Coho Licensing LLC v. Twitter Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Twitter Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0311-1370198.) - filed by Coho Licensing LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(cla, )

Download PDF
Exhibit B US008166096B1 (12) Ulllted States Patent (10) Patent N0.: Odom (54) US 8,166,096 B1 (45) Date of Patent: *Apr. 24, 2012 DISTRIBUTED MULTIPLE-TIER TASK 6,775,831 B1 8/2004 Carrasco etal. ALLOCATION 6,782,422 B1 6,826,753 B1 8/2004 Bahl et al. 11/2004 Dageville et al. 6,941,365 B2 * 9/2005 (76) InVemOr- _ Gary Odom, Portland, OR (Us) 7,013,344 B2 * 3/2006 Megiddo ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, 709/232 Sirgany 7,085,853 B2 * 8/2006 VolkoV et al. (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 7,103,628 B2 * 9/2006 Neiman et a1. 7,155,722 131* 12/2006 Hilla et a1. U_S_C_ 154(1)) by 0 days 7,188,113 B1 3/2007 Thusoo 7,243,121 B2 * Claimem 7/2007 7,383,426 B2 This patent is subject to a terminal dis- 6/2003 Chung et a1~ Neiman et al. .............. .. 709/201 (21) Flledi 1/2010 Matsumoto 2/2010 Motoyama et al. 7,693,931 B2 * 4/2010 Polan 7,835,022 B2 * 11/2010 Matsumoto ................ .. 358/115 APP1~ NOJ 13/208,404 (22) 7,647,593 B2 * 7,668,800 B2 _ 7,849,178 B2 Aug. 12,2011 12/2010 Shen et al. 7,936,469 B2* 2003/0028640 A1* 2003/0028645 A1* 2/2003 Romagnoli 2003/0050955 A1* Related U_s_ Application Data 5/2011 Gregory ..................... .. 358/1.15 2/2003 Malik 3/2003 Eatough et al. (63) Continuation of application No. 10/228,588, ?led on Aug. 26, 2002, noW Pat. No. 8,024,395. (60) Provisional application No. 60/317,108, ?led on Sep. (51) 4’ 2001 ' Int Cl (52) us. Cl. ....................... .. 709/201; 709/223; 709/226 (58) (Continued) OTHER PUBLICATIONS Kao, “Subtask deadline assignment for complex distributed soft real time tasks,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Field of Classi?cation Search ................ .. 709/201, G0'6F 25/16 (2006 01) Distributed Computing Systems, 1994; Jun. 21-24, 1994; pp. 172 181’ USA‘ (Continued) 709/223i226; 718/105 See application ?le for complete search history. (56) Primary Examiner * Faruk HamZa References Cited (57) U S PATENT DOCUMENTS ' ' Described is a system and methods for multiple tier distribu _ 2 5’815’793 A * ABSTRACT tion of task portions for distributed processing. Essentially, a g 31' task is divided into portions by a ?rst computer and a task 9/l998 Ferguson ““““““““““ “ 725/131 631123225 A 8/2()()() Kraft et 31, 6,148,323 A * 11/2000 Whitneret al. 6,167,427 A 12/2000 Rablnovlch et a1~ 5:230:21 633703560 B1 participatory computer on the netWork, Whereby distributed 4/2002 Robenaz'zi et a1‘ 6,418,462 B1* portion transferred to second participatory computer on the network, Whereupon an allocated task portion is again por tioned by the second computer into subtask portions, and a subtask portion transferred by the second computer to a third 7/2002 Xu 6,463,457 B1* 10/2002 processing transpires, and results collated as required. 20 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets Armentrout et al. ........ .. 709/201 11 ALLOCATING COMPUTER I 10 SUB-ALLOCATING 1 COMPUTER 99 NETWORK 12 SUB-ALLOCATING 2 COMPUTER ‘ 13 ALLOCATED COMPUTER 14 COMPUTER l5 COLLATING COMPUTER US 8,166,096 B1 Page 2 US. PATENT DOCUMENTS OTHER PUBLICATIONS 2003/0060“ Al* 3/2003 B enhaseet a. 1 Lee, “Some simple task assignment problems for distributed 2003/01 58887 A1 * 8/2003 M egi ddo networked agents,” Fourth International Conference on Knowledge 2004/0045002 A1 2004/0264503 A1 3/ 2004 Berger et 31, 12/2004 Braves 2008/0216859 Al 9/2008 Chan 2009/0204470 A1 8/2009 Weyl et a1. Based Intelligent Engineering Systems and Allied Technologies, 2000. Proceedings. vol. 1, Aug. 30-Sep. 1, 2000 pp. 305-308, USA. * cited by examiner US. Patent Apr. 24, 2012 Sheet 1 0f 6 100 COMPUTER 101 CPU 102 STORAGE 103 MEMORY 104 RETENTION DEVICE(s) 105 DISPLAY DEVICE 106 INPUT DEVICE(S) 107 POINTING DEVICE (E.G. MOUSE) 108 KEYBOARD 109 NETWORK CONNECTION DEVICE FIGURE 1 US 8,166,096 B1 US. Patent Apr. 24, 2012 11 ALLOCATING COMPUTER Sheet 2 0f6 US 8,166,096 B1 10 SUB-ALLOCATING 1 COMPUTER 12 SUB-ALLOCATING 2 COMPUTER 13 ALLOCATED COMPUTER 14 COMPUTER 15 COLLATING COMPUTER FIGURE 2 US. Patent Apr. 24, 2012 Sheet 3 0f6 US 8,166,096 B1 70D TASK (DATA)\/ 711) TASK PORTION 721) SUBTASK PORTION _____ __ \\_/// FIGURE 3A 81 71P TASK PORTION / \ \/ 82A 83A 70F TASK 82Y 83B 83Y 72R SUBTASK PORTION 8A 84Y 85 FIGURE 35 842 \/ \-/7COLLATE US. Patent Apr. 24, 2012 Sheet 4 0f6 US 8,166,096 B1 20 COORDINATOR 21 ALLOCATOR 22 SCHEDULER 23 ESTIMATOR 24 PROCESSOR 25 INITIATOR 26 SUSPENDER 27 COLLATOR 28 COMMUNICATOR 29 ADDRESSOR F|GURE4 60 (SUB)TASK 61 MESSAGE PORTION IDENTIFIABLE BY DIVISION TYPE ACTIONSPECIFIC (E.G. ALLOCATE, 62 DATA DATA OR DATA CANCEL, REFERENCE (SUB)TASK 63 CODE 64 STATUS / DIRECTIVE SOFTWARE DEPENDS ON OR SW MESSAGE REFERENCE TYPE RESULT, COLLATE) FIGURE5 65 RESULTS DEPENDS ON MESSAGE TYPE US. Patent Apr. 24, 2012 Sheet 5 0f6 US 8,166,096 B1 1 — ALLOCATING COMPUTER: ALLOCATE TASK PORTION TO A COMPUTER l 2 —SET COMPLETION SCHHDULH (OPTIONAL) l 3 — ESTIMATE COMPLETION TIME (OPTIONAL) l 4 — ALLOCATEI) COMPUTER: SUB-ALLOCATH SUBTASK PORTION l 5 * PROCESSING COMPUTERS: PROCESS TASK PORTION/SUBTASK l 6 — PROCESSING COMPUTERS: TRANSFER RESULTS (OPTIONAL) l 7 * COLLATING COMPUTER(S): COLLATE RESULTS (OPTIONAL) l 8 — RESULTS COMPUTER(S): TRANSFER RESULTS (OPTIONAL) FIGURE 6 US. Patent Apr. 24, 2012 Sheet 6 0f 6 11 11 /I\ 40 50 l I I I 1O l | 53 I l 13 1/4 44 :54 l 4 43 US 8,166,096 B1 40 14 l 4\ I I I l 44 VI 10 42 I 52 46 I/ l J 12 4‘ FIGURE 7A 45 I55 v | v 13 FIGURE 75 :1: (SUB-)ALLOCATE 40 I? COLLATE V (ALT. EMBODIMENT) \'/ : TRANSFER 42 ‘ (ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENT) 49 11 l FIGURE 7c 90' ‘91 10 FIGURE 70 US 8,166,096 B1 1 2 DISTRIBUTED MULTIPLE-TIER TASK ALLOCATION A computer which has been allocated a distributed pro cessing task portion may itself determine to reallocate a por tion of its subtask, for example, in order to meet a schedule, or CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS if its performance pro?le deteriorates below expectation. The described technology localiZes further (sub)task portion allo cation control to computers having been assigned task por Compliant with 35 U.S.C. §120, this application is a con tinuation of US. patent application Ser. No. 10/228,588, ?led Aug. 26, 2002, now US. Pat. No. 8,024,395, which claims priority bene?t under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of US. Provisional tions. Further task processing division to other computers on the network may be extended to initial task portioning, schedul Application No. 60/317,108, ?led Sep. 4, 2001. ing, and results collation. Admittedly, only those tasks capable of being subdivided STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT in some manner may bene?t from the described technology. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS Not Applicable THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT Not Applicable FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a suitable computer. FIG. 2 depicts an example computer network. 20 INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC Not Applicable FIG. 5 depicts an abstract of a distributed processing mes sage. 25 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION advantage of distributed processing is positively correlated to availability of powerful computers in a networked environ ment. This trend is especially encouraged by always-on DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 30 FIG. 1 is a block diagram ofa computer 100 which com prises at least a CPU 101; storage 102, which comprises memory 103 and optionally one or more devices with reten tion medium(s) 104 such as hard disks, diskettes, compact 35 one or more input devices 106, examples of which include but are not exclusive to, a keyboard 108, and/or one or more pointing devices 107, such as a mouse. Such a computer 100 40 processing problems”, and switching an allocated task por tion to a different computer if the one ?rst assigned the task portion becomes occupied. 6,192,388 also describes some of the resource factors involved in determining whether to allo cate a task portion to a computer. disks (e. g. CD-ROM), or tape; a device 109 for connection to a network 99; an optional display device 105; and optionally broadband connection to the ultimate wide-area network: the Internet. US. Pat. No. 6,192,388 details “detecting available com puters to participate in computationally complex distributed FIG. 6 depicts distributed processing steps. FIG. 7 depicts examples of processing distribution and results collation. 1. Field of the Invention The relevant technical ?eld is computer software, speci? cally distributed processing in a networked environment. 2. Description of the Related Art Including Information Disclosed Under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 In what is not ironically called a “network effect”, the FIG. 3 depicts example tasks. FIG. 4 depicts relevant distributed processing application components. 