"... a patent filed using open source ..."
I think that needs to be re-worded. Perhaps it's open source code that implements a patented technique or method? I assume they intend to charge license fees for commercial use.
Opensourcer MapR has been granted a patent for technology to reliably herd big data. The Hadoop flinger claims its architecture would safeguard "against data loss with optimised replication techniques and tolerance for multiple node failures in a cluster." MapR is using the filing to try to differentiate against rival Hadoop …
The Apache license, http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 , explicitly covers patents.
You sue someone over a patent infringement in an apache library/app, and your own rights to use that code goes away, including any patent rights granted by others. MapR's patent may apply to competitors, but if they ever assert that Hadoop infringes it, well, they are in deep trouble. Why? They need the Hadoop libraries on their classpath to implement their filesystem and HBase bindings, to mimic the ASF applications.
They can talk as much as they like about how wonderful their code is, but if they try to make enemies of the Apache projects which their entire business model "A better Hadoop FS than HDFS, a better HBase than HBase, all for a significantly higher price" collapses, as it won't be able to work with the Hadoop stack..
This post has been deleted by its author