Re: ARC patent - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Sullivan
Subject Re: ARC patent
Date
Msg-id 20050117201649.GD12666@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ARC patent  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: ARC patent  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:58:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
> > ahead and release with it anyway.  IBM would justifiably jump on us
> > for that as a result.
> 
> With what?  They have no patent, yet, and may never have one.  If the
> patent were already issued then I'd be much more concerned.

With a team of lawyers which we can't match.  They may never have a
patent, or they may get it next month.  I'd feel more
comfortable if I knew what sort of remedies they could demand (I have
a call open to a lawyer I believe will give me a conservative answer
about that).  

What I can say, for sure, is that no responsible corporate user will
be able to use this code with the threat hanging over.  The recent
SCO stuff ought to be a lesson here: their claims appear to have been
completely baseless, but companies still spent a pile of time and
money on the issue.  It'll be far worse in a case where the
infringment is real and, yet worse, intentional.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.  What do you do sir?    --attr. John Maynard Keynes


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: ARC patent
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: ARC patent