> > 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 conference?

.... John

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

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 DB2

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>So, in short my advise is:
>
> 1. File an objection with USPTO. And maybe an informative
> letter to IBM legal department mentioning USENIX paper.
> 2. If patent is granted, contact IBM and request
> an unlimited, perpetual license to use the technology
> 3. If IBM refuses, remove the offending code, clean up
> CVS and shout from the rooftops about the hypocrisy of
> IBM.
>
>Hope it helps make up your mind,
>Best regards,
>Nicolai Tufar
>
>P.S. But if filing date really is 2002 and there
>is no prior art me may skip step 1.
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

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 you have to upgrade
>>to DB2
>>
>>
>
>This is panic and is wrong-headed. They haven't even sent a letter
>yet...
>
>
Simon please note that it was a joke Thus the .

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake













--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

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
>
>
>
>

One of the reasons for Postgres' well deserved reputation for stability
and reliability is that stable branches are ... stable. Backporting a
large item like cache replacement mechanism doesn't seem to fit that too
well. I wouldn't want to do that except as a complete last resort.

cheers

andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

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 upgrade to uninfringing
> >>>version.
> >>>
> >>I can see it now:
> >>
> >>We won't sue you (customer) but you have to upgrade
> >>to DB2
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is panic and is wrong-headed. They haven't even sent a letter
> >yet...
> >
> Simon please note that it was a joke Thus the .

Sue me. :-)

But read the rest of my posting first.

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:02:14 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
<jd@commandprompt.com> 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 have to upgrade
> to DB2

More like downgrading, actually

> Sincerely,
> Joshua D. Drake

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

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. backport any replacement directly onto 8.0STABLE as soon as any
> >patent is granted
> >

> One of the reasons for Postgres' well deserved reputation for stability
> and reliability is that stable branches are ... stable. Backporting a
> large item like cache replacement mechanism doesn't seem to fit that too
> well. I wouldn't want to do that except as a complete last resort.

I agree... but I see no alternative to my point (2) though; I would
welcome additional options.

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

Nicolai Tufar <ntufar@gmail.com> 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 too, it
> is free).
> [ much good stuff snipped ]

Many thanks for the informed commentary.

I'd like to make another point, which is that it's quite unclear what
the patent will end up covering. Claim 1 essentially claims using two
lists to manage a cache. That's not going to withstand scrutiny as an
independent claim --- heck, we've got prior art for that in our own code
(see catcache.c, which has done something of the sort since Berkeley
days). Somewhere between claim 1 and claim 61 there is a sufficiently
specific concept to be patentable, but we won't know what that is until
the final patent is issued.

There's no moral turpitude in wanting to see what the issued patent
looks like before deciding whether we violate it or what to do about it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be proactive in doing something as
soon as we conveniently can. It's to say that we don't have to panic
into not releasing 8.0.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

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 have to upgrade
> to DB2

This is panic and is wrong-headed. They haven't even sent a letter
yet...

If we believe in this project, then ultimately, we should be aware that
the future *is* litigation, just like with Linux. Successful
people/projects/companies will at some point have to play hardball.
That's nothing to run scared of, unless you feel you have or will do
some harm to another.

Tom's view seems correct. IBM have *applied* for a patent; the community
is now aware of this and must plan accordingly. I see no reason to
contact IBM; they have no basis to complain as yet. If they had wished
to protect their patent they could have done so earlier - the dev
process here is open and visible, so there is a reasonable onus on them
to perform some form of minimum attentiveness on us if they see us as
competition. I have no reason to believe they do and our current
understanding is that IBM supports Open Source and therefore this
project. We support AIX, Linux on PowerPC, Linux on S/390, jdbc on WAS
to name but a few things IBM would be very happy with.

The patent has not yet been granted and seems to have been pending for
at least 18 months. We therefore have reason to believe there is some
chance it may not be granted, related prior art on buffer management
stretching back more than 30 years. By taking reasonable actions now we
will buy ourselves reasonable time should it ever be granted.

It seems clear that anybody on 8.0.0ARC after the patent had been
granted could potentially be liable to pay damages. At best, the
community would need to do a "product recall" to ensure patents were not
infringed.

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

Point 1 was going to happen anyway, so there is really less to worry
about. ARC is a better idea; it is likely there are even better ones.
ARC says nothing of how to clean the LRUs of dirty pages, nor does it
specify how to scale the algorithm to multiple CPUs.

The code already supports such a migration from 8.0.0 to 8.0.x

If any community members are planning selling products derived from
PostgreSQL 8.0.0 then it might be in your interest to put some money in
the pot for a legal fund and also to fund dev of a new buffer management
strategy. If those community members wish to delay release of their own
derived products then that's up to them.

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

I think the ARC issue is the same with any other patent ...
Recently somebody pointed me to a nice site showing some examples:

http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html

Looking at the list briefly I can find at least five patent problems
using any operating system with PostgreSQL.

From my point of view having the ARC in there is just as safe / unsafe
as using "Hello World" and compile it with GCC.

I don't think it possible to sue a community anyway.

Best regards and have fun reading those examples,

Hans

--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings