Cloud storage upstart Nasuni has been granted a patent for its UniFS file system, which layers a filesystem onto a public cloud storage provider’s object storage systems. Nasuni (NAS-unified) offers primary storage in the public cloud through its filers, NF-series cloud storage gateway systems. One aspect of this is that the …
Mentions of Apple in the article?
Stay classy El Reg...
It's the norm these days...
If you can't find real bait for a trollfest, manufacture it artificially.
I sense the headline writers at El Reg have had a diktat from on high that they must have three verifiable and preferably sane excuses for not putting 'Apple' in.
Seems to be working as a lot of articles have Apple in the title and, actually, bugger all to do with Apple in the article.
TBH, Apple is the poster child for "patenting frivolous things" in IT space, and while they aren't quite a patent troll (they actually do use their patents in their products) the whole "rounded corners" thing has made them the laughingstock whenever patents and IT are involved.
This smells like prior art.
ZFS looks to have similar facilities, so I'm surprised to see no challenge from Oracle, and more cloudy distributed filesystem providers, and existing NoSQL cloud users and an object store hard disk manufacturer could also look at challenging this.
Just read about docker having this feature... and this was in DFS too? And ZFS (as mentioned)...
What about LVM? I mean this is NOT a new idea....
Something seriously broken in patents that refer to non-physical products....
It must be prior art
This is bullshit. Anybody promoting this as a patent-able concept is not qualified to make the application.
Patent applications have become a ridiculous game whereby they throw anything and everything at the wall to see if it will stick and of course some does. If such a patent survives a challenge it renders the patent system meaningless (not that it needs much help).
There is no realistic attempt to find prior art and the applications are now written in such obscure language it defeats the ostensible purpose of the patent system anyway. A murky patent for things already a part of prior art cannot be used by anybody but a lawyer.
When the only people served by the patent system are lawyers, the patent system has to be net negative.
At least as far as business processes and software and mathematics are concerned, patents are crying out for abolition.
Re: It must be prior art
For patent trolls and vicious competitors the patent system is all upside with zero downside. With enough crafty bullshit patents and a convincing claim that you will go to court you can join a patent cartel and use your bully-boy tactics to avoid paying anybody for real patents.
In the absence of abolition, we need a mechanism that penalizes illegitimate patent claims sufficiently to make patent trolling and other patent misuse unprofitable.
Well I hold the patent for all that ... on a mobile device.
I'm guessing at least ZFS already does stuff like this, unless they're going for the "but we do it in TEH CLOUDZ!" angle. Anyway, it's possible they'll succeed thanks to that horrible "America Invents Act" where prior art is no longer a patent breaker if it hasn't been patented first. That act made patent trolls very happy!
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Apple 'fesses up: Rejected from the App Store, dev? THIS is why