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
"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
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin
To: Nikola Milutinovic ; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
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 portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".
Nix.
----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>; 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 <[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@postgresql.org)
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.
