<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>VirtualChaos - Nadeem's blog &#187; amazon-s3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.virtualchaos.co.uk/blog/tag/amazon-s3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.virtualchaos.co.uk/blog</link>
	<description>I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf mutes ... or should I?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:27:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Amazon attempting to patent S3</title>
		<link>http://www.virtualchaos.co.uk/blog/2007/07/07/amazon-attempting-to-patent-s3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.virtualchaos.co.uk/blog/2007/07/07/amazon-attempting-to-patent-s3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2007 11:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>nadeem.shabir</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Web 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amazon-s3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.virtualchaos.co.uk/blog/2007/07/07/amazon-attempting-to-patent-s3/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Patent and Trademark Office has disclosed Amazon&#8217;s latest patent application&#160;for a &#8220;Distributed storage system with web services client interface&#8221; here&#8217;s an extract from the abstract: A distributed, web-services based storage system. A system may include a web services interface configured to receive, according to a web services protocol, a given client request for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US Patent and Trademark Office has disclosed <a href="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=%2220070156842%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20070156842&amp;RS=DN/20070156842">Amazon&#8217;s latest patent application</a>&nbsp;for a &#8220;<em>Distributed storage system with web services client interface</em>&#8221; here&#8217;s an extract from the abstract:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>A distributed, web-services based storage system. A system may include a web services interface configured to receive, according to a web services protocol, a given client request for access to a given data object, the request including a key value corresponding to the object. The system may also include storage nodes configured to store replicas of the objects, where each replica is accessible via a respective unique locator value, and a keymap instance configured to store a respective keymap entry for each object. For the given object, the respective keymap entry includes the key value and each locator value corresponding to replicas of the object. A coordinator may receive the given client request from the web services interface, responsively access the keymap instance to identify locator values corresponding to the key value and, for a particular locator value, retrieve a corresponding replica from a corresponding storage node.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;m guessing that in light of a <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070430-supreme-court-ruling-makes-obvious-patents-harder-to-defend.html">recent supreme court ruling</a> this application would not be granted under the strengthened obviousness test as such&nbsp;a patent for a <em>distributed storage system with a web services client interface</em> is about as obvious as you can get. It wasn&#8217;t too long ago Amazon failed in their attempt to patent <em>one-click</em> technology which again should have been rejected on the basis of the obviousness test but wasn&#8217;t largely because Amazon has a history of bullying the Patent Office &#8230; Tim O&#8217;Reilly summed up why in this <a href="http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2000/amazon_patent.html">excellent little article</a>.</p>
<p>The more we move towards a Web 2.0 world with applications delivered as SaaS by its very definition were dealing with applications that require distributed storage which is accessible through web services. I&#8217;m not knocking S3, its excellent service and Amazon deserve our plaudits for creating such a successful service. S3 isn&#8217;t a unique invention it&#8217;s simply the putting together of a bunch of technologies already available, and Amazon aren&#8217;t unique there are other platform&#8217;s available similar to Amazon&#8217;s S3 .. Tim might have written the following in reference to the One-Click patent but I believe its equally applicable to this one&#8230;</p>
<p>
<blockquote>Patents like this are also incredibly short-sighted! The web has exploded because it was an open platform that sparked countless innovations by users. Fence in that platform, and who knows what opportunities will never come to light?</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure whether Amazon would ever try to enforce this patent and I&#8217;m no expert on patent law, it just strikes me as a worrying development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.virtualchaos.co.uk/blog/2007/07/07/amazon-attempting-to-patent-s3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

