Re: New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Martin wrote:
> which is the reason why i think Design Patterns and Patterns are
> unpatentable..too many cooks created these meals to attribute to any
> one or group of individuals
That will never happen and it if it does it years away. we must deal
with the current problems in front of us not worry to much about what we
want or could be the shape of laws in the future.
> The real challenge is the submittal process where one must submit at
> least 50% of the patentable code..what do you submit?
Sense the Postgresql is open source there is no internal secretes that
needs to be protected, submit the entire code that makes the specific
patentable part work.
>
> I always thought PostGIS whose algorithms were unique enough and whose
> creators were from a sufficiently small population
> to place PostGIS into 'patentable' code but apparently PostGIS is
> firmly declared under 'GPL' to quote
> "To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
> licensed for everyone's free use .."
So there is no current obstructions to doing this as Postgresql is
licensed today
> Recalling an earlier year when a Lowell MA based company offered
> proprietary software which did'nt interoperate with other (GPL software..)
> MS on the other hand seems to patent unique algorithms and or
> methodologies which are specific only to MS environments...
Only objective is to protect everyone from stupid and ridiculous
lawsuits. The entire blackberry lawsuit is example of things to come.
Where another company had a patented that process of moving email to a
phone for years but never used it. This company waited in the
background for years for the service to become popular then sued
blackberry. It cost millions of dollars to defend and it was nothing
more than legal stealing.

I can see MS or other company patenting a process that Postgresql has
used for some time or independently invented it gets sued over as a
means to extract money from companies and others that used the tool.

I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source
projects not just postgresql. Instead of complaining about how wrong
the system is and the need to change it is. Use the system to protect
the project.

>
> Interesting..
> Martin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Justin <mailto:justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>
> *To:* Nikola Milutinovic <mailto:alokin1(at)yahoo(dot)com> ;
> pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:33 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
>
>
>
> Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
>> Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG
>> to patent something that already exist and was not invented by
>> the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about
>> new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality?
>> Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just
>> one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".
>>
>> Nix.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
>> To: Justin Clift <justin(at)salasaga(dot)org>
>> Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc(at)gmail(dot)com>; A. Kretschmer
>> <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com>; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules
>>
>> HI Justin
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift
>> <justin(at)salasaga(dot)org <mailto:justin(at)salasaga(dot)org>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS
>> may have
>> > just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.
>> >
>> > Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
>> > attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Dave Page
>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>>
> Question??? Does the license that Postgresql works under allow
> for a foundation or non for profit entity be created that would
> hold onto patents for original ideas of the contributors so WE
> can protect the users and developers of postgresql
>
> The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies
> are playing where they keep applying for patents/copyrights where
> there is prior art. This would protect everyone in the
> development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these
> companies could bring against the biggest offenders.
>
> USPTO only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if
> they can issue a patent So if a patent makes claims on already
> existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get
> the patent revoke. Doing the above would help put an end to this.
>
> This is just a suggestion.
>