| From: | Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org (Marc G(dot) Fournier) |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com (Joshua D(dot) Drake), pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian), matt(at)jobsforge(dot)com (Matthew Terenzio), pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org (PgSQL General) |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase |
| Date: | 2005-10-13 03:06:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200510130306.j9D36uGO013920@gw.tssi.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
> Stupid question here ... if Oracle came at us with "the Software Patent
> crap", is there any "reasonable time" provided to remove it? We've
> already shown in the past that that isn't a big hurdle, with the ARC
> stuff, so am just curiuos as to how big a thing the Patent stuff is, or
> does even that fall under 'temporary setback / inconvience'?
That may depend on what's been patented. In my opinions (and more
importantly in the eyes of more than a few intellectual property attorneys)
the patent office has granted some very dubious software patents, and a
deep pockets patent holder would probably have the upper hand wielding them.
--
Mike Nolan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Travers | 2005-10-13 05:32:20 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.1 vs. MySQL 5.0? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-10-13 02:55:43 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-10-13 03:57:39 | 8.1 Beta 3: The Final Beta? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-10-13 02:55:43 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase |