5 ms·

I see. It's ok as long as it's someone else getting screwed. As far as my own situation, the details are here: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,3

I see. It's ok as long as it's someone else getting screwed. As far as my own situation, the details are here: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39194883,00.htm http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39194883,00.ht... Ironically it was another "ARC" patent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Replacement_Cache http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Replacement_Cache

pg 19y ago
I didn't say it was ok. More like inevitable. Big cos get sued. It doesn't mean much. From the article, it doesn't sound like you were required by an injunction to remove any code. Someone just read in the news about some newly issued patent and panicked. What's the plan for dealing with the 1000 other patents PostgreSQL is violating?
- bayareaguy 19y ago
  No, thankfully the issue was delt with quickly. There were also other good reasons to upgrade. The PostgreSQL project tries to stick with things for which there is plenty of prior art and thankfully most of the best stuff in databases is old enough so that patents aren't a big issue. Unfortunately some of the things people do with PostgreSQL's extensibility aren't as old. I'm sure there are some people out there using custom UDF/UDA functions that may infringe on patents.