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

Re: specificity of claims

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: specificity of claims
Date: 2008-10-25 03:49:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
>>> patent...troll...

Shouldn't the project get a legal opinion on how to handle patent
issues on the lists?

If this project does have access to limited legal resources IMHO
it'd be a worthwhile use of those resources to get an educated
opinion of when, if, and how patent issues should be raised on both
the public (general, hackers) and more private (core) lists.

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2008-10-26 03:49:16
Subject: Re: specificity of claims
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2008-10-24 17:44:18
Subject: Re: specificity of claims (was: SEPostgres - ontrack?for 8.4?)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group