[postgis-devel] Xing Lin's SoC project (raster support)
solo.lin at gmail.com
Fri Jul 13 03:57:50 PDT 2007
I found a design documentation of PGRaster from the wiki of PostGIS, which
have a similar idea about PGRaster as a UDT.
Seem that somebody has already thought about it and might quite this UDT for
the same problem of Patent.
On 7/13/07, Tim Keitt <tkeitt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/07, Tom Lane <tgl at sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > "Tim Keitt" <tkeitt at gmail.com> writes:
> > > On 7/12/07, Xing Lin <solo.lin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Could we just take a modified version from Oracle GeoRaster or we
> can't take
> > >> anything even the idea of georaster model. But it is very common in
> > >> GeoScience and how could we avoid using it?
> > > My understanding is that the patent covers the method of
> > > implementation, not the idea. You can use the same idea, but the
> > > implementation cannot be the same as described in the patent.
> > No, it's much grimmer than that :-(. Patent law is exactly about
> > patenting *ideas* --- you may have confused it with copyright law,
> > which is about restricting specific expressions of an idea.
> Idea is too vague here -- I was referring to the concept that you
> cannot patent for example a mathematical equation, but you can patent
> a business process that employs the equation in the development of a
> product. If I'm not mistaken, one can work around patents by finding
> an independent method to achieve the same result (not by simply
> substituting different names for the same functions as I might have
> seemed to imply).
> > To be sure you've steered clear of a patent, you have to be sure
> > you have not used any ideas described in the "claims" of the patent.
> But the "ideas" refer to processes or methods (at least in principle).
> You can't patent the idea of a mouse trap, only a method of trapping
> mice. Someone who builds a better mouse trap can patent their method.
> > Now this game is rigged against you, because the normal structure of
> > patent claims is about like this:
> > 1. I claim the universe.
> > 2. I claim the Milky Way galaxy.
> > 3. I claim the moon, the sun and the stars.
> > 4. OK, I just claim the moon.
> > 5. I claim Tycho Crater.
> > and if the thing ever gets dragged to court, the judge will throw out
> > the first several claims and only allow the most specific ones that
> > clearly don't match any prior art. But if you aren't versed in
> > patent law and art, it's hard to tell just where the threshold of
> > silliness lies. And in any case it'll cost a lot to vindicate
> > your opinion in court.
> > (Shouldn't the USPTO have rejected the overly-broad claims, you
> > ask? Well, if they weren't utterly dysfunctional they would have.)
> > > I still agree though that the patent is probably overly broad and
> > > covers things that have been done many times in academia and
> > > elsewhere. The problem is that even if it is invalid owing to prior
> > > art, the cost of defending against a claim is prohibitive.
> > Right, the real problem is in whether you are willing to bet $lots
> > that you can prevail against a patent troll.
> That's the rub.
> > regards, tom lane
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-devel mailing list
> > postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
> Timothy H. Keitt, University of Texas at Austin
> Contact info and schedule at http://www.keittlab.org/tkeitt/
> Reprints at http://www.keittlab.org/tkeitt/papers/
> ODF attachment? See http://www.openoffice.org/
KTH - Royal Institute of Technology [Kungliga Tekniska högskolan]
SE-100 44 Stockholm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the postgis-devel