45 is suitable for the described technology. FIG. 2 is a block diagram of distributed processing partici patory computers 100 connected to each other through a network 99. Computers 100 are participatory based upon having installed required software and, optionally, meeting speci?ed conditions for participation. Example conditions With some content overlap to the earlier-?led 6,192,388, US. Pat. No. 6,112,225 describes a “task distribution pro include su?icient processing power, storage, network band width or reliability, or adequate security precautions, such as cessing system and the method for subscribing computers to perform computing tasks during idle time”, and goes into a particular installed operating system. detail as to various ways of specifying “idle time”. Both Computer 11 in FIG. 2 is depicted in the role of an allocat 50 ing computer, signifying initial allocation of task portions. use the same computer for allocating, monitoring and re Likewise, other computers in FIG. 2 are signi?ed by their roles. FIGS. 2, 6, and 7 are used for example explanation of allocating task portions. the technology. The roles of computers are envisioned as 6,192,388 and 6,112,225, incorporated herein by reference, US. Pat. No. 6,263,358 discloses sophisticated regimes of scheduling of distributed processing tasks using software 55 a task or sub-task portion allocated to it by another computer in a succeeding task. A network 99 may be any means by which computers are connected for software program or data transfer. The agents. In the face of schedule slippage, such a system relies upon coordination among multiple agents to work effectively. US. Pat. No. 6,370,560 discloses “a load sharing system . . . . A controller divides a divisible load or task and assigns each segment of the load or task to a processor plat form based on the processor platform’s resource utiliZation cost and data link cost.” transitory: for example, a computer initiating distributed pro cessing and allocating task portions for its task may next have 60 described technology relies upon network connectivity, including inter-application messaging and data or software transfer capabilities that are well known. Participatory computers have software installed enabling BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 65 Multiple tier task allocation maximizes ?exibility and pro ductivity of distributed processing participatory computers. the desired distributed processing. The software may be installed by download through network 99 connection, or via a more traditional local retention medium, such as CD-ROM or ?oppy disk. US 8,166,096 B1 3 4 The desired distributing processing may take various forms. FIG. 3 illustrates examples. priate computer. A poWerful computer With relative poor net Work capacity (speed or reliability) may be shunned from One example is a divisible and distributable chunk of data communication-intensive jobs, such as collation 7. In this requiring a single processing, as depicted in FIG. 3a, split into embodiment, the distributed processing application may be portions so that the various participatory computers can pro cess the data portions. The task data 70d is shoWn portioned heterogeneous, comprising relative capabilities according to computer capacity. into equal quarter task portions 71d. A task portion has been further split into subtask portions 72d. An example at the other end of the spectrum, depicted in Messages are passed as required, including, for example, the folloWing types of messages 61: (sub)task portion alloca tion; data 62 or code 63 transfer; cancellation; scheduling: FIG. 3b, is a series of processing steps Which to some extent directives or estimation initiation or results; processing: may overlap, Whereby each of the participatory computers performs some portion of the task 70. Task 70p processing can be portioned into task portions 71p (8211-8411 and 82y directives (such as initiation, suspension, or collation) and results 65. FIG. 5 depicts an abstract of a distributed process ing message; intended for conceptual understanding and sug gestion, not speci?c implementation (as this message format 84y/z). Further, a subtask portion 72p could be allocated at speci?c processing steps (8311/!) or 84y/z). Note that synchro is not particularly e?icient). Not all ?elds shoWn Would nec essarily be used for each message type 61, and other ?elds may be required depending upon message type 61 or embodi niZation may be an issue, such as in FIG. 3b Where processing step 83b requires the output of preceding steps 82a and 82y to proceed. There may also be a results collation 85 step. BetWeen the extreme examples lies divisible and distributable data capable of being processed in an overlap (not exclusively ment. (Sub)task portions may be identi?able by its division, such 20 serial) manner. One possible employment scenario for the described tech and recombination of results by a collator 27. A table or database may be kept and transferred as necessary that iden nology is a set of participatory computers running one or more applications Which intermittently require intermittent excessive (to a single computer) processing. Distributed pro as, for example: 2/s-1A1-2/3, Where each set of number indicates a (sub)task division. 