Horton

Thread

  1. IBM releases 500 patents

    Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> — 2005-01-11T16:04:48Z

    IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500 
patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query 
optimizations, it may be worth a look.


http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx:  250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com

  2. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2005-01-11T16:13:01Z

    Darcy Buskermolen wrote:

>IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500 
>patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query 
>optimizations, it may be worth a look.
>
>
>http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
>  
>
Except in the event of a lawsuit.


J





-- 
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

  3. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> — 2005-01-11T16:32:35Z

    On January 11, 2005 08:13 am, you wrote:
> Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> >IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to
> > 500 patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and
> > query optimizations, it may be worth a look.
> >
> >
> >http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
>
> Except in the event of a lawsuit.
>
>
> J

I've read the full patent release document 
(http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf) and from what I 
see there, IBM has made a commitment not to defend the patentents against 
anybody who uses them in a supported OSS licensing scheme (those found on 
opensourcelicence.org)

-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx:  250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com

  4. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> — 2005-01-11T16:34:22Z

    On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:13:01AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> 
> >IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 
> >500 patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and 
> >query optimizations, it may be worth a look.
> >
> >http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
>
> Except in the event of a lawsuit.

And derived closed-source products like SRA's or CMD's Postgres
offerings would not be able to include whatever is covered by the patents.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"La rebeldía es la virtud original del hombre" (Arthur Schopenhauer)

  5. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> — 2005-01-11T16:38:09Z

    On January 11, 2005 08:32 am, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> On January 11, 2005 08:13 am, you wrote:
> > Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > >IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access
> > > to 500 patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS
> > > and query optimizations, it may be worth a look.
> > >
> > >
> > >http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
> >
> > Except in the event of a lawsuit.
> >
> >
> > J
>
> I've read the full patent release document
> (http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf) and from what
> I see there, IBM has made a commitment not to defend the patentents against
> anybody who uses them in a supported OSS licensing scheme (those found on
> opensourcelicence.org)

Correction, make that http://opensource.org

-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx:  250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com

  6. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> — 2005-01-11T16:51:22Z

    On January 11, 2005 08:34 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:13:01AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > >IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access
> > > to 500 patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS
> > > and query optimizations, it may be worth a look.
> > >
> > >http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
> >
> > Except in the event of a lawsuit.
>
> And derived closed-source products like SRA's or CMD's Postgres
> offerings would not be able to include whatever is covered by the patents.

In that pg uses a BSD license, which is supported by OSO and which allows for:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this 
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, 
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation 
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


I can't see binary modified distros like those offred by CP and SRA would be 
breaking this license.  

-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx:  250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com

  7. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-11T16:54:23Z

    Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> On January 11, 2005 08:34 am, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:13:01AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > > >IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access
> > > > to 500 patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS
> > > > and query optimizations, it may be worth a look.
> > > >
> > > >http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
> > >
> > > Except in the event of a lawsuit.
> >
> > And derived closed-source products like SRA's or CMD's Postgres
> > offerings would not be able to include whatever is covered by the patents.
> 
> In that pg uses a BSD license, which is supported by OSO and which allows for:
> 
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> 
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this 
> list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 
> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, 
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation 
> and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 
> 
> I can't see binary modified distros like those offred by CP and SRA would be 
> breaking this license.  

The new distros have their own license on top of the existing one that
gives ownership to the company distributing it and requiring payment for
those using it, so they have a different license than BSD.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

  8. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Elein Mustain <elein@tulip.norcov.com> — 2005-01-11T18:33:44Z

    They probaly released the informix database patents.
This is pertinent to us as several of them were interesting
implementations of things like the function manager.

--elein


On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:04:48AM -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500 
> patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query 
> optimizations, it may be worth a look.
> 
> 
> http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/01/patents.html
> -- 
> Darcy Buskermolen
> Wavefire Technologies Corp.
> ph: 250.717.0200
> fx:  250.763.1759
> http://www.wavefire.com
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

  9. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> — 2005-01-14T16:28:52Z

    On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:33:44 -0800,
  Elein Mustain <elein@tulip.norcov.com> wrote:
> They probaly released the informix database patents.
> This is pertinent to us as several of them were interesting
> implementations of things like the function manager.

From what I read of this, the way they released the patents isn't completely
compatible with BSD licenses.

  10. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    decibel <decibel@decibel.org> — 2005-01-15T02:24:12Z

    On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:28:52AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:33:44 -0800,
>   Elein Mustain <elein@tulip.norcov.com> wrote:
> > They probaly released the informix database patents.
> > This is pertinent to us as several of them were interesting
> > implementations of things like the function manager.
> 
> From what I read of this, the way they released the patents isn't completely
> compatible with BSD licenses.

Is the only concern the commercialized offerings of PostgreSQL? It seems
that commercial entities could either negotiate terms with IBM or help
maintain a 'patent-free' branch of PostgreSQL. Yes, sub-optimal and a
good amount of work, but depending on what's to be gained by utilizing
some of the patents it might still be better for PostgreSQL overall.

I don't know how useful the IP in the patents is, but I'd hate to see it
dismissed out-of-hand because of licensing difficulties that could be
overcome.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

  11. Re: IBM releases 500 patents

    Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> — 2005-01-17T05:52:56Z

    On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 08:04 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> IBM has just announced they are waving all rights and providing access to 500 
> patents.  In the list of 500 there are several that relate RDBMS and query 
> optimizations, it may be worth a look.

FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541

-Neil

  12. ARC patent

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2005-01-17T06:15:25Z

    Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):

> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541

Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have to change or remove
that code.

			regards, tom lane

  13. Re: ARC patent

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2005-01-17T10:40:12Z

    On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> > is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> 
> > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 01:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I fear we'll have to change or remove
> that code.

At very least, ARC should not be further mentioned in any press release
or beta history files until we resolve where we are. There'll be less
need for a retraction if the buffer strategy is not publicised.

The code separation of bufmgr.c and freelist.c means that changes can be
done later without too much of a problem. Any required changes can be
made under the covers without external recall-notices or such.

Well, considering the BufMgrLock problems, it was likely that some
changes would need to be be made to that algorithm anyway. 

ARC may be optimal in lab tests, but I'm beginning to think that it's
not optimal in multi-processing environments. It also takes no direct
account of the workload it is being asked to support, so ISTM that we
should be able to use workload hints, along the lines of
StrategyHintVacuum, to get a more responsive algorithm suited
specifically to PostgreSQL - which would be harder to claim rights on.

-- 
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

  14. Re: ARC patent

    Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com> — 2005-01-17T20:02:41Z

    On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
>> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> 
>> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> 
> Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
> it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
> predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have to change or remove
> that code.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane

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.

I am seriously concerned about this and think we should not knowingly 
release code that is possibly infringing a patent.

If we need a different cache algorithm again, we might want to yank out 
the ARC part right away now and work on another one for 8.1.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

  15. Re: ARC patent

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2005-01-17T20:07:30Z

    Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> >> is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> > 
> >> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> > 
> > Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
> > it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
> > predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have to change or remove
> > that code.
> > 
> > 			regards, tom lane
> 
> 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.

Oh, OK.  Good news!

> I am seriously concerned about this and think we should not knowingly 
> release code that is possibly infringing a patent.
> 
> If we need a different cache algorithm again, we might want to yank out 
> the ARC part right away now and work on another one for 8.1.

If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
infringements.  And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
violations.  What is the point of removing this one.  Just because Neil
did some legwork.  Anyone could do some legwork and find some in any
software, I bet.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

  16. Re: ARC patent

    Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2005-01-17T20:15:05Z

    >If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
>infringements.  And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
>violations.  What is the point of removing this one.  Just because Neil
>did some legwork.  Anyone could do some legwork and find some in any
>software, I bet.
>  
>
Well from one perspective... Digging for patent infringement
is expensive just look at the SCO suit. However, this is a
public list.

We have just admitted that we knowingly may infringe upon
an IBM patent. That really is a different thing than,
"We have some really smart people that came up with something,
"like" this other technology".

The reality I would bet is that IBM could give a flying roosters
butt whether or not PostgreSQL infringes on their patents. However
they will care very much, if Fujitsu or SRA does and we (the
community) may have insured that.

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

  17. Re: ARC patent

    Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> — 2005-01-17T22:55:50Z

    On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:15 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> We have just admitted that we knowingly may infringe upon
> an IBM patent. That really is a different thing than,
> "We have some really smart people that came up with something,
> "like" this other technology".

The code is clear that it implements the "Adaptive Replacement Cache",
which is an algorithm proposed by IBM; the code probably references some
IBM papers on the topic -- and if not, discussions of ARC on -hackers
certainly do. I don't see how there could be any reasonable grounds for
arguing that, prior to this thread, we just "came up with something
really, really similar".

-Neil

  18. Re: ARC patent

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@postgresql.org> — 2005-01-17T23:28:34Z

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>
>> If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
>> infringements.  And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
>> violations.  What is the point of removing this one.  Just because Neil
>> did some legwork.  Anyone could do some legwork and find some in any
>> software, I bet.
>> 
> Well from one perspective... Digging for patent infringement
> is expensive just look at the SCO suit. However, this is a
> public list.
>
> We have just admitted that we knowingly may infringe upon
> an IBM patent. That really is a different thing than,
> "We have some really smart people that came up with something,
> "like" this other technology".
>
> The reality I would bet is that IBM could give a flying roosters
> butt whether or not PostgreSQL infringes on their patents. However
> they will care very much, if Fujitsu or SRA does and we (the
> community) may have insured that.

As one famous chicken put it 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' ... 
or, in our case "a patent is pending, a patent is pending' ...

there is no patent, there might never be a patent ... instead of panic'ng 
over something that may nevr happen, why not just keep an eye on the 
patent process itself and see wher it goes.  It might takes months yet to 
go anywhere ... lots of time for us to come up with an alternate ...


  ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

  19. Re: ARC patent

    Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> — 2005-01-18T00:02:30Z

    On Monday 17 January 2005 15:15, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
> >infringements.  And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
> >violations.  What is the point of removing this one.  Just because Neil
> >did some legwork.  Anyone could do some legwork and find some in any
> >software, I bet.
<snip>
>
> We have just admitted that we knowingly may infringe upon
> an IBM patent. That really is a different thing than,
> "We have some really smart people that came up with something,
> "like" this other technology".
>

Well, if I am reading that right, IBM doesn't actually have a patent on the 
technology yet, so we aren't releasing code that infringes on a patent as it 
remains to be seen whether or not the technology will be deemed patentable or 
if it is considered a natural evolution of other technology. 

That said a little bit of googling doesn't look promising for finding prior 
art, though that doesn't mean a case against can't be argued. 

> The reality I would bet is that IBM could give a flying roosters
> butt whether or not PostgreSQL infringes on their patents. However
> they will care very much, if Fujitsu or SRA does and we (the
> community) may have insured that.
>

Well, I don't know if they will care "very much", but it seems likely thier 
lawyers would contact people with ceast and desist letters which, imho would 
probably force the community to abondon any version of software with the arc 
implementation. Of course the genesis of all this was IBM opening these 
patents for use by open source projects, so if a scheme could be worked out 
leaving both an arc implementation and an lru implementation in place, with 
the understanding that the arc implementation would have issues for 
commercial distribution, it might be possible to keep both.  I also think 
that, as long as the software is being sold with an open source license (ie. 
where companies are basically reselling the community version of postgresql, 
or selling with another osi approved license) they should be in the clear. 

