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

Re: ARC patent

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <dave(dot)held(at)arrayservicesgrp(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Date: 2005-04-01 17:11:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dave Held said:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marian POPESCU [mailto:softexpert(at)libertysurf(dot)fr]
>> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:06 AM
>> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
>> >>>Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the
>> >>>>patent application is still pending, although the USPTO
>> >>>>site is a little hard to grok):
>> >>>
>> >>>Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted,
>> >>>but I think it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art
>> >>>(like a publication predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have
>> >>>to change or remove that code.
> Why not just ask IBM for a free license first?  After all, they put
> 1,000+ patents in the public domain or something, didn't they?  I
> realize that they might use this technology in DB2, and don't want to
> encourage competitors.  But IBM seems a lot more friendly to OSS than
> most companies, and it doesn't seem like it would hurt to ask. At the
> worst they say "no" and you just proceed as you would have
> originally.

Please read the record of the very recent discussion on this before
rehashing it. I'm sure you can find it on Google.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Eric B.RidgeDate: 2005-04-01 18:25:21
Subject: SRF's + SPI
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-04-01 16:36:10
Subject: Re: ARC patent

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