[EMAIL PROTECTED] (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 cont
L PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
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 f
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
backgroun
ovic <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;
pgsql-general@postgresql.org <mailto: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.
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:
St
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]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
TED]>;
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
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'
10 matches
Mail list logo