2/s, for example, Would be part 2 of 5 portions. The point is to alloW portioning by an allocator 21 25 ti?es actual and/or possible (sub)task portions. cessing may be used as a remedy for those times When a Data 62 or executable softWare code 63 or references to singular computer may otherWise bog doWn or be insuf?cient. In this scenario, any computer With excessive processing needs may initiate shared task processing, either by direct allocation of task portions, or by directing another computer them may be transferred via messaging. Status/directive 64 and result 65 depend on message type 61. 30 to perform task portion allocation and attendant processing. Note that the term “allocate” and its conjugations may refer computer is recommended as a Way to calibrate future allo cations. FIG. 6 outlines the steps for the described multiple tier distributed processing. FIG. 7 illustrates examples of the dis to initial allocation or subsequent sub-allocationiafter all, the allocation process is self-similar. In the preferred embodi ment, allocation (and sub-allocation) necessarily implies por 35 tioning of a (sub)task prior to transferring a portion to another computer. In an alternative embodiment, depicted in FIG. 7d, a task or (sub)task portion may be (sub-)allocated by transfer 90 of the (sub)task to another computer 10 prior to any por tioning by the initially transferring computer 11, With a Keeping track of processing times of allocated (sub)tasks (including CPU overhead and other performance factors) by 40 tribution process. An allocating computer 11 allocates a portion of a task to another computer 10 in step 1. As depicted in FIG. 7a, an allocating computer 11 may allocate task portions to multiple computers (11 and 14). An allocator 21 may be employed for task and subtaskportioning and transfer, and for tracking such request or directive that a portion be (sub-)allocated 91 to the (sub-)allocations and portions. computer 11 initiating the transfer, thus putting the overhead of (sub-)allocation on the recipient 10 rather than the initially transferring computer 11. Optionally, an allocating 11 (or sub-allocating 10) or allo cated 13 computer may set a completion schedule (step 2) for the time by Which results should be available. Depending FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary embodiment of relevant com ponents of a distributed processing program, some of Which 45 are optional, depending upon embodiment; other compo d’etre for multiple tier subtask sub-allocation, but subtask sub-allocation may be driven by anticipation of available nents, such as user interface, event handling, and the actual processing modules, likely exist. Components may have dif ferent con?gurations in different embodiments. upon the nature of the task, a schedule may be a single completion time for an allocated portion, or for intermediate computations as Well. Ostensibly, a schedule is the raison 50 While an application program is used as the preferred embodiment, an alternative preferred embodiment may incorporate all or portions of the described distributed pro resources Which later fail to appear forthcoming. For example, an allocated computer 13 may become busier than historical usage Would indicate, making (sub)task portion of?oading prudent. cessing functionality in an operating system. If scheduling is a factor, an estimated completion time An overall coordinator 20 may be employed to ensure proper interaction betWeen the relevant distributed process ing modules. In one embodiment, certain modules may be missing from an application on a particular computer, in Which case the coordinator 20 Would knoW the (limited) capa 55 bilities of the application, and compensate accordingly. Operationally, that compensation may take the form of knoW 60 calculation (step 3) is advised. The availability and speed of resources, such as processor(s) 101 and storage 102, may naturally ?gure into such calculation. Estimation calculations may be done by any participatory computer With suf?cient information. As depicted in FIG. 4, an allocator 21 may employ a sched uler 22, Which may employ an estimator 23, to perform pro cessing steps 3 and 2 respectively. ing, by an addressor 29 With a database tracking such capa bilities, of suitable computers With adequate capabilities to The overhead of distribution may be considered by an take on jobs Which a coordinator 20 needs to off-load. For example, a computer With limited storage or process ing poWer may not have a scheduler 22 or collator 27, Whereby a coordinator 20 off-loads those jobs to an appro estimator 23 or scheduler 22 as a factor in (sub-)allocation. Distribution overhead includes the time and resources to por 65 tion and distribute subtask portions, and to collect and collate results. Depending on the netWork, communication lags may US 8,166,096 B1 6 5 also be a factor. Excessive (sub)task portion (sub-)allocation granularity is conceivable and should be accounted for. A suggested rule is that estimate of (sub-)allocation should be a fraction of estimated processing time if processing time is the bottleneck; storage 102 capacity or other such bottlenecks The invention claimed is: necessitate similar consideration. Wherein said plurality of sets are calculated from portions An estimate of processing capability may be ascertained for a computer targeted for processing prior to (sub-)alloca tion, so as to portion (sub)tasks accordingly. Wherein said ?rst computer receiving a second set of said 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: a ?rst computer receiving via netWork communication a plurality of sets of calculated results from a plurality of computers, of a single computing task, plurality of sets, said second set comprising results from a second computer calculating a second task portion after said second com puter received said second task portion from a third For Whatever reason, in step 4, a computer 10 With an allocated task portion 71 decides to sub-allocate a portion 72 of its allotted subtask to another computer 13, as depicted in FIG. 7a. computer, said second task portion being divided from a third task Participatory computers With (sub-)allocated (sub)task portions perform required processing per step 5. The generic portion, said third task portion comprising after division said sec ond task portion and a fourth task portion, Wherein said ?rst computer receiving a fourth set of said processor 24 signi?es the performer of step 5. An initiator 25 may synchroniZe With other processors 24 if necessary. A computer may be Watchful (a possible coordinator 20 j ob) and sub-allocate after beginning processing, upon realiZing sub plurality of sets, 20 allocation as a prudent measure because of some unantici pated constraint, such as, for example, high CPU utiliZation (processing overhead) or suddenly limited storage. A sus pender 26 may suspend processing, saving state as necessary for later resumption. Depending upon embodiment, processing may occur only under speci?ed conditions, for example, only When a com ?nal result set. 2. The method according to claim 1, Wherein said netWork comprises a Wide-area netWork. 3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: said fourth computer coordinating distribution of a plural puter is past a threshold state deemed idle. Other conditions, such as available storage 102, or netWork 99 connection speed or reliability, may also be pertinent allocation or processing ity of task portions, including said third task portion to said third computer. criteria. If processing is conditional, temporary results may 4. The method according to claim 3, further comprising: be stashed (locally or elseWhere on the netWork) for later resumption. A processor 24 initiator 25 and suspender 26 may, for example, respectively detect and act upon onset and termination of speci?ed threshold conditions. Step 6 speci?es transferring results. This step may not be necessary, depending upon the task 70. LikeWise, in step 7, said fourth computer communicating a schedule to said third computer related to said third task portion. 35 results are optionally collated by one or more participatory computers, With results monitoring as required. Results said fourth set comprising results from said third computer calculating a fourth task portion after said third com puter receiving said third task portion from a fourth computer; and said ?rst computer collating said plurality of sets into a 5. The method according to claim 3, further comprising: said fourth computer distributing executable softWare to said third computer related to said third task portion. 6. The method according to claim 3, further comprising: said fourth computer dividing said single computing task monitoring and collation may itself become a distributed task. Collators 27 on multiple computers may collaborate to piece into a plurality of task portions. 7. The method according to claim 1, Wherein said ?rst computer and said fourth computer comprise the same com together and conclude the task. With the notable exception of 53', FIG. 7a depicts results returned to the computer Which allocated (or sub-allocated) puter. 8. A computer-implemented method comprising: a fourth computer receiving by inter-computer communi 40 45 the task (subtask) portion (50, 53, 54) for collation. But, as shoWn by example, results may be sent 53' to the allocating computer 11 instead of or in addition to that computer 10 that (sub-)allocated a (sub)task portion. FIG. 70 depicts results being transmitted (likely for colla 50 second computer via inter-computer communication, tion) to a different computer 15 than the allocating computer 11. This strategy may make sense, for example, When a series of tasks are allocated in succession: a division of duty betWeen an allocating computer 11 and a results-collating computer 15. Final results may be sent to the allocating com Wherein a second result set received by said fourth com puter comprises data resultant from said second com 55 puter communication, necessary. FIG. 7b depicts a situation Where an allocated computer 13 Wherein said second computer allocated said ?rst portion to said ?rst computer based upon a computed determi 60 as suggested. Task or subtask portions may be redundantly assigned as a precaution. Redundant (sub)allocation may be sensible given scheduling constraints. Security may be an issue. Data, results, messages, or other content may be encrypted as required. puter computing a second portion of said task, Wherein said ?rst and second portions received by said second computer from a third computer via inter-com puter 11 or other computers by the collating computer 15 as is processing multiple subtask portions allocated by different computers (12, 14). This is doable given identi?able portions cation a plurality of result sets, Wherein a ?rst result set received by said fourth computer comprises data resultant from a ?rst computer comput ing a ?rst portion of a task, said ?rst portion received by said ?rst computer from a 65 nation by said second computer; and said fourth computer collating said plurality of result sets. 9. The method according to claim 8, further comprising: said third computer conditionally sending said ?rst and second task portions to said second computer. 10. The method according to claim 8, Wherein said ?rst result set comprises data related to processing time in com puting said ?rst task portion. US 8,166,096 B1 8 7 11. The method according to claim 8, wherein said com puted determination by said second computer comprises a scheduling consideration. 12. The method according to claim 8, Wherein said com puted determination by said second computer comprises con sideration of available computing resources. 13. The method according to claim 8, further comprising: said fourth computer receiving data regarding processing duration related to at least one result set. 14. A computer-implemented method comprising: a ?rst computer receiving from a plurality of computers a plurality of results related to a task, Wherein said task comprises a plurality of task portions, Wherein at least one said task portion comprises a plurality of subtask portions, Wherein a ?rst result received by said ?rst computer is calculated from a ?rst subtask portion by a fourth com puter, said ?rst subtask portion received by said fourth computer from a third computer, said second computer dividing said task into a plurality of task portions, including said ?rst task portion; and Wherein said receiving occurs via netWork communication. 15. The method according to claim 14, further comprising: said second computer conditionally sending said ?rst task portion to said third computer. 16. The method according to claim 14, Wherein said ?rst computer and said second computer comprise the same com puter. 17. The method according to claim 14, Wherein said ?rst result comprises data related to duration of calculation of said ?rst subtask portion. 18. The method according to claim 14, further comprising: said third computer sending said ?rst subtask portion to said fourth computer at least partly based upon a sched ule associated With said ?rst task portion. 19. The method according to claim 14, further comprising: said third computer conditionally determining to send said ?rst subtask portion to said fourth computer. 20. The method according to claim 19, Wherein said con said ?rst subtask portion being a divisible portion of a ?rst ditional determination based upon data related to said fourth task portion, and Wherein said third computer received said ?rst task portion computer. from a second computer;

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?