If folks are really concerned, there are a few things that should/could be 
done:
1) go back and see if there is a /. article about this (is it even possible 
there isn't?) and see if anyone else brought up these concerns.  If not, post 
some of these questions and see what kind of response you get.
2) There is a group (I think linked from larry lessigs website) that searches 
for prior art for software patents. You might bring this case to them and see 
if they have any interest in looking into it.  
3) See if you can find any other software packages (preferably commercial) 
that implement arc tech and see if they have looked into the issue. 
4) Have someone from the community contact IBM with some of these questions (a 
good candidate would be someone associated with the foundation) and see what 
thier take is.  I wouldn't expect much from this but you never know. 

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

  20. Re: ARC patent

    Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.org> — 2005-01-23T05:51:55Z

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:07:30 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 1/17/2005 1:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>> >> FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent
>> >> application is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little
>> >> hard to grok):
>> > 
>> >> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
>> > 
>> > Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
>> > it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
>> > predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have to change or remove
>> > that code.
>> > 
>> > 			regards, tom lane
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Oh, OK.  Good news!
> 
>> I am seriously concerned about this and think we should not knowingly
>> release code that is possibly infringing a patent.
>> 
>> If we need a different cache algorithm again, we might want to yank out
>> the ARC part right away now and work on another one for 8.1.
> 
> If you want to poke around for 2 hours, I bet you wil find more patent
> infringements.  And not looking doesn't protect you from patent
> violations.  

Not looking does protect you from a "willful patent violation lawsuit", as
I understand it.  Personally I'd be surprised if any commercial entity
wanted to take the risk that 15 years down the track the patent is granted
retrospectively and that IBM wouldn't come knocking.

Especially since 8.0 is now out in the field with the ARC code.

"Friends don't let friends read patents".

Cheers,
Anand
-- 
linux.conf.au 2005   -  http://lca2005.linux.org.au/  -  Birthplace of Tux
April 18th to 23rd   -  http://lca2005.linux.org.au/  -       LINUX
Canberra, Australia  -  http://lca2005.linux.org.au/  -    Get bitten!

  21. Re: ARC patent

    Marian POPESCU <softexpert@libertysurf.fr> — 2005-03-31T08:23:59Z

    Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> 
>>FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
>>is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> 
> 
>>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> 
> 
> Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
> it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
> predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have to change or remove
> that code.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> 
And what about "CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement"?

I found something here:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/csl/usenix/04fast/tech/bansal.html

Is it worth investigating?

best wishes,
marian

  22. Re: ARC patent

    Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> — 2005-03-31T10:47:12Z

    On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> >
> >>FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
> >>is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
> >
> >
> >>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
> >
> >
> > Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
> > it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
> > predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have to change or remove
> > that code.
> >
> > 			regards, tom lane
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> >
> And what about "CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement"?
>
> I found something here:
> http://www.cs.duke.edu/csl/usenix/04fast/tech/bansal.html
>
> Is it worth investigating?

Firstly, it clearly states that it is a derivation of ARC. Secondly, one
of the authors is from IBM. Implementing this algorithm will probably
cause the same problem as the implementation of ARC.

>
> best wishes,
> marian

Thanks,

Gavin

  23. Re: ARC patent

    Marian POPESCU <softexpert@libertysurf.fr> — 2005-04-01T14:05:51Z

    Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote:
> 
> 
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
>>>>is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
>>>
>>>
>>>Ugh.  We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
>>>it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
>>>predating the filing date).  I fear we'll have to change or remove
>>>that code.
>>>
>>>			regards, tom lane
>>>
>>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>>>
>>
>>And what about "CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement"?
>>
>>I found something here:
>>http://www.cs.duke.edu/csl/usenix/04fast/tech/bansal.html
>>
>>Is it worth investigating?
> 
> 
> Firstly, it clearly states that it is a derivation of ARC. Secondly, one
> of the authors is from IBM. Implementing this algorithm will probably
> cause the same problem as the implementation of ARC.
> 
> 
>>best wishes,
>>marian
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gavin
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> 
There is also LIRS: http://www.cs.wm.edu/~sjiang/lirs.htm
Interesting?