Re: Wrapped PLSQL

From: Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_dev.null>
Date: 30 Oct 2002 12:25:51 -0600
Message-ID: <Xns92B77540D5E22pingottpingottbah@209.189.89.243>

Daniel Morgan <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in news:3DC01DA6.A97D21AF_at_exesolutions.com:

> Pablo Sanchez wrote:
>

>> Daniel Morgan <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in
>> news:3DC0080F.F96ACAC3 @exesolutions.com:
>>
>> Now, for Sybrand's second post (thread really!):  Did MS ever *invent*
>> anything?  One can easily go to the copyright records and search for
>> all Microsoft inventions.  All you need to do is find _one_ and the
>> statement falls down.

>
> Actually that is not true. I have personally invented a number of
> things. Licensed them to others. And my name does not appear anywhere on
> either patent or copywrite.

Your example only shows that not all inventions are in the patent/copyright database. Not relevant to this discussion.

To disprove Sybrand's statement, we saunter over to the Patent database and we see all their patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=% 2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=microsoft&FIELD1=&co1 =AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ft00

Sorry for the wrap, you can simply type 'Microsoft' here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html

and get the same result set.

> But if you want to take part in this usenet group and try to be a
> literalist ... you are begging for great disappointment. We also
> tend to ignore correcting spelling and grammar for reasons that
> hopefully are self-evident.

We = you. Let's make that clear.

I haven't nit picked on any spelling or grammar -- so please cite. I'm actually pretty good at figuring out what _most_ people are trying to say.

And when it's unclear to _me_, I ask for more data:

>> > I see nothing even remote close to your statement.

>> I don't understand this statement. You might want to re-write >> it.

>> > But as one who lives and works in the Redmond Washington area, and
>> > who has lots of friends at Microsoft, it is an acknowledged fact
>> > that their expertise is in marketing ... not technology unless one
>> > looks at what comes out of the Public Relations and Marketing
>> > departments. SQL Server would not exist were it not for an outright
>> > theft of Sybase.
>>
>> They didn't steal it, Sybase Inc (stupidly???!) sold their product to
>> them.  The sad thing is that Sybase, like so many others, thought they
>> could outwit Microsoft and they lost (like so many others).

>
> Sold?

Yes, Sybase Inc sold version 4.x (I think it was 4.2 or 4.9) to Microsoft. This was when Sybase was the big bad wolf out in the RDBMS market. Oracle wasn't on the radar. Sybase got cocky, sold it to them, then blew it with System 10, Oracle came in and ... as they say .. the rest is history.

> And California "purchased" electricity from Enron at the going
> price too. Have you considered practicing law?

Ahm, okay.

>> > That being said I don't believe the point of wrapping is to prevent
>> > Microsoft, or anyone else, from duplicating Oracle.
>>
>> Bingo!  That's my point.  Furthermore, I actually think this
>> hurts Oracle Inc.  One of the things I like about some vendors is they
>> publish the source of their 'packages' so that if I wish to model a
>> similar routine, I have a starting point.

>
> It doesn't hurt Oracle ... because I, and others, would not build
> products based on their platform if we could not protect our
> intellectual property. If you've got hurt feelings because you can't
> look up Larry's skirts ... c'est dommage.

Hurt feelings? LOL... feelings don't come into it... it's all about software resuability. If I can reuse a design and possibly some software, then I'm that much ahead than having to redesign from scratch.

>> > Anything can be reverse engineered. The point is to allow vendors of
>> > products to protect their source code from their competitors. And as
>> > someone that has worked on developing commercial products ... that
>> > is very much appreciated.
>>
>> This is arguable and as such, I'll let it lay.

>
> My opinion is my opinion and is not arguable. You may not find
> value in this feature for yourself. But to argue that I don't even
> after I stated that I did is pointless. And you may draw a valid
> conclusion from the preceding statement.

ahm, okay... this is clearly getting you upset.

>> I contend that all RDBMS are the same, you just have to pick the point
>> in time.  <g>

>
> And I contend that you have no idea what multi-versioning is.

Search the archives or RTFM on google.

-- 
Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
http://www.hpdbe.com

Received on Wed Oct 30 2002 - 12:25:51 CST