Madison Kelly wrote: > Brian Mathis wrote: > >I also am NAL, but I know enough about the patent system (in the US) to > >know that ignorance *IS* a defense. If you are ignorant of the patent, > >you only have to pay the damages. If you knew about the patent and did > >it anyway, you have to pay *triple* damages. Ignorance will save you > >lots of money. > > > >You may not like it, but that's the way it is. > > > > I got that part. :) If you _do_ end up in court, plausible deniability > helps. > > My position though is that it is better, in the long term, to be aware > of the patents and take the time to work around them so that *no* > damages need to be paid. Or, as might be that chance in this case, to > get a written "okay" from the patent holder for the use of the methods > protected by the patent in a given program. > > Colour me funny, but wouldn't staying out of the courts in the first > place not be the best option? Yeah. I invite you to do all the extra (useless) development work required. But please do not charge other people with it. Whoever investigates patents and lets pgsql-hackers know about them, is charging the Postgres community with that work. We sure don't need it. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
