Microsoft Files For 3 Parallel Processing Patents 137
theodp writes "Microsoft may have been a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to parallel programming, but that's not stopping the software giant from trying to patent it. This week, the USPTO revealed that Microsoft has three additional parallel-processing patents pending — 1. Partitioning and Repartitioning for Data Parallel Operations, 2. Data Parallel Searching, and 3. Data Parallel Production and Consumption. Informing the USPTO that 'Software programs have been written to run sequentially since the beginning days of software development,' Microsoft adds there's been a '[recent] shift away from sequential execution toward parallel execution.' Before they grant the patents, let's hope the USPTO gets a second opinion on the novelty of Microsoft's parallel-processing patent claims."
pffff (Score:1, Insightful)
Just what the world needs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, this is really just what we need: for somebody to come along and encumber the future of parallel processing with a metric fuckload of patents. Thanks, Microsoft!
Re:pffff (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be as simple as throwing in "rsh" and sending the task to another system - that's a parallel processing method still in use that predates linux. I suggest the above poster uses google to find out what parallel processing is and look at the many different ways of dividing up the tasks, kicking of the processes and getting some sort of results at the end.
Microsoft are the new kids on the block and their licencing alone makes them a very poor choice for clustering so I haven't heard of any production software that will actually run on the platform. There has to be something because it's been a couple of years now. Does anyone have any good examples?
Re:pffff (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the confusion here is that people keep referring to parallel processing in general - which is obviously a very old, and well-explored idea - while the real topic here is automatic parallelization. It's obviously not new either, but so far it has been much less successful. We keep hearing about how pure FP languages such as Haskell would enable it, but, so far, no cigar. And now Microsoft is trying to pull that trick with LINQ and STL.
Rules of the Game (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule 1: If I don't patent it, someone else will -- no matter how obvious or trivial.
Rule 2: If someone else patents it -- even if invalid -- and I try to use it, it's off to court for years and years and lots of money.
The game: The one with the most patents wins.
If you don't like the rules, you have two choices.
Choice 1: Don't play the game.
Choice 2: Get the rules changed.
Criticizing Microsoft or anyone else for playing the game by the rules is just whining.
Re:Rules of the Game (Score:3, Insightful)
Whining can be considered by people other than you to be a call to arms, which is often the first step taken pursuant to option #2.
Patents are simply monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Got problems with the anti trust laws? Don't know how to deal with it? Simple: patent stuff. That way you get a legal monopoly and stifle the competition the easy way.
These kind of patents serve no purpose other than to prevent competing organisations from developing useful goods and services. They hold back innovation and stifle competition.
It is not as though others would not have come up with the same solutions (and most probably had already).
So why would politicians allow this state of affairs to continue? Who is lobbying to keep the patent system the way it is and maybe even extend it? Who benefits? (hint: lawyers and shareholders in large corporations - that is to say people who are already wealthy, trying to make sure they get an even bigger slice of the cake)
And furthermore... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Rules of the Game (Score:3, Insightful)
Your implication is that there are only two choices: "Criticize Microsoft and others for playing by the rules" and "keeping your mouth shut and silently accepting it." There are others, all more effective.
Google, AKA "parallel computing prior art, inc." (Score:3, Insightful)
Google alone must have prior art on just about every single claim in all 3 patents.
Hopefully Google will also have the guts to bash MS over the metaphorical skull with a ton of overlapping patents. That way MS gets their ass handed to them -- by their worst enemy no less -- and meanwhile the patent examiner who was responsible for granting these also gets reassigned to review patents on toilets and PVC pipe.