| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 21:16:06 |
| Message-ID: | 42696996.40008@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
>>We are not building an artificial heart here, we are building a database
>>and databases have been around for decades.
>
>
> Well, ARC seems like a new database idea, at least in the past few
> years. Are you saying ARC is either "ridiculous" or has prior art? I
> know 2Q is similar, but not identical, and ARC does have some small
> improvements over it.
In this case I would say it is both. 2Q should (if not is) be considered
prior art. Otherwise it would not have been as plug-n-play as it was.
Note I am not making light of the work that it took, I couldn't have
done it and I am glad that someone else had to.
Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above
experience.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-22 21:26:47 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-22 21:09:11 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-22 21:26:47 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-22 21:09:11 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Software Patents |