Greetings,
Patents do not transcend international border. They need
to be applied for in each country separately.
To ease the process of applying for patents in many countries
at once Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) was formed. When you
file a patent application with WIPO head office under PCT y
Just as an FYI, since I didn't mention it in my previous ... the branch
that was created today was REL8_0_STABLE ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
-
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not convinced Marc got the branching/tagging right; let's wait till
> >> the dust settles.
>
> > I IM'ed him and he said to go ahead.
>
> Maybe he said that, but I see no evidence that he's tagged 8.0.0
> correctly. If you tou
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Is CVS HEAD open for 8.1 commits?
I'm not convinced Marc got the branching/tagging right; let's wait till
the dust settles.
Are you in such a hurry? Most of what's in the 8.1 queue hasn't been
reviewed yet anyway.
regards, tom lane
-
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Is CVS HEAD open for 8.1 commits?
>
> I'm not convinced Marc got the branching/tagging right; let's wait till
> the dust settles.
I IM'ed him and he said to go ahead.
> Are you in such a hurry? Most of what's in the 8.1 queue hasn't been
> reviewed y
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not convinced Marc got the branching/tagging right; let's wait till
>> the dust settles.
> I IM'ed him and he said to go ahead.
Maybe he said that, but I see no evidence that he's tagged 8.0.0
correctly. If you touch the repository you'll make it m
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is CVS HEAD open for 8.1 commits?
I have confirmed with Marc that it is open. I am making the 8.1 stamps
now.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive,
Is CVS HEAD open for 8.1 commits?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
-
--- Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 07:31:48PM -0400, Marc G.
> Fournier wrote:
>
> > Just curious here, but are patents global?
> PostgreSQL is not US software,
> > but it is run within the US ... so, would this
> patent, if it goes through,
> > only af
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 07:31:48PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Just curious here, but are patents global? PostgreSQL is not US software,
> but it is run within the US ... so, would this patent, if it goes through,
> only affect those using PostgreSQL in the US, or do patents somehow
> tra
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:51 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> >So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
> >upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted.
> >
> >We should therefore plan to:
> >1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1
> >2.
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 15:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >>>code before first informing them of infringement and
> >>>giving reasonable time to upg
On Monday 17 January 2005 15:15, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
> >infringements. And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
> >violations. What is the point of removing this one. Just because Neil
> >did some legwork. Anyon
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 10:15 +1100, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > The biggest problem is going to be that if we release 8 with
> > the patented stuff, then for a minimum of 3 years there will
> > be liability for anyone running 8.
> >
> > We stil
Simon Riggs wrote:
So, it also seems clear that 8.0.x should eventually have a straight
upgrade path to a replacement, assuming the patent is granted.
We should therefore plan to:
1. improve/replace ARC for 8.1
2. backport any replacement directly onto 8.0STABLE as soon as any
patent is granted
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keep in mind that it would be conceivable to ship an 8.0.x release which
> replaces ARC with another algorithm. That would be a somewhat
> non-trivial change, but there's no reason we need to wait for a major
> release (i.e. 8.1 or 8.2) to replace ARC.
It'
> We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
> to DB2 ;)
^^
For the smiley impaired, I think it pretty clear that Mr. Drake was
joking.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.p
It varies from country to country. Here are some relevant links.
http://swpat.ffii.org/
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/online.htm
http://www.abul.org/brevets/articles/tsuba_refs.php3?langnew=en
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
infringements. And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
violations. What is the point of removing this one. Just because Neil
did some legwork. Anyone could do some legwork
Just curious here, but are patents global? PostgreSQL is not US software,
but it is run within the US ... so, would this patent, if it goes through,
only affect those using PostgreSQL in the US, or do patents somehow
transcend international borders?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Netw
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >code before first informing them of infringement and
> >giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> >version.
> >
> I can see it now:
>
> We won't sue you (customer) but you hav
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 14:02 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.
I can see it now:
We won't sue you (customer) but y
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> The biggest problem is going to be that if we release 8 with
> the patented stuff, then for a minimum of 3 years there will
> be liability for anyone running 8.
>
> We still have people running 7.1 and once you get something
> into produc
Nicolai Tufar wrote:
> Second, a pending patent is not a granted patent,
> one is not infringing anything by distributing
> technology based in a pending patent.
Given the patents the USPTO has been granting in recent times, if a
patent is pending, it's almost certainly going to be granted.
Espec
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:15 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> We have just admitted that we knowingly may infringe upon
> an IBM patent. That really is a different thing than,
> "We have some really smart people that came up with something,
> "like" this other technology".
The code is clear that it
Nov 2002 is the date of filing the patent application, while May 2004 is the
publish date. For regular patent application, the USPTO will treat that
application with secrecy for the first 18 months of the examining process.
About 18 months after the application, the USPTO will publish the patent
Nicolai Tufar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to contribute my $.02 to this issue.
> I speak as not a lawyer but as someone tho worked
> one and a half year in a patent bureau and even
> got a certificate from WIPO (http://academy.wipo.int/
> those who interested may attend the course to
Tom Lane wrote:
"John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies
Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you
> >IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >code before first informing them of infringement and
> >giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> >version.
That's not true. If you *knowingly* violated a patent IBM can sue you for the
damages caused. If you weren't aware of the p
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:02:14 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
> >code before first informing them of infringement and
> >giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
> >version.
> I can see it now:
> We won't sue you (cust
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
> >> PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies
> >> Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
>
> > Ahemm,... Isn't
The previous snipped wording was very insightful, thank you.
IBM can NEVER sue customers for using infringing
code before first informing them of infringement and
giving reasonable time to upgrade to uninfringing
version.
I can see it now:
We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
to D
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/knuth/index.en.html
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5342291.html
IMO-YMMV
Perhaps an advocacy group would be better. Tragically,
nothing will ever come of excellent discussions such as those by Knuth.
So really, I’m just venting.
Greetings,
I would like to contribute my $.02 to this issue.
I speak as not a lawyer but as someone tho worked
one and a half year in a patent bureau and even
got a certificate from WIPO (http://academy.wipo.int/
those who interested may attend the course too, it
is free).
First, the whole point
'k, 8.0.0 is branched and bundled ... I put it into /pub/source/v8.0.0,
seperat from the beta stuff, and just did a force rsync to
ftp.postgresql.org so that its available there as well ...
We have ~36hours between now, and the PRs go out, to make sure that
nothing is wrong, as well as to get t
"John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
>> PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies
>> Conference (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
> Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read
John Hansen wrote:
Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies
Conference
(FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document f
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
>> ... because it isn't a patent, yet.
> Yea, but IBM has thousands of patents. The odds that this particular
> patent would have been in the 500 if it was granted is unli
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:03:01AM +1100, John Hansen wrote:
> Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read
> the document from the above conference?
No, the patent application is filed on 14 November 2002, according to
the URL that Neil posted.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EM
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
>
> ... because it isn't a patent, yet.
Yea, but IBM has thousands of patents. The odds that this particular
patent would have been in the 500 if it was granted is unlikely, no?
--
Bruce Momji
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:37:44PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we m
Bruce Momjian writes:
> ARC wasn't in the 500 patents released to open source.
... because it isn't a patent, yet.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > You want scarey --- forget the IBM patent. Find an Oracle or Microsoft
> > patent that is similar to something in our code. It will might not be
> > exact, but our ARC isn't exact either.
> >
> > Basically any organization that wants to produce patent-free code would
> >
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:04:36PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> I thought the patnt was only pending, not granted?
That's right, and it's what gives Tom's arguments some weight.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Information security isn't a technological problem. It's an economi
> You want scarey --- forget the IBM patent. Find an Oracle or Microsoft
> patent that is similar to something in our code. It will might not be
> exact, but our ARC isn't exact either.
>
> Basically any organization that wants to produce patent-free code would
> need one lawyer for every five
> > Unfortunately no. The document that inspired me to adapt ARC for
> > PostgreSQL is from the USENIX File & Storage Technologies
> Conference
> > (FAST), March 31, 2003, San Francisco, CA.
Ahemm,... Isn't the patent lodged on may 20, 2004, AFTER you read the document
from the above conferenc
Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
>
> > >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> > >> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> > >
> > >>
> > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetah
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The biggest problem is going to be that if we release 8 with
> the patented stuff, then for a minimum of 3 years there will
> be liability for anyone running 8.
Do you honestly think that this is the only patented algorithm anywhere
in there?
Now th
> >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> >> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> >
> >>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> With a team of lawyers which we can't match. They may never have a
> patent, or they may get it next month. I'd feel more
> comfortable if I knew what sort of remedies they could demand (I have
> a call open to a lawyer I believe will give me a conservative answer
> about
If PostgreSQL 8.0 is released with ARC, and then PostgreSQL 8.1 is
released without ARC, and then the patent is granted to IBM, would
everyone be fine if they just all switched to 8.1 at that time? Or would
we have some kind of retroactive problem? Would people that are still
using 8.0 in producti
> I think there is zero probability of being sued by IBM in the near
> future. They would instantly destroy the credibility and good
> relationships they've worked so hard to build up with the entire
> open source community.
>
> However, I don't want to be beholden to IBM indefinitely --- in fiv
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:48:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think there is zero probability of being sued by IBM in the near
> future.
They won't sue the project. They'll send corporate users a bill,
instead, for a license.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A certain description o
On Jan 17, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
We should be as proactive as possible with this and remove
the code (or modify as required).
Perhaps a member of -CORE should contact IBM. The ball is out there
now due to the discussion on this list that we know we might have
infringing code.
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's a very recent paper at
> http://carmen.cs.uiuc.edu/~zchen9/paper/TPDS-final.ps on an alternative
> to ARC which claims superior performance ...
Personally, I'd prefer a very *old* paper ;-)
> Maybe this will give us added impetus to make the
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:58:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ahead and release with it anyway. IBM would justifiably jump on us
> > for that as a result.
>
> With what? They have no patent, yet, and may never have one. If the
> patent were already
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:54:44 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it looks like src/port/snprintf.c is not %n$ capable either.
