Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sun, April 1, 2007 01:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The idea of OIN is to have a large patent pool that can be
> > counter-asserted against anyone who doesn't want to play nice.
> > Mutual assured destruction in the patent sphere, if you will.
> And from the participants' point of view, I suppose the big attraction
> must be that they do away with a threat to their patents. If you have a
> patent that matches what some open project (not worth suing) has been
> doing for the past few years, then anyone else you might want to sue about
> the patent could point to that project and say "if you have a valid
> patent, why didn't you say something when they infringed it?"
You can be as selective as you want about enforcing patents ---
copyright/trademark enforcement does require consistent enforcement.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2007-04-02 17:13:15|
|Subject: Re: Oracle indemnifies PostgreSQL on its patents|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-02 16:41:36|
|Subject: Re: Implicit casts to text |