| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How can we submit code patches that implement our (pending) patents? |
| Date: | 2018-07-27 17:42:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20180727174200.kpzhydqugw6roeph@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-07-27 13:33:28 -0400, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 01:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > the patch and people doing so can reasonably be expected to know about
> > the patents, making further contributions by them worse.
>
> I'm not sure this line of thinking, which seems rooted in notions of
> tainted or cleanroom development from the copyright world, has the
> same force wrt patents.
Yes, violations made with knowledge triples damages in the US.
> Sometimes a good understanding of a patented technique, including
> just what aspects of it are claimed or not in the patent's claims
> section, will be just what you need in order to be confident that
> an alternative approach you've devised really is different in the
> ways that matter. I don't think it automatically casts a cloud on
> the work as it would in the copyright case.
There's no way we can do that without extensive lawyerly input in each
case.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-07-27 17:42:45 | Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2018-07-27 17:38:14 | Re: Deprecating, and scheduling removal of, pg_dump's tar format. |