Hmmm. An interesting interpretation. I suppose, given a narrow interpretation of the patent application in question, you're correct, in that DBD/DBIx::Chart attempts to conform to existing SQL syntax as much as possible, whereas the patent attempts to create whole new syntax elements for SQL. However, patents (esp. software patents) don't seem to be written for narrow interpretation, so I think it behooves me to file a prior art claim, since either
in reply to Re^3: Help! DBD/DBIx::Chart need patent protection!
in thread Help! DBD/DBIx::Chart need patent protection!
- You're right: in which case, its important that the patent office dismiss my claim of prior art so any users of DBD/DBIx::Chart needn't worry about future claims of infringement, since it predates the patent filing, and has been ruled unrelated by the patent office
- I'm right: in which case, its important that the patent be denied on prior art claims.
Perl Contrarian & SQL fanboy