Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> No, we're reactive regardless. Proactive would have been to investigate the
> ARC paper when it was published for outstanding patent applications, and
> again before feature freeze. Or even to have considered the fact that when
> an IBM person publishes a paper on new technology, IBM probably has a patent
> on it ... they're the largest patent-holder in the world, after all. It's a
> little late for that, and would probably not even have been a good idea, lest
> we let legal concerns paralyze development.
That would actually be a bad idea. As several people have pointed out,
actively seeking out patents you may be infringing is risky because it can
open you up to liability and that can paralyze development.
> We don't *have* to do anything when the patent is granted. When we *have* to
> do something is when IBM sends a cease-and-desist letter to a PostgreSQL
> user. Not before.
That's untrue.
I suggest you disregard all my comments as free legal advice is really only
worth what you pay for it. IANAL and all that. But I also suggest you stop
giving legal opinions like this.
Moreover, the postgres development community is really not the concern here.
Users of postgres who are aware of this issue (and many of them are on this
list) will be the ones put at risk.
--
greg