| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
| Date: | 2018-07-24 15:28:27 |
| Message-ID: | 59878241-ebff-f620-2521-fea6f0b2f7f6@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/24/2018 11:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Probably easiest way forward is to state the requirement and have
> someone untainted by the patent come up with a clean-room
> re-implementation.
That sounds like an approach based on copyright considerations.
A patent, on the other hand, will apply if you happen to arrive
at an implementation technique that's arguably covered by its
claims, no matter how independently you may have arrived at it.
Under those circumstances, I'm not certain how useful
'untaintedness' even is. It may be more useful for someone who
*is* familiar with the patent to confirm that the re-implementation
does in fact accomplish the requirement in a different way.
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2018-07-24 15:28:51 | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-07-24 15:26:44 | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |