Skip to main content

Analysing patent race in Hadoop area

We take a quick look at the US patents space for 2013. Compiling data from January to July 2013, we list below some of the key observations on patents which are leveraging Hadoop in their architecture.

It is interesting to note that Amazon, Xerox and IBM lead the race so far. While IBM is the usual leader in patent race, Amazon also springs no surprise since Hadoop and MapReduce have been a preferred choice of internet companies. It may be tempting to comment at Xerox’s jump among the race leaders but a closer look at data shows that the patents by Xerox were filed between 2007 and 2010 and have been published this year. It is no surprise though considering that some of the best minds have worked at Xerox and hadoopsphere had covered one of their unique architectures much earlier in the game.

Another surprising fact was thrown up on deeper digging of patent text. The following 4 patents were ditto similar on Hadoop usage text and had similar figures. That much for novelty and uniqueness! Again points out that US patent system is far from perfect. It is interesting to note that two organizations among these, Artificial Solutions and NewVoice Media have got major VC funding this year.
... delivering advanced natural language ...
 1 Jan 2013
Artificial Solutions Ltd.
... optimized and distributed routing of ...
 11 Jun 2013
Brian R. Galvin
... optimized and distributed resource management
 26 Feb 2013
New Voice Media Limited
... automated testing of functionally complex ...
 9 Apr 2013
True Metrics LLC

Looking at year on year comparison, it is clear that with growing awareness and popularity of Hadoop, the no. of patents leveraging Hadoop also has increased. Among the last year leaders, Facebook dominated the race.

Few notes:
1)      Data has been compiled from public patent search sources and not extracted directly from USPTO data. Count and numbers may vary.
2)     Usage of Hadoop has been interpreted based on available text and actual usage may vary in implemented systems.


Popular posts from this blog

Low latency SQL querying on HBase

HBase has emerged as one of the most popular NoSQL database offering distributed, versioned, non-relational tables hosted on commodity hardware. However, with a large set of users coming from a relational SQL world, it made sense to bring the SQL back in this NoSQL. With Apache Phoenix, database professionals get a convenient way to query HBase through SQL in a fast and efficient manner. Continuing our discussion with James Taylor, the founder of Apache Phoenix, we focus on the functional aspects of Phoenix in this second part of interaction.
Although Apache Phoenix started off with distinct low latency advantage, have the other options like Hive/Impala (integrated with HBase) caught up in terms of performance?
No, these other tools such as Hive and Impala have not invested in improving performance against HBase data, so if anything, Phoenix's advantage has only gotten bigger as our performance improves.  See this link for comparison of Apache Phoenix with Apache Hive and Cloudera Im…

Data deduplication tactics with HDFS and MapReduce

As the amount of data continues to grow exponentially, there has been increased focus on stored data reduction methods. Data compression, single instance store and data deduplication are among the common techniques employed for stored data reduction.
Deduplication often refers to elimination of redundant subfiles (also known as chunks, blocks, or extents). Unlike compression, data is not changed and eliminates storage capacity for identical data. Data deduplication offers significant advantage in terms of reduction in storage, network bandwidth and promises increased scalability.
From a simplistic use case perspective, we can see application in removing duplicates in Call Detail Record (CDR) for a Telecom carrier. Similarly, we may apply the technique to optimize on network traffic carrying the same data packets.
Some of the common methods for data deduplication in storage architecture include hashing, binary comparison and delta differencing. In this post, we focus on how MapReduce and…

Pricing models for Hadoop products

A look at the various pricing models adopted by the vendors in the Hadoop ecosystem. While the pricing models are evolving in this rapid and dynamic market, listed below are some of the major variations utilized by companies in the sphere.
1) Per Node:Among the most common model, the node based pricing mechanism utilizes customized rules for determining pricing per node. This may be as straight forward as pricing per name node and data node or could have complex variants of pricing based on number of core processors utilized by the nodes in the cluster or per user license in case of applications.
2) Per TB:The data based pricing mechanism charges customer for license cost per TB of data. This model usually accounts non replicated data for computation of cost.
3) Subscription Support cost only:In this model, the vendor prefers to give away software for free but charges the customer for subscription support on a specified number of nodes. The support timings and level of support further …