Juju patents

[fengxia]

I'm having difficulty understanding these patents.

Descriptions and diagrams are generic, with many "..." etc type of
notions, "chef, puppet, juju, ...". Doesn't it make this open-ended,
thus can include just about anything it wants?

Also, modeling a component then using them to form a service is a broad
,general description. When it says topology, does it confine itself to
**network topology**? cause the word "topology" can also be extended to
anything that has a link/connection/relation. As long as the thing
doesn't stand alone and work only by itself, it's part of some sort of
topology, isn't it?

Anyone could chip in how to read and interpret these patents here? what
could be the hypothetical impact on Juju and charms?

Hi all
Just got a scholar alert for three patents that seem to be describing
Juju/TOSCA.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302532.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302531.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302537.html
These were filed in 2014 by HPE. Even with a grace period of one year,
it's still more than a year after the first release of Juju and TOSCA.
Is Canonical interested in fighting this?
Kind regards
Merlijn

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Just got a scholar alert for three patents that seem to be describing
Juju/TOSCA.
- "TOPOLOGY BASED MANAGEMENT WITH STAGE AND VERSION
POLICIES": http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302532.html
- "TOPOLOGY BASED MANAGEMENT WITH COMPLIANCE
POLICIES": http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302531.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302537.html
These were filed in 2014 by HPE. Even with a grace period of one year,
it's still more than a year after the first release of Juju and TOSCA.
Is Canonical interested in fighting this?

Juju is covered by the Open Invention Network, so I wouldn't expect any
problems from HPE in this regard. If it's straightforward to notify the
patent office of prior art, then I'd be happy to facilitate that.

Mark

[Merlijn Sebrechts]

Hi Mark


The United States Patent Office has an online filing system where you can
submit prior art. <https://patents.meta.stackexchange.com/a/107>

I can help search for prior art, but I have no idea what's actually
required to be valid prior art. The patent application is very dense, and
it's not clear to me what they are claiming. Strangely, TOSCA is referred
to in the patent itself, even though that seems like prior art to me.. Is
anyone in Canonical more familiar with this?



Kind regards
Merlijn

Post by Mark Shuttleworth

Just got a scholar alert for three patents that seem to be describing
Juju/TOSCA.
- "TOPOLOGY BASED MANAGEMENT WITH STAGE AND VERSION
POLICIES": http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302532.html
- "TOPOLOGY BASED MANAGEMENT WITH COMPLIANCE
POLICIES": http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302531.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0302537.html
These were filed in 2014 by HPE. Even with a grace period of one year,
it's still more than a year after the first release of Juju and TOSCA.
Is Canonical interested in fighting this?

Juju is covered by the Open Invention Network, so I wouldn't expect any
problems from HPE in this regard. If it's straightforward to notify the
patent office of prior art, then I'd be happy to facilitate that.
Mark