This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070806000408090207080804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
> 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 ****tion.
> IBM is also into this line of "work".
>
> Nix.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dave Page <dpage@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To: Justin Clift <justin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; A. Kretschmer
> <andreas.kretschmer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:justin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
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
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.
--------------070806000408090207080804
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:81756.41461.qm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size:
12pt;">
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size:
12pt;">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 ****tion. IBM is also
into this line of "work".<br>
<br>
Nix.<br>
<br>
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size:
12pt;">-----
Original Message ----<br>
From: Dave Page <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:dpage@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><dpage@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><br>
To: Justin Clift <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:justin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><justin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><br>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:jbondc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><jbondc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; A. Kretschmer
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:andreas.kretschmer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><andreas.kretschmer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><br>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules<br>
<br>
HI Justin<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" ymailto="mailto:justin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
href="mailto:justin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">justin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS
may have<br>
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.<br>
><br>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to
the<br>
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;><br>
<br>
I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on<br>
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about<br>
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a<br>
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dave Page<br>
EnterpriseDB UK: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
ymailto="mailto:pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
href="mailto:pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">pgsql-general@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>)<br>
To make changes to your subscription:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general"
target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
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 <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
This is just a suggestion.<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------070806000408090207080804--
|
