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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 5/27/2008 11:48:54 AM To: "USPTO Info" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
