one, so others, (ahem - Sun?), will perhaps prefer horse-trading to frontal assault.
Still, pretty disappointing from the 'elite brains' @ Google.
Sun 'project blackbox' photos (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.netstuff.org/Sun_blackbox/ [netstuff.org]
sorry, no index.html yet - but I put together a thumbnail view in the time being:
http://www.netstuff.org/Sun_blackbox/contact_sheet.jpg [netstuff.org]
Certainly NOT Cringley's Idea (Score:2)
IIRC there was one datacenter in a shipping container (with satellite connection?), and another heavily automated camper trailer with a T3 (or was it OC3?).
And it was a LOT more than two years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
A Quick Google... (Score:4, Funny)
OK, I don't think they're quite THAT bad.. YET... I'm sure the guy granting the patent put almost exactly that much effort into his research as well...