| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ARC patent |
| Date: | 2005-01-17 21:13:56 |
| Message-ID: | 10612.1105996436@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
>> ... because it isn't a patent, yet.
> Yea, but IBM has thousands of patents. The odds that this particular
> patent would have been in the 500 if it was granted is unlikely, no?
That's hard to say. But the reason we know without looking that it's
not in that list is that they can't have released a patent they don't
have yet.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-01-17 21:13:57 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-01-17 21:09:29 | Re: ARC patent |