New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

am Tue, dem 27.05.2008, um 21:12:53 +1000 mailte Justin Clift folgendes:

Hi all,

Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this
newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close:

US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system
Issued on May 20, 2008
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html

Abstract
"A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation
on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module
provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The
modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the
original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function
of the input."

Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here?

Hehe, yes. Typical M$. Similar to 7,376,970: (May 20, 2008)

Abstract
"A system, method, and computer readable medium for the proactive
detection of malware in operating systems that receive application
programming interface (API) calls is provided. A virtual operating
environment for simulating the execution of programs and determining if
the programs are malware is created. The virtual operating environment
confines potential malware so that the systems of the host operating
environment will not be adversely effected. During simulation, a
behavior signature is generated based on the API calls issued by
potential malware. The behavior signature is suitable for analysis to
determine whether the simulated executable is malware."

Sounds like a 'sandbox', see http://www.aladdin.com/eSafe/, available
since 1999 or so. (for instance)

Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net

The best patent ever filed:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of A. Kretschmer
Sent: May 27, 2008 7:44 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

am Tue, dem 27.05.2008, um 21:12:53 +1000 mailte Justin Clift folgendes:

Hi all,

Haven't delved into PG's rules system for a long time, but to me, this
newly granted Microsoft patent sounds pretty close:

US Patent 7376668 - Dynamic filtering in a database system
Issued on May 20, 2008
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7376668/claims.html

Abstract
"A dynamic filtering module receives a request to perform an operation
on data in the database and a input. The dynamic filtering module
provides as an output a modified request to a data access system. The
modified request can include one or more restrictions added to the
original request pertaining to which data will be accessed as a function
of the input."

Am I wrong in thinking that PG provides prior art here?

Hehe, yes. Typical M$. Similar to 7,376,970: (May 20, 2008)

Abstract
"A system, method, and computer readable medium for the proactive
detection of malware in operating systems that receive application
programming interface (API) calls is provided. A virtual operating
environment for simulating the execution of programs and determining if
the programs are malware is created. The virtual operating environment
confines potential malware so that the systems of the host operating
environment will not be adversely effected. During simulation, a
behavior signature is generated based on the API calls issued by
potential malware. The behavior signature is suitable for analysis to
determine whether the simulated executable is malware."

Sounds like a 'sandbox', see http://www.aladdin.com/eSafe/, available
since 1999 or so. (for instance)

Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer
Kontakt: Heynitz: 035242/47150, D1: 0160/7141639 (mehr: -> Header)
GnuPG-ID: 0x3FFF606C, privat 0x7F4584DA http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote:

The best patent ever filed:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

Errr, you miss my point.

Those are (kind of) abstract examples. ;->

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
Salasaga - Open Source eLearning IDE
http://www.salasaga.org

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Yep, sounds about right. Not being a patent-attorney though, I thought
it better to mention than not. ;)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
Salasaga - Open Source eLearning IDE
http://www.salasaga.org

Dave Page wrote:

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner.
Thinking a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking. MS could
target the leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors.
This group of people may just give up because the process of defending
is so expensive. Even if we are 100% right it don't matter as it takes
10's to thousands of dollars to just start fighting. this bill would
go into 100 thousands in a matter of months.

I have some personal experience with this when fighting a bigger foe
that don't have to worry about money
Right now my family has been in a continuous legal battle with our local
government over loans its been trying to secure based on false evidence
which would put tax payers in our small community 8,000 people on the
hook for 1.5 million . We have won every battle and point. The
Problem now is the amount of money we have put forward greatly exceeds
any personal benefit or keeping taxes low the family would ever see for
the next 20 years. We are only 2 years in fighting this and the next
election is not for another 2 years :-( which i may run again .

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote:

Dave Page wrote:

Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner. Thinking
a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking. MS could target the
leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors.

Well as one of those people, working for one of those companies, I'm
not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact is that Microsoft do
have vaguely sane lawyers and I have little doubt they would do some
elementary research before trying to claim that our 10 year old
(probably much older in fact, as I believe there was a rules system in
the code inherited from Berkley) feature infringes their 2 year old
patent. Whilst it is true it could get expensive if they did try, I
don't believe they will as they would ultimately end up with egg on
their faces and would likely cost them real money and be the cause of
significant bad press.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote:

Dave Page wrote:

Having been involved in lawsuits, i wish it was a laughing manner. Thinking
a patent is unenforceable is dangerous thinking. MS could target the
leaders of the community along with the corporate sponsors.

Well as one of those people, working for one of those companies, I'm
not going to lose any sleep over it. The fact is that Microsoft do
have vaguely sane lawyers and I have little doubt they would do some
elementary research before trying to claim that our 10 year old
(probably much older in fact, as I believe there was a rules system in
the code inherited from Berkley) feature infringes their 2 year old
patent. Whilst it is true it could get expensive if they did try, I
don't believe they will as they would ultimately end up with egg on
their faces and would likely cost them real money and be the cause of
significant bad press.

I'm not losing any sleep over it either and you may be very right. But
don't bet on the side intelligent/logical thinking to coming out of a
lawyer who's on retainer to a big corporation like MS. Postgresql is
luck in the fact US patent laws are still based on the idea first to
invent not first to patent which several countries have gone to.

"Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid
because we are prior art.

After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights
enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's
not their sole or main purpose. What it seems a whole lot closer to
is Veil or SEPostgres. I think those projects have reason to be very
afraid.

In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres
does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior
art. The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the
part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a
querytree's WHERE clause.

I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor
of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent
makes it even more important ...

regards, tom lane

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or,
more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL.

The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an
expensive undertaking. The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is
just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other
engine that doesn't "infringe".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the
US PTO is just completely broken.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:38:42AM -0400, Justin wrote:

Postgresql is
luck in the fact US patent laws are still based on the idea first to
invent not first to patent which several countries have gone to.

Which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It just means that MS
can claim to have invented it up to a year prior to filing which would
be problematic if the SE-Postgres patch is affected.

The rules system is way older and so not at risk either way.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Unfortuately, it would only be laughable until they sued someone (or,
more likely, threatened to do) who was selling PosrgreSQL.

The problem in such cases is that proving your obvious prior art is an
expensive undertaking. The likely path for a targeted "infringer" is
just to give up and either pay something to MS or else use some other
engine that doesn't "infringe".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that causes people to think the
US PTO is just completely broken.

A

Yes completely agree. The prospect of fighting is daunting, desire to
run for the hills more desirable

We could start the objecting process instead waiting for MS to come
after us. Anybody want to relive the Blackberry nightmare?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-other/p-object.htm

What Tome Lane brought up could be a very big concern, but if the
developers of said code new nothing about the patent and never used MS
products then its an independent invention. But proving that is very costly

Here is the US patent offices website to
i copy and pasted the wrong link. opps
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/index.html

Justin wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

"Dave Page" <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid
because we are prior art.

After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights
enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's
not their sole or main purpose. What it seems a whole lot closer to
is Veil or SEPostgres. I think those projects have reason to be very
afraid.

In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres
does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior
art. The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the
part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a
querytree's WHERE clause.

I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor
of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent
makes it even more important ...

Yes, I've changed the originally submitted version of SE-PostgreSQL.
The latest version of its implementation does not have any feature
to modify given queries. All of low-level checks are moved to hard
wired hooks in ExecScan().

http://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/source/browse/trunk/sepgsql/src/backend/executor/execScan.c#144

BTW, I may have to backport the feature for v8.4 into v8.3/v8.2
based SE-PostgreSQL... :(
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>

KaiGai Kohei wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

Right --- if in fact PG's rules infringe, then the patent is invalid
because we are prior art.

After scanning the claims, though, most of this is about access-rights
enforcement; which is something that rules *could* be used for but it's
not their sole or main purpose. What it seems a whole lot closer to
is Veil or SEPostgres. I think those projects have reason to be very
afraid.

In fact, I suspect that the originally submitted version of SEPostgres
does infringe the patent, and that code is not old enough to be prior
art. The part of the patch that looks like this patent to me is the
part that enforces row-level access checks by adding constraints to a
querytree's WHERE clause.

I had already suggested to KaiGai-san that he get rid of that in favor
of low-level checks in the executor, but the need to avoid an M$ patent
makes it even more important ...

Yes, I've changed the originally submitted version of SE-PostgreSQL.
The latest version of its implementation does not have any feature
to modify given queries. All of low-level checks are moved to hard
wired hooks in ExecScan().

http://code.google.com/p/sepgsql/source/browse/trunk/sepgsql/src/backend/executor/execScan.c#144

BTW, I may have to backport the feature for v8.4 into v8.3/v8.2
based SE-PostgreSQL... :(

I sent an email to US PTO asking the process to protest an already given
patent to for profit entity where there may be prior art from a non-for
profit entity

here the represent

For technical patent inquiries, you may contact the USPTO Contact Center (UCC) at 1-800- 786-9199 or 571-272-1000 and request to be transferred to the Inventors Assistance Center (IAC). IAC representatives are available Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved. A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.

For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm for the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP).

If you have any further questions or if you require additional information, please call the USPTO Contact Center at 1-800-786-9199 or (571) 272-1000 and reference the following Service Request number: 1-122580212

[THREAD ID:1-20YTHO]

-----Original Message-----

From: justin@emproshunts.com
Sent: 5/27/2008 11:48:54 AM
To: "USPTO Info" <usptoinfo@uspto.gov>
Subject: objecting to a patent

Is there a process that allows someone to object to a patent given to a
company where there is prior art done by another entity that is a Non
for Profit that the patent office was not aware of.

thank you

Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".

Nix.

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Nikola Milutinovic wrote:

Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to
patent something that already exist and was not invented by the
patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs
or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software
patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion.
IBM is also into this line of "work".

Nix.

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer
<andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org
<mailto:justin@salasaga.org>> wrote:

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org
<mailto:pgsql-general@postgresql.org>)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Question??? Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a
foundation or non for profit entity be created that would hold onto
patents for original ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the
users and developers of postgresql

The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are
playing where they keep applying for patents/copyrights where there is
prior art. This would protect everyone in the development chain from
having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against
the biggest offenders.

USPTO only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can
issue a patent . So if a patent makes claims on already existing art
it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke.
Doing the above would help put an end to this.

This is just a suggestion.

which is the reason why i think Design Patterns and Patterns are unpatentable..too many cooks created these meals to attribute to any one or group of individuals
The real challenge is the submittal process where one must submit at least 50% of the patentable code..what do you submit?

I always thought PostGIS whose algorithms were unique enough and whose creators were from a sufficiently small population
to place PostGIS into 'patentable' code but apparently PostGIS is firmly declared under 'GPL' to quote
"To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use .."

Recalling an earlier year when a Lowell MA based company offered proprietary software which did'nt interoperate with other (GPL software..)
MS on the other hand seems to patent unique algorithms and or methodologies which are specific only to MS environments...

Interesting..
Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin
To: Nikola Milutinovic ; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
Still, this sounds dangerous. It should be, even legally, WRONG to patent something that already exist and was not invented by the patentee. I know we can laugh off MS in court, but what about new DBs or project even built on PG that have this functionality? Software patents are a menace, I'm afraid. And this is still just one portion. IBM is also into this line of "work".

Nix.

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org>
Cc: Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbondc@gmail.com>; A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:18:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules

HI Justin

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Justin Clift <justin@salasaga.org> wrote:

I'm trying to point out that - PG is a database system - and MS may have
just been granted a patent for a fundamental part of it.

Thinking it might need looking in to, and trying to bring it to the
attention of some that can (or even cares?). ;>

I don't think it's a major issue. Even if MS do think we infringe on
the patent it would be laughable for them to try to do anything about
it given that our rules implementation has provably existed in a
leading FOSS project for a decade or more.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

Question??? Does the license that Postgresql works under allow for a foundation or non for profit entity be created that would hold onto patents for original ideas of the contributors so WE can protect the users and developers of postgresql

The idea start playing the game MS and other Software companies are playing where they keep applying for patents/copyrights where there is prior art. This would protect everyone in the development chain from having defend stupid lawsuits that these companies could bring against the biggest offenders.

USPTO only looks at existing patents and trademarks to see if they can issue a patent . So if a patent makes claims on already existing art it puts the burden on the original inventor to get the patent revoke. Doing the above would help put an end to this.

This is just a suggestion.

Martin wrote:

which is the reason why i think Design Patterns and Patterns are
unpatentable..too many cooks created these meals to attribute to any
one or group of individuals

That will never happen and it if it does it years away. we must deal
with the current problems in front of us not worry to much about what we
want or could be the shape of laws in the future.

The real challenge is the submittal process where one must submit at
least 50% of the patentable code..what do you submit?

Sense the Postgresql is open source there is no internal secretes that
needs to be protected, submit the entire code that makes the specific
patentable part work.

I always thought PostGIS whose algorithms were unique enough and whose
creators were from a sufficiently small population
to place PostGIS into 'patentable' code but apparently PostGIS is
firmly declared under 'GPL' to quote
"To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
licensed for everyone's free use .."

So there is no current obstructions to doing this as Postgresql is
licensed today

Recalling an earlier year when a Lowell MA based company offered
proprietary software which did'nt interoperate with other (GPL software..)
MS on the other hand seems to patent unique algorithms and or
methodologies which are specific only to MS environments...

Only objective is to protect everyone from stupid and ridiculous
lawsuits. The entire blackberry lawsuit is example of things to come.
Where another company had a patented that process of moving email to a
phone for years but never used it. This company waited in the
background for years for the service to become popular then sued
blackberry. It cost millions of dollars to defend and it was nothing
more than legal stealing.

I can see MS or other company patenting a process that Postgresql has
used for some time or independently invented it gets sued over as a
means to extract money from companies and others that used the tool.

I'm proposing a CYA that could be used to protect all open source
projects not just postgresql. Instead of complaining about how wrong
the system is and the need to change it is. Use the system to protect
the project.