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
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.
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
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|