Re: New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Here is the US patent offices website to
i copy and pasted the wrong link. opps
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/index.html

Justin wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
>>> the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
>>> it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
>>> leading FOSS project for a decade or more.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or,
>> more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL.
>>
>> The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an
>> expensive undertaking. The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is
>> just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other
>> engine that doesn't "infringe".
>>
>> This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the
>> US PTO is just completely broken.
>>
>> A
>>
> Yes completely agree. The prospect of fighting is daunting, desire
> to run for the hills more desirable
>
> We could start the objecting process instead waiting for MS to come
> after us. Anybody want to relive the Blackberry nightmare?
> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-other/p-object.htm
>
> What Tome Lane brought up could be a very big concern, but if the
> developers of said code new nothing about the patent and never used MS
> products then its an independent invention. But proving that is very
> costly