Re: UB-Tree
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: UB-Tree |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 001101c1c8f3$379c8fe0$1600000a@tm.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | UB-Tree (Robert Schrem <robert.schrem@WiredMinds.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Schrem" <robert@schrem.de> To: "Hannu Krosing" <hannu@krosing.net> Cc: "PostgreSQL Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:55 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] UB-Tree > On Friday 08 March 2002 20:37, Hannu Krosing wrote: > > They may also have patents on it, so we should move carefully here. > > I sent a mail asking R. Bayer about any known patent issues. > He said that the UB-Tree is internationally patented. > Sad, because it looked like a briliant idea. Now it looks like > it will be banned from the open source community for some > decades to come... :-( IANAL, but there seem to be some issues : 1. There is no such thing as 'internationally patented' as most countries still don't allow patenting software algorithms. 2. I doubt it is possible to patent a general idea, like replacing multiple one-dimensional indexes with one multi-dimensional index (conceptually they _are_ the same thing, just optimised for different access paterns) So as we can't use UB-Tree, we may well achieve similar result buy using a multi-dimensional/multi-type R-tree and teach our optimiser to use it for resolving multiple where clause restrictions simultaneously. Of course this too may be patented. If it is not, let's hope this e-mail will be archived and can be used as prior art to prevent future patenting attempts :) Another common way of fighting such patent's is patenting all possible future improvements and then haggle with the patent holder . I think this could be something that is effectively doable by open-source community, at least the part of generating the ideas. ------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: