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.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2005-10-18 15:04:57|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase|
|Previous:||From: Mitch Pirtle||Date: 2005-10-18 14:10:09|
|Subject: Re: Is Postgres comparable to MSSQL|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Raymond O'Donnell||Date: 2005-10-18 14:30:37|
|Subject: Re: A good client|
|Previous:||From: Wim Bertels||Date: 2005-10-18 13:41:22|
|Subject: A good client|