|
|
 | | From: | Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD | | Subject: | Re: ARC patent | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:56:00 +0100 |
|
|
 |
> >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> >> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> >
> >>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> >
> > Ugh. We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
> > it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
> > predating the filing date). I fear we'll have to change or remove
> > that code.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
> Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
> PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies Conference
> (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
>
> I am seriously concerned about this and think we should not knowingly
> release code that is possibly infringing a patent.
I thought IBM granted the right to use these methods in OSS software.
PostgreSQL is OSS software, thus only such entities relicensing pg
need to worry about the patent.
Also the algo is probably sufficiently altered already to not be subject
to the patent, no ?
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
|
|
| | From: | Bruce Momjian | | Subject: | Re: ARC patent | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:01:11 -0500 (EST) |
|
|
| Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
>
> > >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> > >> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> > >
> > >>
> > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> > >
> > > Ugh. We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
> > > it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
> > > predating the filing date). I fear we'll have to change or remove
> > > that code.
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
> >
> > Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
> > PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies Conference
> > (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
> >
> > I am seriously concerned about this and think we should not knowingly
> > release code that is possibly infringing a patent.
>
> I thought IBM granted the right to use these methods in OSS software.
> PostgreSQL is OSS software, thus only such entities relicensing pg
> need to worry about the patent.
ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source. Also, I don't
think the offer extends to companys like Pervasive and Command Prompt
that ship commercial versions of PostgreSQL.
> Also the algo is probably sufficiently altered already to not be subject
> to the patent, no ?
I hope so.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
|
|
| | From: | Tom Lane | | Subject: | Re: ARC patent | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:03:40 -0500 |
|
|
| Bruce Momjian writes:
> ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
.... because it isn't a patent, yet.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
|
|
| | From: | Bruce Momjian | | Subject: | Re: ARC patent | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:07:36 -0500 (EST) |
|
|
| Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
>
> ... because it isn't a patent, yet.
Yea, but IBM has thousands of patents. The odds that this particular
patent would have been in the 500 if it was granted is unlikely, no?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
|
|
| | From: | Tom Lane | | Subject: | Re: ARC patent | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:13:56 -0500 |
|
|
| Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
>> ... because it isn't a patent, yet.
> Yea, but IBM has thousands of patents. The odds that this particular
> patent would have been in the 500 if it was granted is unlikely, no?
That's hard to say. But the reason we know without looking that it's
not in that list is that they can't have released a patent they don't
have yet.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
|
|
|
