On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:58:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> writes:
> > ahead and release with it anyway.  IBM would justifiably jump on us
> > for that as a result.
> 
> With what?  They have no patent, yet, and may never have one.  If the
> patent were already issued then I'd be much more concerned.

With a team of lawyers which we can't match.  They may never have a
patent, or they may get it next month.  I'd feel more
comfortable if I knew what sort of remedies they could demand (I have
a call open to a lawyer I believe will give me a conservative answer
about that).  

What I can say, for sure, is that no responsible corporate user will
be able to use this code with the threat hanging over.  The recent
SCO stuff ought to be a lesson here: their claims appear to have been
completely baseless, but companies still spent a pile of time and
money on the issue.  It'll be far worse in a case where the
infringment is real and, yet worse, intentional.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.  What do you do sir?
		--attr. John Maynard Keynes

In response to

• Re: ARC patent at 2005-01-17 19:58:33 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: ARC patent at 2005-01-17 20:48:38 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Sullivan	Date: 2005-01-17 20:17:35
	Subject: Re: ARC patent
Previous:	From: Nicolai Tufar	Date: 2005-01-17 20:16:31
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] %2$, %1$ gettext placeholder replacement is not working under Win32