Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase

From: Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>
To: Chris Travers <chris(at)verkiel(dot)metatrontech(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Date: 2005-10-18 14:15:40
Message-ID: 4355038C.3030007@empires.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general

Chris Travers wrote:
> >>
>
> Doesn't really matter if the legal issues are ultimately in one's favor,
> if one's erstwhile opponent has enough lawyer time ... even if you can
> survive the lengthy battle, it may well be a pyrrhic victory.
> <<
>
> Well, I would assume two things would happen in a case like that. The
> first is that any patents we are alleged (unless they are truly
> rediculous) to infringe upon would be coded around very quickly.

Unless, of course, Oracle claims some kind of patent infringement that
requires that we "code around" something critical. They probably don't
posess such a patent that is valid (let's not look this time though),
but that might not matter.

Oracle can scare a lot of people away from using PostgreSQL just by
announcing the lawsuit. And there's no cheap way to fight a patent
lawsuit that I know of. Maybe if they did that, and the patent is
obviously invalid due to prior art, there might be some way to argue
with the USPTO to get the patent invalidated before trial.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2005-10-18 15:04:57 Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Previous Message Mitch Pirtle 2005-10-18 14:10:09 Re: Is Postgres comparable to MSSQL

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Raymond O'Donnell 2005-10-18 14:30:37 Re: A good client
Previous Message Wim Bertels 2005-10-18 13:41:22 A good client