| From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
| Date: | 2005-04-23 10:45:21 |
| Message-ID: | 034f01c547f1$91689d90$0f01a8c0@zaphod |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the
>> >>above
>> >>experience.
>> >
>> >
>> > ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools.
>>
>> So ARC is 2Q++. My point exactly :)
>
> So you are saying "++" isn't patentable? I don't understand that.
>
> You are saying that there are no completely new ideas in databases, and
> that marginal improvements are not patentable?
I think so. It seems in this case, it is just "natural evolution". Just
making something known more dynamic does not seem to be something that
should be patentable. But well, this is just my very own personal opinion.
You may have your own. :-)
Best Regards,
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-04-23 13:13:20 | Re: MySQL & Red Hat? |
| Previous Message | Robert Bernier | 2005-04-23 10:38:12 | Re: MySQL & Red Hat? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2005-04-23 13:27:56 | Re: [pgsql-www] Software Patents |
| Previous Message | Jean-Paul Argudo | 2005-04-23 09:06:54 | Re: [pgsql-www] Software Patents |