Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ARC patent

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Date: 2005-01-17 20:16:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:58:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> writes:
> > ahead and release with it anyway.  IBM would justifiably jump on us
> > for that as a result.
> With what?  They have no patent, yet, and may never have one.  If the
> patent were already issued then I'd be much more concerned.

With a team of lawyers which we can't match.  They may never have a
patent, or they may get it next month.  I'd feel more
comfortable if I knew what sort of remedies they could demand (I have
a call open to a lawyer I believe will give me a conservative answer
about that).  

What I can say, for sure, is that no responsible corporate user will
be able to use this code with the threat hanging over.  The recent
SCO stuff ought to be a lesson here: their claims appear to have been
completely baseless, but companies still spent a pile of time and
money on the issue.  It'll be far worse in a case where the
infringment is real and, yet worse, intentional.

Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.  What do you do sir?
		--attr. John Maynard Keynes

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2005-01-17 20:17:35
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Previous:From: Nicolai TufarDate: 2005-01-17 20:16:31
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] %2$, %1$ gettext placeholder replacement is not working under Win32

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group