Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase

From: Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>
To: Chris Travers <chris(at)verkiel(dot)metatrontech(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Date: 2005-10-18 14:15:40
Message-ID: 4355038C.3030007@empires.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-general
Chris Travers wrote:
>  >>
> 
> Doesn't really matter if the legal issues are ultimately in one's favor, 
> if one's erstwhile opponent has enough lawyer time ... even if you can 
> survive the lengthy battle, it may well be a pyrrhic victory.
> <<
> 
> Well, I would assume two things would happen in a case like that.  The 
> first is that any patents we are alleged (unless they are truly 
> rediculous) to infringe upon would be coded around very quickly.  

Unless, of course, Oracle claims some kind of patent infringement that 
requires that we "code around" something critical. They probably don't 
posess such a patent that is valid (let's not look this time though), 
but that might not matter.

Oracle can scare a lot of people away from using PostgreSQL just by 
announcing the lawsuit. And there's no cheap way to fight a patent 
lawsuit that I know of. Maybe if they did that, and the patent is 
obviously invalid due to prior art, there might be some way to argue 
with the USPTO to get the patent invalidated before trial.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2005-10-18 15:04:57
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Previous:From: Mitch PirtleDate: 2005-10-18 14:10:09
Subject: Re: Is Postgres comparable to MSSQL

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Raymond O'DonnellDate: 2005-10-18 14:30:37
Subject: Re: A good client
Previous:From: Wim BertelsDate: 2005-10-18 13:41:22
Subject: A good client

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group