From: | "Brian Mathis" <brian(dot)mathis(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Madison Kelly" <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A query planner that learns |
Date: | 2006-10-17 15:11:19 |
Message-ID: | 183c528b0610170811r253d53bdy483a7bce12e3951e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/17/06, Madison Kelly <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Brian Mathis wrote:
> > I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to
> > know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent,
> > you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did
> > it anyway, you have to pay *triple* damages. Ignorance will save you
> > lots of money.
> >
> > You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
> >
>
> I got that part. :) If you _do_ end up in court, plausible deniability
> helps.
>
> My position though is that it is better, in the long term, to be aware
> of the patents and take the time to work around them so that *no*
> damages need to be paid. Or, as might be that chance in this case, to
> get a written "okay" from the patent holder for the use of the methods
> protected by the patent in a given program.
>
> Colour me funny, but wouldn't staying out of the courts in the first
> place not be the best option?
>
> Madi
>
Yes, good idea :)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2006-10-17 15:30:09 | Re: A query planner that learns |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-17 15:11:02 | Re: Fast backup/restore |