Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".
----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Justin Clift <justin(at)salasaga(dot)org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc(at)gmail(dot)com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com>; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin(at)salasaga(dot)org> wrote:
> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: ravysters||Date: 2008-05-29 11:22:20|
|Previous:||From: hobbes||Date: 2008-05-29 08:51:35|
|Subject: Re: Help with remote connection to remote Postgresql 8.3 Server...|