> Had a quick look at the patent, had a quick look at the code. To me it appears that 99,999% of all involved research has been taken from prior research from tons of scientists.

How'd you arrive at this conclusion? The stuff in the body of the patent can be expected to be 99.99% of widely known stuff, always.

What counts is that something new is disclosed, and that is what the claims cover.

A description of a patent must be enabling: it must tell someone ordinarily skilled in the art enough to reproduce the claimed invention. Gesticulating at "you could find a bunch of the simpler steps in earlier research papers" is not good enough.

How far attorneys go to make sure a patent description is wildly varying (I remember some of my earlier ones take some time to describe what a CPU and program are...) but it's best to error on the side of caution and describe well known techniques. Otherwise, you might spend time arguing in future litigation about whether the average software engineer in 2015 knew how to do a particular thing.

You're being entirely unfair to Supabase here. Research is important, but there is a reason why the USPTO has developed substantial case law around Reduction to Practice, everything is built on prior work, so to say there is nothing novel about actually building displayed working system from parts is factually inaccurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice

> Burn the patent

that's ... that's what they are doing by making it freely available, no?

this helps anyone who is covered by the patent because they are (a bit better) protected from other patent trolls (and from other IP litigation)

This comment makes no sense. They're actively open sourcing the patent and trying to get it upstream into Postgres. They purchased another company to get this patent, and they're spending a lot of money on lawyers to figure out how to release it to the community.

Call out shady shit when companies do shady things, but the sentiment behind this comment seems to be looking for reasons to bee outraged instead of at what's actually being done.

If companies get evicerated every time they try to engage with the community they'll stop engaging. We should be celebrating when they do something positive, even if there are a few critiques (e.g. the license change call out is a good one). Instead, half the comments seem like they're quick reactions meant to stoke outage.

Please have some perspective - this action is a win for the community.