| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Software Patents |
| Date: | 2005-04-23 17:29:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20050423172949.GB18950@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 17:45:05 -0400,
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above
> > >>experience.
> > >
> > >
> > > ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools.
> >
> > So ARC is 2Q++. My point exactly :)
>
> So you are saying "++" isn't patentable? I don't understand that.
>
> You are saying that there are no completely new ideas in databases, and
> that marginal improvements are not patentable?
It isn't a matter of whether they can be patented, but whether they should
be patented. There are costs involved with the patent system, and unless
society gets some benefit from patents, then they shouldn't be used.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2005-04-23 18:10:40 | Re: MySQL & Red Hat? |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-04-23 17:26:37 | Re: Software Patents |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Francis Irving | 2005-04-24 16:29:43 | Re: [webmaster] Opening links in new windows is irritating |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-04-23 17:26:37 | Re: Software Patents |