Обсуждение: New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Hi all,

Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this
newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close:

   US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system
   Issued on May 20, 2008
   http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html

Abstract
"A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation
on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module
provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The
modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the
original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function
of the input."

Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
Salasaga  -  Open Source eLearning IDE
               http://www.salasaga.org

am  Tue, dem 27.05.2008, um 21:12:53 +1000 mailte Justin Clift folgendes:
> Hi all,
>
> Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this
> newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close:
>
>   US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system
>   Issued on May 20, 2008
>   http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html
>
> Abstract
> "A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation
> on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module
> provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The
> modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the
> original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function
> of the input."
>
> Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here?

Hehe, yes. Typical M$. Similar to 7,376,970: (May 20, 2008)

Abstract
"A system, method, and computer readable medium for the proactive
detection of malware in operating systems that receive application
programming interface (API) calls is provided. A virtual operating
environment for simulating the execution of programs and determining if
the programs are malware is created. The virtual operating environment
confines potential malware so that the systems of the host operating
environment will not be adversely effected. During simulation, a
behavior signature is generated based on the API calls issued by
potential malware. The behavior signature is suitable for analysis to
determine whether the simulated executable is malware."



Sounds like a 'sandbox', see http://www.aladdin.com/eSafe/, available
since 1999 or so. (for instance)


Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt:  Heynitz: 035242/47150,   D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID:   0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA   http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net

The best patent ever filed:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html


-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of A. Kretschmer
Sent: May 27, 2008 7:44 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

am  Tue, dem 27.05.2008, um 21:12:53 +1000 mailte Justin Clift folgendes:
> Hi all,
>
> Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this
> newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close:
>
>   US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system
>   Issued on May 20, 2008
>   http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html
>
> Abstract
> "A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation
> on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module
> provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The
> modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the
> original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function
> of the input."
>
> Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here?

Hehe, yes. Typical M$. Similar to 7,376,970: (May 20, 2008)

Abstract
"A system, method, and computer readable medium for the proactive
detection of malware in operating systems that receive application
programming interface (API) calls is provided. A virtual operating
environment for simulating the execution of programs and determining if
the programs are malware is created. The virtual operating environment
confines potential malware so that the systems of the host operating
environment will not be adversely effected. During simulation, a
behavior signature is generated based on the API calls issued by
potential malware. The behavior signature is suitable for analysis to
determine whether the simulated executable is malware."



Sounds like a 'sandbox', see http://www.aladdin.com/eSafe/, available
since 1999 or so. (for instance)


Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt:  Heynitz: 035242/47150,   D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID:   0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA   http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote:
> The best patent ever filed:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

Errr, you miss my point.

Those are (kind of) abstract examples.  ;->

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
Salasaga  -  Open Source eLearning IDE
               http://www.salasaga.org

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> HI Justin
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
>> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>>
>> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
>> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
>
> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
> the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
> it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
> leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Yep, sounds about right.  Not being a patent-attorney though, I thought
it better to mention than not. ;)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
Salasaga  -  Open Source eLearning IDE
               http://www.salasaga.org

Dave Page wrote:

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
 

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
 

Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner.  Thinking a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking.  MS could target the leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors.   This group of people may just give up because the process of defending is so expensive.  Even if we are 100% right it don't matter as it  takes 10's to thousands of dollars to just start fighting.   this bill would go into 100 thousands in a matter of months.

I have some personal experience with this when fighting a bigger foe that don't have to worry about money
Right now my family has been in a continuous legal battle with our local government  over loans its been trying to secure based on false evidence which would put tax payers in our small community 8,000 people on the hook for  1.5 million .  We have won every battle and point.  The Problem now is the amount of money we have put forward greatly exceeds any personal benefit or keeping taxes low the family would ever see for the next 20 years.  We are only 2 years in fighting this and the next election is not for another 2 years :-(  which i may run again .

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner.  Thinking
> a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking.  MS could target the
> leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors.

Well as one of those people, working for one of those companies, I'm
not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact is that Microsoft do
have vaguely sane lawyers and I have little doubt they would do some
elementary research before trying to claim that  our 10 year old
(probably much older in fact, as I believe there was a rules system in
the code inherited from Berkley) feature infringes their 2 year old
patent. Whilst it is true it could get expensive if they did try, I
don't believe they will as they would ultimately end up with egg on
their faces and would likely cost them real money and be the cause of
significant bad press.


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote: 

Dave Page wrote:

Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner.  Thinking
a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking.  MS could target the
leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors.   

Well as one of those people, working for one of those companies, I'm
not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact is that Microsoft do
have vaguely sane lawyers and I have little doubt they would do some
elementary research before trying to claim that  our 10 year old
(probably much older in fact, as I believe there was a rules system in
the code inherited from Berkley) feature infringes their 2 year old
patent. Whilst it is true it could get expensive if they did try, I
don't believe they will as they would ultimately end up with egg on
their faces and would likely cost them real money and be the cause of
significant bad press.
 

I'm not losing any sleep over it either and you may be very right.  But don't bet on the side intelligent/logical thinking to coming out of a lawyer who's on retainer to a big corporation like MS.  Postgresql is luck in the fact US patent laws are still based on the idea first to invent not first to patent which several countries have gone to.

"Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
>> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
>> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
> the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
> it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
> leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid
because we are prior art.

After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights
enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's
not their sole or main purpose.  What it seems a whole lot closer to
is Veil or SEPostgres.  I think those projects have reason to be very
afraid.

In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres
does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior
art.  The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the
part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a
querytree's WHERE clause.

I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor
of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent
makes it even more important ...

            regards, tom lane

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
> the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
> it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
> leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or,
more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL.

The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an
expensive undertaking.  The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is
just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other
engine that doesn't "infringe".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the
US PTO is just completely broken.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:38:42AM -0400, Justin wrote:
> Postgresql is
> luck in the fact US patent laws are still based on the idea first to
> invent not first to patent which several countries have gone to.

Which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It just means that MS
can claim to have invented it up to a year prior to filing which would
be problematic if the SE-Postgres patch is affected.

The rules system is way older and so not at risk either way.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
 

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.   

Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or,
more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL.

The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an
expensive undertaking.  The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is
just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other
engine that doesn't "infringe".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the
US PTO is just completely broken. 

A 

Yes completely agree.   The prospect of fighting is daunting, desire to run for the hills more desirable

We could start the objecting process instead waiting for MS to come after us.  Anybody want to relive the Blackberry nightmare?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-other/p-object.htm

What Tome Lane brought up could be a very big concern, but if the developers of said code new nothing about the patent and never used MS products then its an independent invention.  But proving that is very costly

Here is the US patent offices website to
i copy and pasted the wrong link. opps
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/index.html

Justin wrote:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
 

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.   

Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or,
more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL.

The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an
expensive undertaking.  The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is
just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other
engine that doesn't "infringe".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the
US PTO is just completely broken. 

A 

Yes completely agree.   The prospect of fighting is daunting, desire to run for the hills more desirable

We could start the objecting process instead waiting for MS to come after us.  Anybody want to relive the Blackberry nightmare?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-other/p-object.htm

What Tome Lane brought up could be a very big concern, but if the developers of said code new nothing about the patent and never used MS products then its an independent invention.  But proving that is very costly

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
>>> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
>> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
>> the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
>> it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
>> leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
>
> Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid
> because we are prior art.
>
> After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights
> enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's
> not their sole or main purpose.  What it seems a whole lot closer to
> is Veil or SEPostgres.  I think those projects have reason to be very
> afraid.
>
> In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres
> does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior
> art.  The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the
> part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a
> querytree's WHERE clause.
>
> I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor
> of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent
> makes it even more important ...

Yes, I've changed the originally submitted version of SE-PostgreSQL.
The latest version of its implementation does not have any feature
to modify given queries. All of low-level checks are moved to hard
wired hooks in ExecScan().

http://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/source/browse/trunk/sepgsql/src/backend/executor/execScan.c#144

BTW, I may have to backport the feature for v8.4 into v8.3/v8.2
based SE-PostgreSQL... :(
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>

KaiGai Kohei wrote:

Tom Lane wrote: 

Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid
because we are prior art.

After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights
enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's
not their sole or main purpose.  What it seems a whole lot closer to
is Veil or SEPostgres.  I think those projects have reason to be very
afraid.

In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres
does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior
art.  The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the
part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a
querytree's WHERE clause.

I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor
of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent
makes it even more important ...   

Yes, I've changed the originally submitted version of SE-PostgreSQL.
The latest version of its implementation does not have any feature
to modify given queries. All of low-level checks are moved to hard
wired hooks in ExecScan().

http://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/source/browse/trunk/sepgsql/src/backend/executor/execScan.c#144

BTW, I may have to backport the feature for v8.4 into v8.3/v8.2
based SE-PostgreSQL... :( 

 I sent an email to US PTO asking the process to protest an already given patent to for profit entity where there may be prior art from a non-for profit entity

here the represent

For technical patent inquiries, you may contact the USPTO Contact Center (UCC) at 1-800- 786-9199  or 571-272-1000 and request to be transferred to the Inventors Assistance Center (IAC).  IAC representatives are available Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved.  A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.

For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm for the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP).


If you have any further questions or if you require additional information, please call the USPTO Contact Center at 1-800-786-9199 or (571) 272-1000 and reference the following Service Request number: 1-122580212




[THREAD ID:1-20YTHO]



-----Original Message-----

From:  justin@emproshunts.com
Sent:  5/27/2008 11:48:54 AM
To:  "USPTO Info" <usptoinfo@uspto.gov>
Subject:  objecting to a patent

Is there a process that allows someone to object to a patent given to a 
company where there is  prior art done by another entity that is a Non 
for Profit  that the patent office was not aware of.

thank you

Nikola Milutinovic wrote:

Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".

Nix.

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Question???  Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a foundation or non for profit entity be created  that would hold onto patents for original  ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the users and developers of postgresql

The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are playing where they keep applying for  patents/copyrights where there is prior art.  This would protect everyone  in the development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against the biggest offenders.

USPTO  only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can issue a patent .  So if a patent  makes claims on already existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke.  Doing the above would help put an end to this.

This is just a suggestion.

----- Original Message -----

From: Justin

To: Nikola Milutinovic ; pgsql-general@postgresql.org

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:33 AM

Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Nikola Milutinovic wrote:

DIV {MARGIN: 0px }

Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".

Nix.

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Question???  Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a foundation or non for profit entity be created  that would hold onto patents for original  ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the users and developers of postgresql

The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are playing where they keep applying for  patents/copyrights where there is prior art.  This would protect everyone  in the development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against the biggest offenders.

USPTO  only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can issue a patent   So if a patent  makes claims on already existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke.  Doing the above would help put an end to this.

This is just a suggestion.

Martin wrote:

which is the reason why i think Design Patterns and Patterns are unpatentable..too many cooks created these meals to attribute to any one or group of individuals

That will never happen and it if it does it years away.  we must deal with the current problems in front of us not worry to much about what we want or could be the shape of laws in the future.

The real challenge is the submittal process where one must submit at least 50% of the patentable code..what do you submit?

Sense the Postgresql is open source there is no internal secretes that needs to be protected, submit the entire code that makes the specific patentable part work. 

I always thought PostGIS whose algorithms were unique enough and whose creators were from a sufficiently small population
to place PostGIS into 'patentable' code but apparently PostGIS is firmly declared under 'GPL' to quote

"To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use .."

So there is no current obstructions to doing this as Postgresql is licensed today

Recalling an earlier year when a Lowell MA based company offered proprietary software which did'nt interoperate with other (GPL software..)

MS on the other hand seems to patent unique algorithms and or methodologies which are specific only to MS environments...

Only objective is to protect everyone from stupid and ridiculous lawsuits.  The entire blackberry lawsuit is example of things to come. Where another company had a patented that process of moving email to a phone for years but never used it.  This company waited in the background for years for the service to become popular then sued blackberry.  It cost millions of dollars to defend and it was nothing more than legal stealing. 

I can see MS or other company patenting a process that Postgresql  has used for some time or independently invented it gets sued over as a means to extract money from companies and others that used the tool.

I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source projects not just postgresql.  Instead of complaining about how wrong the system is and the need to change it is.  Use the system to protect the project.

 

Interesting..
Martin

----- Original Message -----

From: Justin

To: Nikola Milutinovic ; pgsql-general@postgresql.org

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:33 AM

Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Nikola Milutinovic wrote:

DIV {MARGIN: 0px }

Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".

Nix.

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

> I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
> just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>
> Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
> attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Question???  Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a foundation or non for profit entity be created  that would hold onto patents for original  ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the users and developers of postgresql

The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are playing where they keep applying for  patents/copyrights where there is prior art.  This would protect everyone  in the development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against the biggest offenders.

USPTO  only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can issue a patent   So if a patent  makes claims on already existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke.  Doing the above would help put an end to this.

This is just a suggestion.

Justin wrote:

> Only objective is to protect everyone from stupid and ridiculous
> lawsuits.  The entire blackberry lawsuit is example of things to come.
> Where another company had a patented that process of moving email to a
> phone for years but never used it.  This company waited in the
> background for years for the service to become popular then sued
> blackberry.  It cost millions of dollars to defend and it was nothing
> more than legal stealing.

Such behaviour often borders on extortion IMO, with the use of
preliminary injunctions against product sales or other before-proof
punitive measures as threats to encourage an early settlement. Why go to
all the trouble and expense of proving your patent claim's validity when
you can so severely disrupt someone's business without doing so that
they're forced to settle? If you can force a few small companies to roll
over before going after anyone big, so your patent appears to have more
validity, then all the better.

Regarding the blackberry lawsuit:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/03/03/76106_030306HNblackberrydisputeover_1.html

"Research In Motion (RIM) and NTP have settled their long-standing legal
battle, with RIM paying NTP US$612.5 million to settle all of NTP's
patent claims against it.

"NTP has granted RIM an unfettered right to continue its business..."

Wow. They granted RIM the right to continue its business. How lovely of
them. Positively generous, even.

This is a very real concern. As the USA has convinced much of the world
to sign patent reciprocity agreements (well, to honour US patents
anyway) as part of free trade treaties, it's not just a worry if you
live or work in the US either. Given the absurd generality of some
patents I'm sure I infringe patents practically any time I write any
code - though I wouldn't know which ones nor would it be wise for me to
find out.

> I can see MS or other company patenting a process that Postgresql  has
> used for some time or independently invented it gets sued over as a
> means to extract money from companies and others that used the tool.

If PostgreSQL has been using the process for some time it should ideally
not be a problem. Unfortunately, it still may be, as the USA permits
patents to lurk in pre-approval almost indefinitely (adding claims as
needed) so the patent might apply to fairly ancient ideas despite recent
approval. There's also the whole first to invent vs first to file drama.

Given PostgreSQL's impressive rate of development I'll be surprised if
it *doesn't* run across patent issues. Databases are prime patent
territory, and Pg is picking up impressive modern capabilities with
every release. It's hard to argue that they're obvious, either, even to
someone who's a professional in the field.

PostgreSQL is also becoming powerful enough to be a noticeable threat to
big commercial database vendors' low/mid end markets.

I'm not too worried, personally, as I'd say most patent aggressors will
probably go for MySQL first, at least if their claims apply to MySQL as
well. They, after all, have revenue and a reason to feat patent scare
tactics.

There's also not much to be done about it; it's really up to the
glacially-slow-but-promising patent reform efforts and to an extend the
companies that extend and build on Pg.

--
Craig Ringer

Justin wrote:

> I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source
> projects not just postgresql.  Instead of complaining about how wrong
> the system is and the need to change it is.  Use the system to
> protect the project.
>

Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent
gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents
that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what
purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us
from using them.


Whether we handle our own patents or contribute them to another groups
collection of patents is up for debate.

Two groups heading this way that I know of -

http://www.patentcommons.org
(MS and Oracle are listed as contributors here)

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com

These seem a little similar to each other to me - the
supporters/members are basically the same with different contributors.

I am sure there was another but I can't seem to recall what it was.



--

Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:07:17AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent
> gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents
> that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what
> purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us
> from using them.

There are places that offer cheap alternatives which are not patents
but more "declarations of prior art". The point being not so much that
you get a patent but that you prevent others from getting one on the
same thing. As in the patent office will actually use it when
determining prior art, rather than just ignoring anything on internet.

Cheaper, but still not cheap....

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.

There is https://priorart.ip.com/ to make claims to novel ideas (this costs
money).

I also share the idea that it would be amazing if companies could get
together and fund a non-profit that would hold a "patent portfolio"/ideas of
open source projects and their contributors. I'm no lawyer, but that would
imply that the open-source licensing would have to change. Copyright stays
the same but patent licenses could be granted free of use to anyone using
the open source product or modification of the product.

However, a commercial product using an idea / patent in the open-source
portfolio *could* be enforced by the non-profit.
Hell, essentially fight back against larger companies and hold a stronger
leverage.

It's the only way I can think of that companies using open-source projects
could fight the patent system.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ambler
Sent: May 29, 2008 1:37 PM
To: Justin
Cc: Martin; Nikola Milutinovic; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Justin wrote:

> I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source
> projects not just postgresql.  Instead of complaining about how wrong
> the system is and the need to change it is.  Use the system to
> protect the project.
>

Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent
gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents
that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what
purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us
from using them.


Whether we handle our own patents or contribute them to another groups
collection of patents is up for debate.

Two groups heading this way that I know of -

http://www.patentcommons.org
(MS and Oracle are listed as contributors here)

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com

These seem a little similar to each other to me - the
supporters/members are basically the same with different contributors.

I am sure there was another but I can't seem to recall what it was.



--

Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

kleptog@svana.org (Martijn van Oosterhout) writes:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:07:17AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
>> Exactly. The real problem is that the first one to apply for a patent
>> gets it. It really doesn't matter who invents it. If we have patents
>> that cover our work then we can control who uses it and for what
>> purpose, also preventing others from patenting our ideas and stopping us
>> from using them.
>
> There are places that offer cheap alternatives which are not patents
> but more "declarations of prior art". The point being not so much that
> you get a patent but that you prevent others from getting one on the
> same thing. As in the patent office will actually use it when
> determining prior art, rather than just ignoring anything on internet.
>
> Cheaper, but still not cheap....

My understanding is that this is one of the reasons for existence of
the _IBM Systems Journal_; IBM occasionally discovers things that, for
one reason or another, they do not wish to patent, but by publishing
such things in a published journal, that provides a well-documented
source of "prior art."

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/
--
"cbbrowne","@","acm.org"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
Hail to the sun god, he sure is a fun god, Ra, Ra, Ra!!