From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
Date: | 2005-04-22 17:02:11 |
Message-ID: | 42692E13.6010602@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
>
>
> Myself, I believe that software patents can be useful if the patent in
> question is properly/strictly defined ... the big thing, for me, is that
> there have been *alot* being approved that are *way* too generic, and
> that is something that needs/should be fixed ...
I have yet to see any software patent that does not have some level of
prior art. That doesn't mean they are not there but I haven't seen them.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc.
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-04-22 17:03:06 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-04-22 17:01:10 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-04-22 17:03:06 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-04-22 17:01:10 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |