Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
> > But we need to look into the problem.
> 
> What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
> offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
> demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net?  The code
> would have to be yanked from CVS &c., in that case, no?  (IANAL, but
> I think I may consult with one.)

We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent.  With the
US granting patents on even obvious ideas, I would think that most large
software projects, including commercial ones, already have tons of
patent violations in their code.  Does anyone think otherwise?

However, I will grant that ARC is not an obvious idea.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

• Re: ARC patent at 2005-01-17 19:27:44 from Andrew Sullivan

Responses

• Re: ARC patent at 2005-01-17 19:44:08 from Joshua D. Drake
• Re: ARC patent at 2005-01-17 19:46:13 from Andrew Sullivan
• Re: ARC patent at 2005-01-17 19:48:46 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-01-17 19:41:18
	Subject: Re: %2$, %1$ gettext placeholder replacement is not working under Win32
Previous:	From: Andrew Sullivan	Date: 2005-01-17 19:27:44
	Subject: Re: ARC patent