Re: ARC patent

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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):
> >
> >
> >>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> >
> And what about "CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement"?
>
> I found something here:
> http://www.cs.duke.edu/csl/usenix/04fast/tech/bansal.html
>
> Is it worth investigating?

Firstly, it clearly states that it is a derivation of ARC. Secondly, one
of the authors is from IBM. Implementing this algorithm will probably
cause the same problem as the implementation of ARC.

>
> best wishes,
> marian

Thanks,

Gavin