Thread: New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
Hi all, Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close: US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system Issued on May 20, 2008 http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html Abstract "A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function of the input." Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here? Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- Salasaga - Open Source eLearning IDE http://www.salasaga.org
am Tue, dem 27.05.2008, um 21:12:53 +1000 mailte Justin Clift folgendes: > Hi all, > > Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this > newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close: > > US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system > Issued on May 20, 2008 > http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html > > Abstract > "A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation > on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module > provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The > modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the > original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function > of the input." > > Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here? Hehe, yes. Typical M$. Similar to 7,376,970: (May 20, 2008) Abstract "A system, method, and computer readable medium for the proactive detection of malware in operating systems that receive application programming interface (API) calls is provided. A virtual operating environment for simulating the execution of programs and determining if the programs are malware is created. The virtual operating environment confines potential malware so that the systems of the host operating environment will not be adversely effected. During simulation, a behavior signature is generated based on the API calls issued by potential malware. The behavior signature is suitable for analysis to determine whether the simulated executable is malware." Sounds like a 'sandbox', see http://www.aladdin.com/eSafe/, available since 1999 or so. (for instance) Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header) GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
The best patent ever filed: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of A. Kretschmer Sent: May 27, 2008 7:44 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules am Tue, dem 27.05.2008, um 21:12:53 +1000 mailte Justin Clift folgendes: > Hi all, > > Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this > newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close: > > US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system > Issued on May 20, 2008 > http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html > > Abstract > "A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation > on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module > provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The > modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the > original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function > of the input." > > Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here? Hehe, yes. Typical M$. Similar to 7,376,970: (May 20, 2008) Abstract "A system, method, and computer readable medium for the proactive detection of malware in operating systems that receive application programming interface (API) calls is provided. A virtual operating environment for simulating the execution of programs and determining if the programs are malware is created. The virtual operating environment confines potential malware so that the systems of the host operating environment will not be adversely effected. During simulation, a behavior signature is generated based on the API calls issued by potential malware. The behavior signature is suitable for analysis to determine whether the simulated executable is malware." Sounds like a 'sandbox', see http://www.aladdin.com/eSafe/, available since 1999 or so. (for instance) Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header) GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote: > The best patent ever filed: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html Errr, you miss my point. Those are (kind of) abstract examples. ;-> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it. Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;> Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- Salasaga - Open Source eLearning IDE http://www.salasaga.org
HI Justin On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote: > I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have > just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it. > > Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the > attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a leading FOSS project for a decade or more. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > HI Justin > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote: > >> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have >> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it. >> >> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the >> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;> > > I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on > the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about > it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a > leading FOSS project for a decade or more. Yep, sounds about right. Not being a patent-attorney though, I thought it better to mention than not. ;) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- Salasaga - Open Source eLearning IDE http://www.salasaga.org
Dave Page wrote:
I have some personal experience with this when fighting a bigger foe that don't have to worry about money
Right now my family has been in a continuous legal battle with our local government over loans its been trying to secure based on false evidence which would put tax payers in our small community 8,000 people on the hook for 1.5 million . We have won every battle and point. The Problem now is the amount of money we have put forward greatly exceeds any personal benefit or keeping taxes low the family would ever see for the next 20 years. We are only 2 years in fighting this and the next election is not for another 2 years :-( which i may run again .
Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner. Thinking a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking. MS could target the leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors. This group of people may just give up because the process of defending is so expensive. Even if we are 100% right it don't matter as it takes 10's to thousands of dollars to just start fighting. this bill would go into 100 thousands in a matter of months.HI Justin On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
I have some personal experience with this when fighting a bigger foe that don't have to worry about money
Right now my family has been in a continuous legal battle with our local government over loans its been trying to secure based on false evidence which would put tax payers in our small community 8,000 people on the hook for 1.5 million . We have won every battle and point. The Problem now is the amount of money we have put forward greatly exceeds any personal benefit or keeping taxes low the family would ever see for the next 20 years. We are only 2 years in fighting this and the next election is not for another 2 years :-( which i may run again .
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner. Thinking > a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking. MS could target the > leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors. Well as one of those people, working for one of those companies, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact is that Microsoft do have vaguely sane lawyers and I have little doubt they would do some elementary research before trying to claim that our 10 year old (probably much older in fact, as I believe there was a rules system in the code inherited from Berkley) feature infringes their 2 year old patent. Whilst it is true it could get expensive if they did try, I don't believe they will as they would ultimately end up with egg on their faces and would likely cost them real money and be the cause of significant bad press. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote:
I'm not losing any sleep over it either and you may be very right. But don't bet on the side intelligent/logical thinking to coming out of a lawyer who's on retainer to a big corporation like MS. Postgresql is luck in the fact US patent laws are still based on the idea first to invent not first to patent which several countries have gone to.On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote:Dave Page wrote: Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner. Thinking a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking. MS could target the leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors.Well as one of those people, working for one of those companies, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact is that Microsoft do have vaguely sane lawyers and I have little doubt they would do some elementary research before trying to claim that our 10 year old (probably much older in fact, as I believe there was a rules system in the code inherited from Berkley) feature infringes their 2 year old patent. Whilst it is true it could get expensive if they did try, I don't believe they will as they would ultimately end up with egg on their faces and would likely cost them real money and be the cause of significant bad press.
"Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote: >> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have >> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it. > I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on > the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about > it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a > leading FOSS project for a decade or more. Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid because we are prior art. After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's not their sole or main purpose. What it seems a whole lot closer to is Veil or SEPostgres. I think those projects have reason to be very afraid. In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior art. The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a querytree's WHERE clause. I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent makes it even more important ... regards, tom lane
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on > the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about > it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a > leading FOSS project for a decade or more. Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or, more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL. The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an expensive undertaking. The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other engine that doesn't "infringe". This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the US PTO is just completely broken. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:38:42AM -0400, Justin wrote: > Postgresql is > luck in the fact US patent laws are still based on the idea first to > invent not first to patent which several countries have gone to. Which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It just means that MS can claim to have invented it up to a year prior to filing which would be problematic if the SE-Postgres patch is affected. The rules system is way older and so not at risk either way. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while > boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
Attachment
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Yes completely agree. The prospect of fighting is daunting, desire to run for the hills more desirableOn Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a leading FOSS project for a decade or more.Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or, more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL. The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an expensive undertaking. The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other engine that doesn't "infringe". This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the US PTO is just completely broken. A
We could start the objecting process instead waiting for MS to come after us. Anybody want to relive the Blackberry nightmare?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-other/p-object.htm
What Tome Lane brought up could be a very big concern, but if the developers of said code new nothing about the patent and never used MS products then its an independent invention. But proving that is very costly
Here is the US patent offices website to
i copy and pasted the wrong link. opps
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/index.html
Justin wrote:
i copy and pasted the wrong link. opps
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/index.html
Justin wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:Yes completely agree. The prospect of fighting is daunting, desire to run for the hills more desirableOn Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a leading FOSS project for a decade or more.Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or, more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL. The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an expensive undertaking. The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other engine that doesn't "infringe". This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the US PTO is just completely broken. A
We could start the objecting process instead waiting for MS to come after us. Anybody want to relive the Blackberry nightmare?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-other/p-object.htm
What Tome Lane brought up could be a very big concern, but if the developers of said code new nothing about the patent and never used MS products then its an independent invention. But proving that is very costly
Tom Lane wrote: > "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote: >>> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have >>> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it. > >> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on >> the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about >> it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a >> leading FOSS project for a decade or more. > > Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid > because we are prior art. > > After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights > enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's > not their sole or main purpose. What it seems a whole lot closer to > is Veil or SEPostgres. I think those projects have reason to be very > afraid. > > In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres > does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior > art. The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the > part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a > querytree's WHERE clause. > > I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor > of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent > makes it even more important ... Yes, I've changed the originally submitted version of SE-PostgreSQL. The latest version of its implementation does not have any feature to modify given queries. All of low-level checks are moved to hard wired hooks in ExecScan(). http://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/source/browse/trunk/sepgsql/src/backend/executor/execScan.c#144 BTW, I may have to backport the feature for v8.4 into v8.3/v8.2 based SE-PostgreSQL... :( -- KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid because we are prior art. After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's not their sole or main purpose. What it seems a whole lot closer to is Veil or SEPostgres. I think those projects have reason to be very afraid. In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior art. The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a querytree's WHERE clause. I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent makes it even more important ...Yes, I've changed the originally submitted version of SE-PostgreSQL. The latest version of its implementation does not have any feature to modify given queries. All of low-level checks are moved to hard wired hooks in ExecScan(). http://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/source/browse/trunk/sepgsql/src/backend/executor/execScan.c#144 BTW, I may have to backport the feature for v8.4 into v8.3/v8.2 based SE-PostgreSQL... :(
I sent an email to US PTO asking the process to protest an already given patent to for profit entity where there may be prior art from a non-for profit entity
here the represent
For technical patent inquiries, you may contact the USPTO Contact Center (UCC) at 1-800- 786-9199 or 571-272-1000 and request to be transferred to the Inventors Assistance Center (IAC). IAC representatives are available Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved. A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible. For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm for the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP). If you have any further questions or if you require additional information, please call the USPTO Contact Center at 1-800-786-9199 or (571) 272-1000 and reference the following Service Request number: 1-122580212 [THREAD ID:1-20YTHO] -----Original Message----- From: justin@emproshunts.com Sent: 5/27/2008 11:48:54 AM To: "USPTO Info" <usptoinfo@uspto.gov> Subject: objecting to a patent Is there a process that allows someone to object to a patent given to a company where there is prior art done by another entity that is a Non for Profit that the patent office was not aware of. thank you
Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".
Nix.
Nix.
----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
HI Justin
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
HI Justin
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
Question??? Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a foundation or non for profit entity be created that would hold onto patents for original ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the users and developers of postgresql Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".
Nix.----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
HI Justin
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are playing where they keep applying for patents/copyrights where there is prior art. This would protect everyone in the development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against the biggest offenders.
USPTO only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can issue a patent . So if a patent makes claims on already existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke. Doing the above would help put an end to this.
This is just a suggestion.
which is the reason why i think Design Patterns and Patterns are unpatentable..too many cooks created these meals to attribute to any one or group of individuals
The real challenge is the submittal process where one must submit at least 50% of the patentable code..what do you submit?
I always thought PostGIS whose algorithms were unique enough and whose creators were from a sufficiently small population
to place PostGIS into 'patentable' code but apparently PostGIS is firmly declared under 'GPL' to quote
I always thought PostGIS whose algorithms were unique enough and whose creators were from a sufficiently small population
to place PostGIS into 'patentable' code but apparently PostGIS is firmly declared under 'GPL' to quote
"To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use .."
Recalling an earlier year when a Lowell MA based company offered proprietary software which did'nt interoperate with other (GPL software..)
MS on the other hand seems to patent unique algorithms and or methodologies which are specific only to MS environments...Interesting..
Martin
Martin
----- Original Message -----From: JustinSent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:33 AMSubject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
Nikola Milutinovic wrote:Question??? Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a foundation or non for profit entity be created that would hold onto patents for original ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the users and developers of postgresqlDIV {MARGIN: 0px } Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".
Nix.----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
HI Justin
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are playing where they keep applying for patents/copyrights where there is prior art. This would protect everyone in the development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against the biggest offenders.
USPTO only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can issue a patent So if a patent makes claims on already existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke. Doing the above would help put an end to this.
This is just a suggestion.
Martin wrote:
I can see MS or other company patenting a process that Postgresql has used for some time or independently invented it gets sued over as a means to extract money from companies and others that used the tool.
I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source projects not just postgresql. Instead of complaining about how wrong the system is and the need to change it is. Use the system to protect the project.
That will never happen and it if it does it years away. we must deal with the current problems in front of us not worry to much about what we want or could be the shape of laws in the future.which is the reason why i think Design Patterns and Patterns are unpatentable..too many cooks created these meals to attribute to any one or group of individuals
Sense the Postgresql is open source there is no internal secretes that needs to be protected, submit the entire code that makes the specific patentable part work.The real challenge is the submittal process where one must submit at least 50% of the patentable code..what do you submit?
So there is no current obstructions to doing this as Postgresql is licensed today
I always thought PostGIS whose algorithms were unique enough and whose creators were from a sufficiently small population
to place PostGIS into 'patentable' code but apparently PostGIS is firmly declared under 'GPL' to quote"To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use .."
Only objective is to protect everyone from stupid and ridiculous lawsuits. The entire blackberry lawsuit is example of things to come. Where another company had a patented that process of moving email to a phone for years but never used it. This company waited in the background for years for the service to become popular then sued blackberry. It cost millions of dollars to defend and it was nothing more than legal stealing.Recalling an earlier year when a Lowell MA based company offered proprietary software which did'nt interoperate with other (GPL software..)MS on the other hand seems to patent unique algorithms and or methodologies which are specific only to MS environments...
I can see MS or other company patenting a process that Postgresql has used for some time or independently invented it gets sued over as a means to extract money from companies and others that used the tool.
I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source projects not just postgresql. Instead of complaining about how wrong the system is and the need to change it is. Use the system to protect the project.
Interesting..
Martin----- Original Message -----From: JustinSent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:33 AMSubject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
Nikola Milutinovic wrote:Question??? Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a foundation or non for profit entity be created that would hold onto patents for original ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the users and developers of postgresqlDIV {MARGIN: 0px } Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".
Nix.----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
HI Justin
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are playing where they keep applying for patents/copyrights where there is prior art. This would protect everyone in the development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against the biggest offenders.
USPTO only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can issue a patent So if a patent makes claims on already existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke. Doing the above would help put an end to this.
This is just a suggestion.
Justin wrote: > Only objective is to protect everyone from stupid and ridiculous > lawsuits. The entire blackberry lawsuit is example of things to come. > Where another company had a patented that process of moving email to a > phone for years but never used it. This company waited in the > background for years for the service to become popular then sued > blackberry. It cost millions of dollars to defend and it was nothing > more than legal stealing. Such behaviour often borders on extortion IMO, with the use of preliminary injunctions against product sales or other before-proof punitive measures as threats to encourage an early settlement. Why go to all the trouble and expense of proving your patent claim's validity when you can so severely disrupt someone's business without doing so that they're forced to settle? If you can force a few small companies to roll over before going after anyone big, so your patent appears to have more validity, then all the better. Regarding the blackberry lawsuit: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/03/03/76106_030306HNblackberrydisputeover_1.html "Research In Motion (RIM) and NTP have settled their long-standing legal battle, with RIM paying NTP US$612.5 million to settle all of NTP's patent claims against it. "NTP has granted RIM an unfettered right to continue its business..." Wow. They granted RIM the right to continue its business. How lovely of them. Positively generous, even. This is a very real concern. As the USA has convinced much of the world to sign patent reciprocity agreements (well, to honour US patents anyway) as part of free trade treaties, it's not just a worry if you live or work in the US either. Given the absurd generality of some patents I'm sure I infringe patents practically any time I write any code - though I wouldn't know which ones nor would it be wise for me to find out. > I can see MS or other company patenting a process that Postgresql has > used for some time or independently invented it gets sued over as a > means to extract money from companies and others that used the tool. If PostgreSQL has been using the process for some time it should ideally not be a problem. Unfortunately, it still may be, as the USA permits patents to lurk in pre-approval almost indefinitely (adding claims as needed) so the patent might apply to fairly ancient ideas despite recent approval. There's also the whole first to invent vs first to file drama. Given PostgreSQL's impressive rate of development I'll be surprised if it *doesn't* run across patent issues. Databases are prime patent territory, and Pg is picking up impressive modern capabilities with every release. It's hard to argue that they're obvious, either, even to someone who's a professional in the field. PostgreSQL is also becoming powerful enough to be a noticeable threat to big commercial database vendors' low/mid end markets. I'm not too worried, personally, as I'd say most patent aggressors will probably go for MySQL first, at least if their claims apply to MySQL as well. They, after all, have revenue and a reason to feat patent scare tactics. There's also not much to be done about it; it's really up to the glacially-slow-but-promising patent reform efforts and to an extend the companies that extend and build on Pg. -- Craig Ringer
Justin wrote: > I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source > projects not just postgresql. Instead of complaining about how wrong > the system is and the need to change it is. Use the system to > protect the project. > Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us from using them. Whether we handle our own patents or contribute them to another groups collection of patents is up for debate. Two groups heading this way that I know of - http://www.patentcommons.org (MS and Oracle are listed as contributors here) http://www.openinventionnetwork.com These seem a little similar to each other to me - the supporters/members are basically the same with different contributors. I am sure there was another but I can't seem to recall what it was. -- Shane Ambler pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:07:17AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote: > Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent > gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents > that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what > purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us > from using them. There are places that offer cheap alternatives which are not patents but more "declarations of prior art". The point being not so much that you get a patent but that you prevent others from getting one on the same thing. As in the patent office will actually use it when determining prior art, rather than just ignoring anything on internet. Cheaper, but still not cheap.... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while > boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
Attachment
There is https://priorart.ip.com/ to make claims to novel ideas (this costs money). I also share the idea that it would be amazing if companies could get together and fund a non-profit that would hold a "patent portfolio"/ideas of open source projects and their contributors. I'm no lawyer, but that would imply that the open-source licensing would have to change. Copyright stays the same but patent licenses could be granted free of use to anyone using the open source product or modification of the product. However, a commercial product using an idea / patent in the open-source portfolio *could* be enforced by the non-profit. Hell, essentially fight back against larger companies and hold a stronger leverage. It's the only way I can think of that companies using open-source projects could fight the patent system. -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ambler Sent: May 29, 2008 1:37 PM To: Justin Cc: Martin; Nikola Milutinovic; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules Justin wrote: > I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source > projects not just postgresql. Instead of complaining about how wrong > the system is and the need to change it is. Use the system to > protect the project. > Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us from using them. Whether we handle our own patents or contribute them to another groups collection of patents is up for debate. Two groups heading this way that I know of - http://www.patentcommons.org (MS and Oracle are listed as contributors here) http://www.openinventionnetwork.com These seem a little similar to each other to me - the supporters/members are basically the same with different contributors. I am sure there was another but I can't seem to recall what it was. -- Shane Ambler pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
kleptog@svana.org (Martijn van Oosterhout) writes: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:07:17AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote: >> Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent >> gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents >> that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what >> purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us >> from using them. > > There are places that offer cheap alternatives which are not patents > but more "declarations of prior art". The point being not so much that > you get a patent but that you prevent others from getting one on the > same thing. As in the patent office will actually use it when > determining prior art, rather than just ignoring anything on internet. > > Cheaper, but still not cheap.... My understanding is that this is one of the reasons for existence of the _IBM Systems Journal_; IBM occasionally discovers things that, for one reason or another, they do not wish to patent, but by publishing such things in a published journal, that provides a well-documented source of "prior art." http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/ -- "cbbrowne","@","acm.org" http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html Hail to the sun god, he sure is a fun god, Ra, Ra, Ra!!