> > Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for 
> > PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies 
> Conference 
> > (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.

Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document from the above conference?

... John

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:03:01AM +1100, John Hansen wrote:

> Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read
> the document from the above conference?

No, the patent application is filed on 14 November 2002, according to
the URL that Neil posted.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well. 
		--Dennis Ritchie

John Hansen wrote:

>>>Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for 
>>>PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies 
>>>      
>>>
>>Conference 
>>    
>>
>>>(FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
>>>      
>>>
>
>Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document from the above conference?
>  
>


The patent claim was filed on *November 14, 2002 according to the docs. 
It might have been updated in May 2004, or some other action, but the 
filing date is the one that counts. You can certainly trust IBM not to 
let their guys preclude a patent they intend to file by doing prior 
publication.

cheers

andrew
*

"John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for 
>> PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies 
>> Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.

> Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document from the above conference?

No, the filing date was in 2002.  I'm not sure what the May/04 date means;
possibly the date of the last activity in that patent file?

			regards, tom lane

Greetings,

I would like to contribute my $.02 to this issue.

I speak as not a lawyer but as someone tho worked
one and a half year in a patent bureau and even
got a certificate from WIPO (http://academy.wipo.int/
those who interested may attend the course too, it
is free).

First, the whole point of USPTO's publishing patents
which are pending is to get it publicly reviewed and
collect objections before final decision. So, those
of you who live in US file and objection based on
"USENIX File & Storage Technologies Conference
(FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA" mentioned
by Jan Wieck. Filing and objection should be not
be too expensive though you may need help of
professional lawyer form a patent bureau co compose
a solid objection.

I will call my old friends from Patent Bureau tomorrow
to get a professional advise on this matter.

Second, a pending patent is not a granted patent,
one is not infringing anything by distributing
technology based in a pending patent. As soon
as patent is granted AND "Cease and Desist" letter
form IBM is received removing offending code, removing
offending versions from download and and notifying
customers to upgrade to a new version is sufficient.
I am not sure about CVS, apparently it need to be
cleared out too.

A vaguely similar issue happened between Pixar,
the developer of Renderman and Exluna the
developer of BMRT, a free (but not open
source) raytracing 3D renderer. Pixar sued Exluna
for willful patent infringement. Exluna released
a new version of BMRT - 2.6 without offending
technology and ensured that version 2.5 is removed
from all mirrors. For quite a lot of time
-and even now- one of the most valuable things
a 3D designer may own is a copy of BMRT version 2.5.
Exluna was intended to defend themselves in court
but soon ran out of money, settled with Pixar
and was swallowed by nVidia. A sad story indeed.
A story of how a big company squashes a small one
using patents.  Read more at:
http://www.renderman.org/RMR/OtherLinks/blackSIGGRAPH.html

The point here is that IBM may force PostgreSQL Global
Development Group to remove offending version if
patent is granted.

But, lastly, as it was pointed out before it would
be a very bad publicity for IBM and, in my opinion,
very good publicity for PostgreSQL. IBM will admit
that PostgreSQL is a worthy competitor. Thus, in my
personal opinion IBM will never threat PostgreSQL.

We can remove offending code but host patches to
introduce the code in a country that does accept
software patents. It would be even better for
publicity.

IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.

So, in short my advise is:

  1. File an objection with USPTO. And maybe an informative
  letter to IBM legal department mentioning USENIX paper.
  2. If patent is granted, contact IBM and request
  an unlimited, perpetual license to use the technology
  3. If IBM refuses, remove the offending code, clean up
  CVS and shout from the rooftops about the hypocrisy of
  IBM.

Hope it helps make up your mind,
Best regards,
Nicolai Tufar

P.S. But if filing date really is 2002 and there
is no prior art me may skip step 1.

The previous snipped wording was very insightful, thank you.

>
>IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
>code before first informing them of infringement and
>giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
>version.
>  
>
I can see it now:

We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
to DB2 ;)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>So, in short my advise is:
>
>  1. File an objection with USPTO. And maybe an informative
>  letter to IBM legal department mentioning USENIX paper.
>  2. If patent is granted, contact IBM and request
>  an unlimited, perpetual license to use the technology
>  3. If IBM refuses, remove the offending code, clean up
>  CVS and shout from the rooftops about the hypocrisy of
>  IBM.
>
>Hope it helps make up your mind,
>Best regards,
>Nicolai Tufar
>
>P.S. But if filing date really is 2002 and there
>is no prior art me may skip step 1.
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>      joining column's datatypes do not match
>  
>


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> >> Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for 
> >> PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies 
> >> Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
> 
> > Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document from the above conference?
> 
> No, the filing date was in 2002.  I'm not sure what the May/04 date means;
> possibly the date of the last activity in that patent file?

Was the USENIX paper published from IBM? Was it the first publication of the
ARC algorithm? They have to file for the patent within 1 year of the first
publication. If it was published prior to Nov 2001 then perhaps an objection
could be filed on that issue.

Also, as far as I know the "we didn't know better" is in fact precisely an
issue with patents. If we didn't know about the ARC patent then IBM's only
remedy once the patent is issued would be to insist users stop using it. Only
if users refused (say because 8.1 still hadn't been released) could IBM then
start asking for damages.

It's clear Postgres developers know of the potential infringement so when and
if that patent is issued Postgres users will have to upgrade immediately to
avoid remedies that could include liability. Whereas for the myriad of
potential infringements on vaguely worded patents there's no risk beyond
having to cease the infringement.

Any idea what kind of timescale the patent application is on? Will it be
another year or two before it's issued or is it possible it'll be issued prior
to 8.1 being released? Though I suppose it would always be possible to release
an 8.0.x with ARC removed for users like Fujitsu or SRA concerned with
liability.


-- 
greg

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:02:14 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> 
> >IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >code before first informing them of infringement and
> >giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> >version.
> I can see it now:
> We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
> to DB2 ;)

More like downgrading, actually ;)

> Sincerely,
> Joshua D. Drake

> >IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >code before first informing them of infringement and
> >giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> >version.

That's not true. If you *knowingly* violated a patent IBM can sue you for the
damages caused. If you weren't aware of the patent then IBM can only ask you
to cease the infringement and can only then sue for damages caused after that
point in time.

Though in the given situation I don't see how IBM could argue any damages.
It's not like they have any licensing business for ARC nor would anyone be
willing to pay for a license to ARC. There are plenty of other algorithms that
are perfectly passable.

Of course, IANAL and all that. But I'm sure legal advice from this mailing
list is worth every penny you've paid for it :)

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)www(dot)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

> I can see it now:
> 
> We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
> to DB2 ;)

Heh.

-- 
greg

Tom Lane wrote:
> "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> 
>>>Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for 
>>>PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies 
>>>Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
> 
> 
>>Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document from the above conference?
> 
> 
> No, the filing date was in 2002.  I'm not sure what the May/04 date means;
> possibly the date of the last activity in that patent file?

Sounds to me like US conferences need to get a disclaimer signed by any 
speakers - "best of my knowledge...covered by no patents/claims/...". 
It's like having a bowl of sweets labelled "help yourself" and putting 
the price sticker inside the wrapper.

-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

Nicolai Tufar <ntufar(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I would like to contribute my $.02 to this issue.
> I speak as not a lawyer but as someone tho worked
> one and a half year in a patent bureau and even
> got a certificate from WIPO (http://academy.wipo.int/
> those who interested may attend the course too, it
> is free).
> [ much good stuff snipped ]

Many thanks for the informed commentary.

I'd like to make another point, which is that it's quite unclear what
the patent will end up covering.  Claim 1 essentially claims using two
lists to manage a cache.  That's not going to withstand scrutiny as an
independent claim --- heck, we've got prior art for that in our own code
(see catcache.c, which has done something of the sort since Berkeley
days).  Somewhere between claim 1 and claim 61 there is a sufficiently
specific concept to be patentable, but we won't know what that is until
the final patent is issued.

There's no moral turpitude in wanting to see what the issued patent
looks like before deciding whether we violate it or what to do about it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be proactive in doing something as
soon as we conveniently can.  It's to say that we don't have to panic
into not releasing 8.0.

			regards, tom lane

Nicolai Tufar wrote:
> Second, a pending patent is not a granted patent,
> one is not infringing anything by distributing
> technology based in a pending patent. 

Given the patents the USPTO has been granting in recent times, if a
patent is pending, it's almost certainly going to be granted.
Especially if it comes from an entity such as IBM (the USPTO wouldn't
want to upset its biggest paying customers, would it?), and especially
if it's on something that isn't completely trivial.

For that reason, I think it's quite reasonable to treat any pending
patent from IBM as if it were a granted patent.  The only way I could
see the patent not being granted is if some large corporate entity
like Microsoft filed an objection.  That's possible, I suppose, but
not something I would want to count on.  But objections raised by
small entities such as individuals will almost certainly be dropped on
the floor, because such entities don't matter to the USPTO (or the
rest of the government, for that matter), unless they are flush with
cash.


> IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> code before first informing them of infringement and
> giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> version.

This is the United States.  People (and especially large corporations)
can sue anybody for anything anytime they wish.  And they do.  Reason
doesn't enter into it.  Only money.  See the SCO debacle for proof,
and note that they're not suing in any other countries.



If I sound bitter and cynical, well, there's lots of good reason for
it.  You need only look around, at least if you're in the U.S.



-- 
Kevin Brown					      kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >code before first informing them of infringement and
> >giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> >version.
> >
> I can see it now:
> 
> We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
> to DB2 ;)

This is panic and is wrong-headed. They haven't even sent a letter
yet...

If we believe in this project, then ultimately, we should be aware that
the future *is* litigation, just like with Linux. Successful
people/projects/companies will at some point have to play hardball.
That's nothing to run scared of, unless you feel you have or will do
some harm to another.

Tom's view seems correct. IBM have *applied* for a patent; the community
is now aware of this and must plan accordingly. I see no reason to
contact IBM; they have no basis to complain as yet. If they had wished
to protect their patent they could have done so earlier - the dev
process here is open and visible, so there is a reasonable onus on them
to perform some form of minimum attentiveness on us if they see us as
competition. I have no reason to believe they do and our current
understanding is that IBM supports Open Source and therefore this
project. We support AIX, Linux on PowerPC, Linux on S/390, jdbc on WAS
to name but a few things IBM would be very happy with.

The patent has not yet been granted and seems to have been pending for
at least 18 months. We therefore have reason to believe there is some
chance it may not be granted, related prior art on buffer management
stretching back more than 30 years. By taking reasonable actions now we
will buy ourselves reasonable time should it ever be granted.

It seems clear that anybody on 8.0.0ARC after the patent had been
granted could potentially be liable to pay damages. At best, the
community would need to do a "product recall" to ensure patents were not
infringed.

So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted. 

We should therefore plan to:
1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1
2. backport any replacement directly onto 8.0STABLE as soon as any
patent is granted

Point 1 was going to happen anyway, so there is really less to worry
about. ARC is a better idea; it is likely there are even better ones.
ARC says nothing of how to clean the LRUs of dirty pages, nor does it
specify how to scale the algorithm to multiple CPUs.

The code already supports such a migration from 8.0.0 to 8.0.x

If any community members are planning selling products derived from
PostgreSQL 8.0.0 then it might be in your interest to put some money in
the pot for a legal fund and also to fund dev of a new buffer management
strategy. If those community members wish to delay release of their own
derived products then that's up to them.

-- 
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Simon Riggs wrote:

>On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>  
>
>>>IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
>>>code before first informing them of infringement and
>>>giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
>>>version.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I can see it now:
>>
>>We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
>>to DB2 ;)
>>    
>>
>
>This is panic and is wrong-headed. They haven't even sent a letter
>yet...
>  
>
Simon please note that it was a joke :) Thus the ;).

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake













-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

Simon Riggs wrote:

>So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
>upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted. 
>
>We should therefore plan to:
>1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1
>2. backport any replacement directly onto 8.0STABLE as soon as any
>patent is granted
>
>
>  
>

One of the reasons for Postgres' well deserved reputation for stability 
and reliability is that stable branches are ... stable. Backporting a 
large item like cache replacement mechanism doesn't seem to fit that too 
well. I wouldn't want to do that except as a complete last resort.

cheers

andrew

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 15:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>>IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >>>code before first informing them of infringement and
> >>>giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> >>>version.
> >>>
> >>I can see it now:
> >>
> >>We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
> >>to DB2 ;)
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >This is panic and is wrong-headed. They haven't even sent a letter
> >yet...
> >  
> Simon please note that it was a joke :) Thus the ;).

Sue me. :-)

But read the rest of my posting first.

-- 
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:51 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> 
> >So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
> >upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted. 
> >
> >We should therefore plan to:
> >1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1
> >2. backport any replacement directly onto 8.0STABLE as soon as any
> >patent is granted
> >

> One of the reasons for Postgres' well deserved reputation for stability 
> and reliability is that stable branches are ... stable. Backporting a 
> large item like cache replacement mechanism doesn't seem to fit that too 
> well. I wouldn't want to do that except as a complete last resort.

I agree... but I see no alternative to my point (2) though; I would
welcome additional options.

-- 
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

I think the ARC issue is the same with any other patent ...
Recently somebody pointed me to a nice site showing some examples:

http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html

Looking at the list briefly I can find at least five patent problems 
using any operating system with PostgreSQL.

 From my point of view having the ARC in there is just as safe / unsafe 
as using "Hello World" and compile it with GCC.

I don't think it possible to sue a community anyway.

	Best regards and have fun reading those examples,

		Hans

-- 
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:

> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>>So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
>>upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted. We
>>should therefore plan to: 1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1 2. backport
>>any replacement directly onto 8.0STABLE as soon as any patent is
>>granted
>
> One of the reasons for Postgres' well deserved reputation for
> stability and reliability is that stable branches are
> ... stable. Backporting a large item like cache replacement mechanism
> doesn't seem to fit that too well. I wouldn't want to do that except
> as a complete last resort.

Exactly, which is why it probably won't happen.  Tom's got the right
idea.  Simply release 8.0, and then start planning for 8.1.  If and
when IBM gets this patent approved, and if and when IBM starts sending
out letters then PostgreSQL will be prepared with non-infringing
versions.

The *real* moral of the story, however, is that it is not smart for
developers to go poking through patent databases.  The real problems
with patents begin when the patent holder can prove that you *knew*
about an *approved* patent and still released the software anyhow.  So
don't browse through the patent databases, and for heaven's sake, if
you find a patent that PostgreSQL *might* be infringing whatever you
do don't post about it on the PostgreSQL mailing lists.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that the only sane thing to do is to
follow the lead of the Linux kernel developers and stay away from any
sort of patent research.  You really don't want to know how many
patents PostgreSQL is infringing, and you certainly don't want to talk
about it on a public forum (or anywhere else).

My guess is that IBM isn't likely to be interested in spending
millions of dollars litigating agains the PostgreSQL project and
various PostgreSQL end users.  Suing customers (and potential
customers) is always bad form, and chasing after a Free Software
project is likely to be a PR disaster.  However, even if IBM were
interested in "cashing in" on this patent, they can't do that until
the patent is actually granted.

Jason

Ühel kenal päeval (esmaspäev, 17. jaanuar 2005, 23:22+0000), kirjutas
Simon Riggs:
> On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> > >code before first informing them of infringement and
> > >giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> > >version.
...

> It seems clear that anybody on 8.0.0ARC after the patent had been
> granted could potentially be liable to pay damages. At best, the
> community would need to do a "product recall" to ensure patents were not
> infringed.
> 
> So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
> upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted. 
> 
> We should therefore plan to:
> 1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1

"improved" ARC still needs licence from IBM if they get the patent and
our "improved" one infringes any claims in it. 

Actually getting patents on all useful improvements on existing patent
has been a known winning strategy in corporate patent hardball - you
force the original patent holder to negotiate, as he's rendered unable
to improve his design without infringing your patents. IIRC some early
electronic consumer devices were wrangled out of single company control
that way.

We could consider donating our improvements to some free patent
foundation to be patented for this kind of action plan.

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>