3 Replies Latest reply: Nov 4, 2012 8:16 AM by robvarga RSS

    SAP AG Patent on distributed cache

    542820
      I was wonder if Oracle Coherence doesn't violate SAP AG's patent on distributed cache - patent 7694065

      http://www.google.com/patents?id=9C3OAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=oracle&f=false
        • 1. Re: SAP AG Patent on distributed cache
          robvarga
          user539817 wrote:
          I was wonder if Oracle Coherence doesn't violate SAP AG's patent on distributed cache - patent 7694065

          http://www.google.com/patents?id=9C3OAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=oracle&f=false
          I would think that that patent is very easy to kill off with Coherence itself most likely considerable as a prior art to it...

          Best regards,

          Robert
          • 2. Re: SAP AG Patent on distributed cache
            542820
            Are you implying lengthy litigation by "easy to kill off"?

            Surprisingly Tangosol or Oracle has no patents on the product relating to its core technology. They have patents around the peripheral aspects like managing nodes in cluster via Web Logic and so forth. Its strange.
            • 3. Re: SAP AG Patent on distributed cache
              robvarga
              user539817 wrote:
              Are you implying lengthy litigation by "easy to kill off"?
              No, I was implying that since Coherence was on the market years before the patent was filed, and I believe even persistence related features were in Coherence before the patent was filed.

              I just skimmed that link which was posted, it describes something which can be interpreted to be similar to the write-through feature or the cache-aside pattern (which is something building on to Coherence and would not cover Coherence itself as it is just a way of using Coherence).

              So either you consider Coherence as a prior art (write-through persistence), or you can not consider the patent to cover Coherence itself (cache-aside).

              I would think therefore that it would be pretty easy to invalidate the patent on grounds of existing equivalent prior art. Note, that I am not a lawyer, and this is just an opinion, and not necessarily well-informed at that as I did not do research on that patent itself.

              Best regards,

              Robert