Re: [pgsql-hackers] Patent issues and 8.1

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 12:51, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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.
>

With that attitude we don't have to do anything even then. We have a
good number of users that this patent claim will be unenforceable
on...right? We have the option of dealing with this now on our own
terms... if we gamble and lose we may have to deal with it in less
favorable conditions.

> Now, if one of our commercial supporting companies is worried enough about
> this to do something -- such as funding a hacker for a 3-month intensive
> better-than-ARC development stint -- then let them step up to the plate.
> Many of our programmers are happy to accept commercial development dollars
> for what is a commercial concern. Let's not steer development based on
> protecting what we think is protecting our commercial sponsors, when they
> haven't even asked us!
>

I'm not sure if your glossing over this on purpose or your just unaware,
but it is not just commercial support companies that will be getting
those letters if IBM ever heads that route. (I'd agree that I don't
think they will, but let's not kid ourselves if they do)

> Like *any* other piece of major software, we probably infringe on 50 different
> patents which we don't know about, held by a variety of parties.

Read the law... willful vs. unknown infringement are two different
things.

> If we let
> this one *potential* patent panic us into a response we may regret later --
> such as derailing 8.1 development, or releasing an insufficiently tested new
> version -- then some other company will threaten us with patents with
> malicious intent to watch us jump and scramble again.
>

Um... thats the way our legal system works. You could do that to any
project if you had a patent they were infringing upon no matter how
stoic they tried to be about it. (By our I mean the U.S. system)

> Attorneys have already said that Linux infringes several dozen outstanding
> patents. Do you see Linus suddenly overhauling the kernel? Dropping
> everthing and rushing a non-infringing, under-tested 2.8 to release? No, you
> don't.
>

Well, I suppose if we had someone's who job was supported by dozens of
multi-billion dollar corporations who all had patent portfolio's that
totaled into the thousands we'd probably have more legs to stand on, but
we don't so the WWLD plan may not be best for us.

FWIW I've really only been advocating that we don't do the change in a
patch branch, which I'm afraid the "do nothing till the lawyers show up"
plan would eventually lead to. We wouldn't normally do things that way
on technical grounds, so I'd prefer not to be forced into doing things
that way for other reasons; enough so that I think we ought to have a
plan to address it now.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL