Re: ARC patent

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Date: 2005-01-18 00:02:30
Message-ID: 200501171902.30401.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Monday 17 January 2005 15:15, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
> >infringements. And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
> >violations. What is the point of removing this one. Just because Neil
> >did some legwork. Anyone could do some legwork and find some in any
> >software, I bet.
<snip>
>
> We have just admitted that we knowingly may infringe upon
> an IBM patent. That really is a different thing than,
> "We have some really smart people that came up with something,
> "like" this other technology".
>

Well, if I am reading that right, IBM doesn't actually have a patent on the
technology yet, so we aren't releasing code that infringes on a patent as it
remains to be seen whether or not the technology will be deemed patentable or
if it is considered a natural evolution of other technology.

That said a little bit of googling doesn't look promising for finding prior
art, though that doesn't mean a case against can't be argued.

> The reality I would bet is that IBM could give a flying roosters
> butt whether or not PostgreSQL infringes on their patents. However
> they will care very much, if Fujitsu or SRA does and we (the
> community) may have insured that.
>

Well, I don't know if they will care "very much", but it seems likely thier
lawyers would contact people with ceast and desist letters which, imho would
probably force the community to abondon any version of software with the arc
implementation. Of course the genesis of all this was IBM opening these
patents for use by open source projects, so if a scheme could be worked out
leaving both an arc implementation and an lru implementation in place, with
the understanding that the arc implementation would have issues for
commercial distribution, it might be possible to keep both. I also think
that, as long as the software is being sold with an open source license (ie.
where companies are basically reselling the community version of postgresql,
or selling with another osi approved license) they should be in the clear.

If folks are really concerned, there are a few things that should/could be
done:
1) go back and see if there is a /. article about this (is it even possible
there isn't?) and see if anyone else brought up these concerns. If not, post
some of these questions and see what kind of response you get.
2) There is a group (I think linked from larry lessigs website) that searches
for prior art for software patents. You might bring this case to them and see
if they have any interest in looking into it.
3) See if you can find any other software packages (preferably commercial)
that implement arc tech and see if they have looked into the issue.
4) Have someone from the community contact IBM with some of these questions (a
good candidate would be someone associated with the foundation) and see what
thier take is. I wouldn't expect much from this but you never know.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-01-18 00:08:43 Re: ARC patent
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-01-17 23:56:35 Re: ARC patent