| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, 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: | 2005-01-17 21:13:57 |
| Message-ID: | 41EC2A95.6000400@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-17 21:17:08 | Re: ARC patent |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-17 21:13:56 | Re: ARC patent |