On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.har...@gmail.com> writes: > > Cripes! I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to it > :( > > http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBAAAAEBAJ&dq=null+aware+anti-join > > I wonder if the USPTO is really clueless enough to accept this? > Claim 1 would give Oracle ownership of the definition of NOT IN, > and few of the other claims seem exactly non-obvious either. Yeah, I just looked up semi and anti-join optimization patents and Oracle/IBM have a ton. What an obvious exploitation of math for business gain. I doubt they'd be enforceable. I wish they'd just do away with software patents altogether :( -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com
