On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:29:35 -0400
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> Um, we _didn't_ have a patent issue with any of Jan's code:
>
According to what you write below, we certainly did have a problem.
> 1. The "problem" came from someone "helpfully" trolling through the
> patent database.
>
O.k.
> 2. The "problem" was in respect of a patent that had not even been
> awarded.
But could have or might have.
>
> 3. The code in the end wasn't suitable anyway, and was removed as a
> result.
>
As I recall it was removed precisely because of the potential patent
issue and the new algorithm by chance happen to turn out better than the
original implementation.
However, it doesn't really matter does it?
> Can we please stop playing junior super decoder ring lawyer, and do
> the things we're good at instead?
I don't believe anyone is doing that, at least I am not.
Regardless, my only point was Robert wasn't trolling. If there is a
serious concern we can certainly pass it to legal, it isn't like we
don't have the resources to do so.
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
