Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
-Original Message-
From: Marian POPESCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:06 AM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the
patent
Dave Held wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marian POPESCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:06 AM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Dave Held
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
Dave Held wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marian POPESCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Dave Held wrote:
Why would they have to do that? Why couldn't they just give a license
for OSS distributions of PostgreSQL, and make commercial distributions
obtain their own license for the ARC code? Doesn't IBM hire lawyers
exactly for the purpose of writing complicated legal documents of
Dave Held said:
-Original Message-
From: Marian POPESCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:06 AM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS
-Original Message-
From: Marian POPESCU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:06 AM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the
patent
Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
Ühel kenal päeval (reede, 21. jaanuar 2005, 15:42+0100), kirjutas
Manfred Koizar:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:31:40 +0200, Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Another simple, but nondeterministic, hack would be using randomness,
i.e.
2.1) select a random buffer in LR side half (or 30% or
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:42:38PM +0100, Manfred Koizar wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:31:40 +0200, Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Another simple, but nondeterministic, hack would be using randomness,
i.e.
2.1) select a random buffer in LR side half (or 30% or 60%) of
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:07:30 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent
application is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little
hard to
Jonah H. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a couple aquaintances at IBM that I can try to contact about it.
Rather than assume what IBM will do, why not just ask them? If they
don't respond, they don't respond. If they do respond, it's better than
us guessing.
People seem to be
Ühel kenal päeval (neljapäev, 20. jaanuar 2005, 23:17+1100), kirjutas
Neil Conway:
Simon Riggs wrote:
However, I think the ARC replacement should *not* be a fundamental
change in behavior: the algorithm should still attempt to balance
recency and frequency, to adjust dynamically to changes in
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:31:40 +0200, Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Another simple, but nondeterministic, hack would be using randomness,
i.e.
2.1) select a random buffer in LR side half (or 30% or 60%) of
for replacement.
2.2) dont last accessed pages to top of LRU list
Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I have already
suggested to core that we should insist on 8.1 not requiring an initdb,
so as to ensure that people will migrate up to it easily from 8.0.
So is it firm policy that
Folks,
Asking this again as it seems my question got lost, or at least unanswered.
Why not just contact IBM, and get their opinion?
As I said before, we might just get a promise of a full licence for if/when the
patent is granted.
... John
---(end of
John Hansen wrote:
Folks,
Asking this again as it seems my question got lost, or at least unanswered.
Why not just contact IBM, and get their opinion?
1. We don't have attorneys to do so.
2. The PostgreSQL community is not a legal entity it can license to.
3. It would take weeks if not months
We could still get their opinion.
I have a couple aquaintances at IBM that I can try to contact about it.
Rather than assume what IBM will do, why not just ask them? If they
don't respond, they don't respond. If they do respond, it's better than
us guessing.
Yes, it's only going to matter
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
We could still get their opinion.
I have a couple aquaintances at IBM that I can try to contact about
it. Rather than assume what IBM will do, why not just ask them? If
they don't respond, they don't respond. If they do respond, it's
better than us guessing.
Yes, it's
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hansen wrote:
Folks,
Asking this again as it seems my question got lost, or at least unanswered.
Why not just contact IBM, and get their opinion?
1. We don't have attorneys to do so.
2. The PostgreSQL community is not a legal entity it
John Hansen wrote:
Folks,
Asking this again as it seems my question got lost, or at least
unanswered.
Why not just contact IBM, and get their opinion?
As I said before, we might just get a promise of a full licence for
if/when the patent is granted.
I doubt we can get a license that
Ühel kenal päeval (esmaspäev, 17. jaanuar 2005, 23:22+), kirjutas
Simon Riggs:
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to
Ühel kenal päeval (kolmapäev, 19. jaanuar 2005, 00:39-0500), kirjutas
Tom Lane:
What this really boils down to is whether we think we have
order-of-a-year before the patent is issued. I'm nervous about
assuming that. I'd like to have a plan that will produce a tested,
credible patch in less
Ühel kenal päeval (esmaspäev, 17. jaanuar 2005, 11:57-0800), kirjutas
Joshua D. Drake:
However, I don't want to be beholden to IBM indefinitely --- in five
years their corporate strategy might change. I think that a reasonable
response to this is to plan to get rid of ARC, or at least modify
Ühel kenal päeval (esmaspäev, 17. jaanuar 2005, 14:48-0500), kirjutas
Tom Lane:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
demanding
Simon Riggs wrote:
However, I think the ARC replacement should *not* be a fundamental
change in behavior: the algorithm should still attempt to balance
recency and frequency, to adjust dynamically to changes in workload, to
avoid sequential flooding, and to allow constant-time page
replacement.
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 23:17 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
However, I think the ARC replacement should *not* be a fundamental
change in behavior: the algorithm should still attempt to balance
recency and frequency, to adjust dynamically to changes in workload, to
avoid
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 23:17 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
(snippage)
For 8.0.x, I wonder
if it would be better to just replace ARC with LRU.
Sequential scans will still flood
the cache, but I don't view that as an enormous problem.
Agree with everything apart from the idea that
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 01:26 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Agree with everything apart from the idea that seq scan flooding isn't
an issue. I definitely think it is.
I agree it's an issue, I just don't think it's an issue of sufficient
importance that it needs to be solved in the 8.0.x timeframe.
; Tom Lane; Joshua D. Drake; Jeff Davis; pgsql-hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 23:17 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
(snippage)
For 8.0.x, I wonder
if it would be better to just replace ARC with LRU.
Sequential scans will still flood
the cache, but I
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 16:25 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 23:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled
hackers think?
I'm not sure it's a great
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I have already
suggested to core that we should insist on 8.1 not requiring an
initdb, so as to ensure that people will migrate up to it
easily from 8.0.
So is it firm policy that changes that require a catversion update
cannot
There's a very recent paper at
http://carmen.cs.uiuc.edu/~zchen9/paper/TPDS-final.ps on an alternative
to ARC which claims superior performance ...
From a quick glance, this doesn't look applicable. The authors are
discussing buffer replacement strategies for a multi-level cache
Tom Lane wrote:
What this really boils down to is whether we think we have
order-of-a-year before the patent is issued. I'm nervous about
assuming that. I'd like to have a plan that will produce a tested,
credible patch in less than six months.
Why not having a beta on an 8.0.x version if ARC
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:53:14 +0100
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An idea around this would be to plan never to release 8.1. Instead,
direct HEAD towards 8.2 with a normal dev cycle (or rather, let's aim
for a short one, but in reality short may not be all that short..).
Then the
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So is it firm policy that changes that require a catversion update
cannot be made during the 8.1 cycle?
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision
On Jan 19, 2005, at 4:54 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
Another algorithm that was written by
university folk (thus probably not patent prone) that looks promising
is:
http://www.cs.wm.edu/hpcs/WWW/HTML/publications/papers/TR-02-6.pdf
Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So is it firm policy that changes that require a catversion update
cannot be made during the 8.1 cycle?
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the
I think the ARC issue is the same with any other patent ...
Recently somebody pointed me to a nice site showing some examples:
http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html
Looking at the list briefly I can find at least five patent problems
using any operating system with PostgreSQL.
From
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted. We
should therefore plan to: 1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1 2. backport
any replacement directly onto
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 15:11 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
There's a very recent paper at
http://carmen.cs.uiuc.edu/~zchen9/paper/TPDS-final.ps on an alternative
to ARC which claims superior performance ...
From a quick glance, this doesn't look applicable. The authors are
discussing buffer
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I have already
suggested to core that we should insist on 8.1 not requiring an initdb,
so as to ensure that people will migrate up to it easily from 8.0.
So is it firm policy that changes that require a catversion update
cannot be made during
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:48:00AM +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I have already
suggested to core that we should insist on 8.1 not requiring an initdb,
so as to ensure that people will migrate up to it easily from 8.0.
So is it firm policy
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I have already
suggested to core that we should insist on 8.1 not requiring an initdb,
so as to ensure that people will migrate up to it easily from 8.0.
So is it firm policy that changes that require a
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 23:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled
hackers think?
I'm not sure it's a great idea.
I'm not aware of a recent example of short development
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 23:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Not yet --- I suggested it but didn't get any yeas or nays. I don't
feel this is solely core's decision anyway ... what do the assembled
hackers think?
I'm not aware of a recent example of short
... not even certain whether an ARC replacement will be needed:
we might be able to adapt the existing code to workaround the
patent, the patent might not be granted, or IBM might grant
us a license to use it. It's also worth emphasizing that this
How about contacting IBM to see where
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent
application is still pending, although the USPTO site is a
little hard to grok):
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How will this affect the release of 8.0?
I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
But we need to look into the problem.
regards, tom lane
---(end of
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
But we need to look into the problem.
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
But we need to look into the problem.
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get
We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
US granting patents on even obvious ideas, I would think that most large
software projects, including commercial ones, already have tons of
patent violations in their code. Does anyone think otherwise?
However, I will grant
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:37:44PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we may press
ahead and release with it
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net?
We can modify the code slightly to
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net?
We can
However, I don't want to be beholden to IBM indefinitely --- in five
years their corporate strategy might change. I think that a reasonable
response to this is to plan to get rid of ARC, or at least modify the
code enough to avoid the patent, in time for 8.1. (It's entirely likely
that that
On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we may press
ahead and release with it anyway. IBM would justifiably jump on us
for that as a result.
With what? They have no patent,
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we may press
ahead and release with it anyway. IBM would justifiably jump on us
for that as a result.
With what?
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
infringements. And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
violations. What is the point of removing this one. Just because Neil
did some legwork. Anyone could do some legwork and find some in any
software, I bet.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net?
We
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:58:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ahead and release with it anyway. IBM would justifiably jump on us
for that as a result.
With what? They have no patent, yet, and may never have one. If the
patent were already issued
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's a very recent paper at
http://carmen.cs.uiuc.edu/~zchen9/paper/TPDS-final.ps on an alternative
to ARC which claims superior performance ...
Personally, I'd prefer a very *old* paper ;-)
Maybe this will give us added impetus to make the 8.1
On Jan 17, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
We should be as proactive as possible with this and remove
the code (or modify as required).
Perhaps a member of -CORE should contact IBM. The ball is out there
now due to the discussion on this list that we know we might have
infringing code.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:48:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think there is zero probability of being sued by IBM in the near
future.
They won't sue the project. They'll send corporate users a bill,
instead, for a license.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A certain description of
I think there is zero probability of being sued by IBM in the near
future. They would instantly destroy the credibility and good
relationships they've worked so hard to build up with the entire
open source community.
However, I don't want to be beholden to IBM indefinitely --- in five
If PostgreSQL 8.0 is released with ARC, and then PostgreSQL 8.1 is
released without ARC, and then the patent is granted to IBM, would
everyone be fine if they just all switched to 8.1 at that time? Or would
we have some kind of retroactive problem? Would people that are still
using 8.0 in
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
With a team of lawyers which we can't match. They may never have a
patent, or they may get it next month. I'd feel more
comfortable if I knew what sort of remedies they could demand (I have
a call open to a lawyer I believe will give me a conservative answer
about
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The biggest problem is going to be that if we release 8 with
the patented stuff, then for a minimum of 3 years there will
be liability for anyone running 8.
Do you honestly think that this is the only patented algorithm anywhere
in there?
Now that
Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File Storage Technologies
Conference
(FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document
from the above conference?
...
You want scarey --- forget the IBM patent. Find an Oracle or Microsoft
patent that is similar to something in our code. It will might not be
exact, but our ARC isn't exact either.
Basically any organization that wants to produce patent-free code would
need one lawyer for every five
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:04:36PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I thought the patnt was only pending, not granted?
That's right, and it's what gives Tom's arguments some weight.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Information security isn't a technological problem. It's an
Jeff Davis wrote:
You want scarey --- forget the IBM patent. Find an Oracle or Microsoft
patent that is similar to something in our code. It will might not be
exact, but our ARC isn't exact either.
Basically any organization that wants to produce patent-free code would
need one
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
... because it isn't a patent, yet.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:37:44PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
... because it isn't a patent, yet.
Yea, but IBM has thousands of patents. The odds that this particular
patent would have been in the 500 if it was granted is unlikely, no?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:03:01AM +1100, John Hansen wrote:
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read
the document from the above conference?
No, the patent application is filed on 14 November 2002, according to
the URL that Neil posted.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan |
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
... because it isn't a patent, yet.
Yea, but IBM has thousands of patents. The odds that this particular
patent would have been
John Hansen wrote:
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File Storage Technologies
Conference
(FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File Storage Technologies
Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the
Greetings,
I would like to contribute my $.02 to this issue.
I speak as not a lawyer but as someone tho worked
one and a half year in a patent bureau and even
got a certificate from WIPO (http://academy.wipo.int/
those who interested may attend the course too, it
is free).
First, the whole
The previous snipped wording was very insightful, thank you.
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.
I can see it now:
We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
to
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File Storage Technologies
Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:02:14 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.
I can see it now:
We won't sue you (customer) but
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.
That's not true. If you *knowingly* violated a patent IBM can sue you for the
damages caused. If you weren't aware of the patent
Tom Lane wrote:
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File Storage Technologies
Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read
Nicolai Tufar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would like to contribute my $.02 to this issue.
I speak as not a lawyer but as someone tho worked
one and a half year in a patent bureau and even
got a certificate from WIPO (http://academy.wipo.int/
those who interested may attend the course too, it
: Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD; Jan Wieck; Tom Lane; Neil Conway;
pgsql-hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ARC patent
John Hansen wrote:
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File Storage Technologies
Conference
(FAST), March 31, 2003
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:15 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
We have just admitted that we knowingly may infringe upon
an IBM patent. That really is a different thing than,
We have some really smart people that came up with something,
like this other technology.
The code is clear that it
Nicolai Tufar wrote:
Second, a pending patent is not a granted patent,
one is not infringing anything by distributing
technology based in a pending patent.
Given the patents the USPTO has been granting in recent times, if a
patent is pending, it's almost certainly going to be granted.
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
The biggest problem is going to be that if we release 8 with
the patented stuff, then for a minimum of 3 years there will
be liability for anyone running 8.
We still have people running 7.1 and once you get something
into production
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.
I can see it now:
We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.
I can see it now:
We won't sue you (customer) but
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
infringements. And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
violations. What is the point of removing this one. Just because Neil
did some legwork. Anyone could do some
We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
to DB2 ;)
^^
For the smiley impaired, I think it pretty clear that Mr. Drake was
joking.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
