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 legwork and find some in any
>> software, I bet.
>>
> Well from one perspective... Digging for patent infringement
> is expensive just look at the SCO suit. However, this is a
> public list.
>
> 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 reality I would bet is that IBM could give a flying roosters
> butt whether or not PostgreSQL infringes on their patents. However
> they will care very much, if Fujitsu or SRA does and we (the
> community) may have insured that.
As one famous chicken put it 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' ...
or, in our case "a patent is pending, a patent is pending' ...
there is no patent, there might never be a patent ... instead of panic'ng
over something that may nevr happen, why not just keep an eye on the
patent process itself and see wher it goes. It might takes months yet to
go anywhere ... lots of time for us to come up with an alternate ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664