On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:08:03PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> such thing. I think what Robert is trying to do is remind people of is
> the relatively recent patent issue this project did have with some of
> Jan's code.
Um, we _didn't_ have a patent issue with any of Jan's code:
1. The "problem" came from someone "helpfully" trolling through the
patent database.
2. The "problem" was in respect of a patent that had not even been
awarded.
3. The code in the end wasn't suitable anyway, and was removed as a
result.
Can we please stop playing junior super decoder ring lawyer, and do
the things we're good at instead? "Patents in this area" is hardly a
basis for search. We don't have an actual implementation proposal,
and we have no basis for any comparison with granted (or even pending)
patents. The discussion so far has barely even referred to the
published literature, which is the complaint I've been making all
along. If the problem is that there could be some patent lurking
about which we know nothing and the expertise for which we do not have
to uncover, I think we should stop throwing rocks at that sleeping dog
and let it lie. If someone reviewing, writing, or checking in code
knows of something, then do speak up. But otherwise, let's stop with
the patent scares.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/