| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ARC patent |
| Date: | 2005-01-22 20:57:22 |
| Message-ID: | 25209.1106427442@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu> writes:
> I have a couple aquaintances at IBM that I can try to contact about it.
> Rather than assume what IBM will do, why not just ask them? If they
> don't respond, they don't respond. If they do respond, it's better than
> us guessing.
People seem to be assuming that asking IBM is a zero-risk thing. It's not.
If they are forced to deal with the issue, they might well feel that
they have to take action that we'd not like; whereas as long as it's not
officially in front of them, they can pretend to ignore us.
This is not a whole lot different from our situation today: now that the
issue of the pending patent is officially in front of us, we have to
deal with it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-22 21:03:06 | Re: Autotuning Group Commit |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2005-01-22 20:36:27 | Re: [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow && pg_group -- UNTESTED |