Re: New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
>> the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
>> it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
>> leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
>>
>
> Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or,
> more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL.
>
> The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an
> expensive undertaking. The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is
> just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other
> engine that doesn't "infringe".
>
> This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the
> US PTO is just completely broken.
>
> A
>
Yes completely agree. The prospect of fighting is daunting, desire to
run for the hills more desirable

We could start the objecting process instead waiting for MS to come
after us. Anybody want to relive the Blackberry nightmare?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-other/p-object.htm

What Tome Lane brought up could be a very big concern, but if the
developers of said code new nothing about the patent and never used MS
products then its an independent invention. But proving that is very costly