Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Markus Wanner
Subject Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents?
Date
Msg-id 84cffc30-f325-e691-bb4e-703f2ce22a93@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents?  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
Responses RE: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending)patents?  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
David,

On 07/09/2018 02:52 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> Unfortunately, this does not mean anything until courts have upheld
> it.  Were Red Hat to be taken over by people who didn't see things
> this way, it is a long way from clear that such a statement would be
> upheld in every court, which is what would have to happen.

I agree that there certainly exist questionable patent grants. But I'm
equally sure there are well intended ones as well. For example, I'd
expect patent pools (including the Open Invention Network, cited by the
OP) to hire non-IANAL personnel who know Legalese well enough to setup
valid contracts (between participating companies).

> I am not any kind of attorney, but I would not believe anyone who said
> that they knew for certain how every court on (or off) the planet
> would ever rule on a clause in a...well, is that a contract? A
> license? An aspirational goal without legal force? To my knowledge, no
> court anywhere has had an opportunity to rule on it, so I don't know.

With all my own dislike of the patent system: I think you're setting the
bar unreasonably high. There won't ever exist any such guarantee, even
(or especially if) we avoid patent grants. Or do you expect our existing
code base to be 100% free of any patent violation?

> I really appreciate your forthrightness on this, but I frankly do not
> understand how you can actually make representations that would stand
> the test of time.

In all cases of patent violations by OSS I've heard of, the projects
replaced the portions of code that were (suspected to be) in violation
of the patent and moved on. Or what precedent do you know of that
*didn't* stand the test of time?

I certainly like the (future) patent holder coming forth to offer a
grant a lot better than the one who doesn't (but still holds the
patent). I'm missing the appreciation for that former strategy in this
thread and fear we're setting a precedent for the latter one, instead.

Kind Regards

-- 
Markus Wanner - http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Un peu décu : Re: Performance regression with PostgreSQL 11 and partitioning
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix crash when ALTER TABLE recreates indexes on partitions