On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 23:40 +0900, robert song wrote: > Hello, everyone. > Now I am using Pettis-Hansen method as follows to reorder functions. > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/courses/cs771/papers/pettis90profile.pdf http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=93550 Paper was published in 1990. > But I found that the algorithm has its patent as below. > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0459192.html I took a closer look. That's a European patent: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=0459192&KC=&FT=E Which according to this: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-os/p-journal/p-pj/p-pj-epuk?startYear=2009&startMonth=January&startDay=28th+-+6245&endYear=2009&endMonth=January&endDay=28th+-+6245&filter=EP0459192&perPage=10&status=All&sort=Publication+Date It "Ceased" on May 8, 2008. There's some stuff about "Ceased through non-payment of renewal fee" and "Lapsed" at the end of this page: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&NR=0459192A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=19911204&DB=&locale= I don't know anything about European patents but that sounds like "Expired" to me. The US patent seems to be here: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5212794.html With an "estimated" expiration date of June 1, 2010. Is HP known for being a patent troll? What is their track record with open source? (I honestly don't really know.) This patent doesn't seem like much of a threat anymore and in a little over a year will be completely gone. Imagine the ruckus if HP started trying to sue everyone over gcc. Why would they bother with such a PR nightmare on a patent that's a year from expiring? (The answer is, getting bought out or taken over by patent trolls, like what happened to SCO...) ... I of course am not a lawyer.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