> I'm not sure which platforms that affects.
>
> A possible route to a solution is to upgrade snprintf.c and then use
> it on platforms that don't have this
>> I don't think we'll hold up release to fix this, but the affected
>> translators may want to think about whether they can avoid
>the problem
>> or not.
>
>Also, it looks like src/port/snprintf.c is not %n$ capable either.
>I'm not sure which platforms that affects.
>
>A possible route to a solu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think we'll hold up release to fix this,
:-) It seems nothing seems to stop you from holding up this release
anymore: Neither ARC problem nor this one :)
Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim~gunduz.org,
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net?
We can modify the code sligh
If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
infringements. And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
violations. What is the point of removing this one. Just because Neil
did some legwork. Anyone could do some legwork and find some in any
software, I bet.
We
Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> >> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> >
> >> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
> > potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we may press
> > ahead and release with it anyway. IBM would justifiably jump on us
> > for that as a result.
>
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
> potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we may press
> ahead and release with it anyway. IBM would justifiably jump on us
> for that as a result.
With what? They have no pat
On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u
However, I don't want to be beholden to IBM indefinitely --- in five
years their corporate strategy might change. I think that a reasonable
response to this is to plan to get rid of ARC, or at least modify the
code enough to avoid the patent, in time for 8.1. (It's entirely likely
that that will
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >> What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
> >> offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
> >> demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net?
>
> > We can modify the c
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
>> offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter from IBM
>> demanding the removal of all offending code from the Net?
> We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoi
I wrote:
> I don't think we'll hold up release to fix this, but the affected
> translators may want to think about whether they can avoid the problem
> or not.
Also, it looks like src/port/snprintf.c is not %n$ capable either.
I'm not sure which platforms that affects.
A possible route to a solut
Hello,
I have noticed that several projects within the contrib
do not have a make rule of Install. I don't think this
is a show stopper of course, but it is probably something
that should be adjusted for consistency perspective.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth Po
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:37:44PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
I guess what I'm very much worried about is that there is
potentially-infringing code there, we know about it, and we may press
ahead and release with it any
We can modify the code slightly to hopefully avoid the patent. With the
US granting patents on even obvious ideas, I would think that most large
software projects, including commercial ones, already have tons of
patent violations in their code. Does anyone think otherwise?
However, I will grant
Nicolai Tufar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for such a late submission.
> I just downloaded the latest postgresql-8.0.0-rc5-3.zip installer
> for windows and it appears that Windows' printf() does not
> support placeholder replacement as described in
> http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/pos
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
> > But we need to look into the problem.
>
> What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
> offending code, and y
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
> But we need to look into the problem.
What will you do if the patent is granted, 8.0 is out there with the
offending code, and you get a cease-and-desist letter fr
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:17:33 -0300, Fx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> unix/win32 libc doesnt support "$n" variables..
What can we do then?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/do
unix/win32 libc doesnt support "$n" variables..
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:03:56 +0200, Nicolai Tufar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for such a late submission.
>
> I just downloaded the latest postgresql-8.0.0-rc5-3.zip installer
> for windows and it appears that Windows' printf() does not
> su
Sorry for such a late submission.
I just downloaded the latest postgresql-8.0.0-rc5-3.zip installer
for windows and it appears that Windows' printf() does not
support placeholder replacement as described in
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/nls.html#AEN57284
I searched list archives b
At ~16:00 ADT this afternoon, I will branch, tag and package up 8.0.0 ...
if anyone has any 'show stoppers', let us know within the next 4 hours :)
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ
> >Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Maybe we should have a pgfoundry project where all translations were
> > kept, and from which the main CVS could be updated
> > semi-automatically. Then we wouldn't have Peter checking out and
> > committing all the time.
>
>Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> That sounds like a
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> There were several on 100% until some more messages were marked for
> translation. Doing that days before release was not a good idea IMO.
Yeah, I though so too, but if you think about it, it doesn't harm anyone
except your statistics. :)
> Maybe we should have a pgfound
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:40:40PM +0200, Nicolai Tufar wrote:
> Wow,
> Turkish seem to be the first translation to report 100% translation
> completion for 8.0 release. Congratulations for great work! And thanks
> to Peter for being patient with us all this time.
There were several on 100% unti
Neil Conway wrote:
I would be OK with just ignoring this case, but on reflection I would
prefer removing the "-t schema.table" syntax. Removing the feature
resolves the quoting issue and also simplifies pg_dump's behavior. We
lose the ability to dump table t1 in schema s1 and table t2 in schema s2
Wow,
Turkish seem to be the first translation to report 100% translation
completion for 8.0 release. Congratulations for great work! And thanks
to Peter for being patient with us all this time.
> > We can't reproduce it with msgfmt -v. How do you get those errors?
>
> The scripts that produce t
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> > is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
>
> > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
"John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How will this affect the release of 8.0?
I don't think it needs to delay the release; the patent is only pending.
But we need to look into the problem.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
> > FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent
> > application is still pending, although the USPTO site is a
> little hard to grok):
>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%22200400985
87 matches
Mail list logo
