> 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/
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
No comments:
Post a Comment