Madison Kelly wrote:
> Brian Mathis wrote:
> >I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to
> >know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent,
> >you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did
> >it anyway, you have to pay *triple* damages. Ignorance will save you
> >lots of money.
> >
> >You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
> >
>
> I got that part. :) If you _do_ end up in court, plausible deniability
> helps.
>
> My position though is that it is better, in the long term, to be aware
> of the patents and take the time to work around them so that *no*
> damages need to be paid. Or, as might be that chance in this case, to
> get a written "okay" from the patent holder for the use of the methods
> protected by the patent in a given program.
>
> Colour me funny, but wouldn't staying out of the courts in the first
> place not be the best option?
Yeah. I invite you to do all the extra (useless) development work
required. But please do not charge other people with it. Whoever
investigates patents and lets pgsql-hackers know about them, is charging
the Postgres community with that work. We sure don't need it.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support