| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "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: | 2005-04-22 21:45:05 |
| Message-ID: | 200504222145.j3MLj5g07878@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
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?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | elein | 2005-04-22 21:58:27 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-04-22 21:41:53 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | elein | 2005-04-22 21:58:27 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-04-22 21:41:53 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |