[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From what I gather about the East Texas venue they tend to repeatedly
> dismiss very competent technical testimony (prior art/non-infringement) --
> instead relying more on the lawyer's arguments, lay conjecture and soft
> fact. This seems to be why the venue is s
> > Invalidating COW filesystem patents would of course be the best.
> > Unfortunately those lawsuits are usually not handled in the open
> and in order
> > to understand everything you would need to know about the
> background interests
> > of both parties.
>
> IANAL, but I was under the impressi
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Al Hopper wrote:
>>> So back to patent portfolios: yes there will be (public and private)
>>> posturing; yes there will be negotiations; and, ultimately, there will
>>> be a resolution. All of this won't affect ZFS or anyone
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Al Hopper wrote:
> > So back to patent portfolios: yes there will be (public and private)
> > posturing; yes there will be negotiations; and, ultimately, there will
> > be a resolution. All of this won't affect ZFS or anyone running ZFS.
>
> It matters
Al Hopper wrote:
> So back to patent portfolios: yes there will be (public and private)
> posturing; yes there will be negotiations; and, ultimately, there will
> be a resolution. All of this won't affect ZFS or anyone running ZFS.
It matters a great deal what the resolution is. The best outcom
> Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night
> discussing some
> of the prior art, going back to some of the "disks
> could do this too"
> discussions by early tree structured binary data
> structures inventions,
> mentioning other copy-on-write structure ideas
> floating around in the
> l
George William Herbert wrote:
>> http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
>
> Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
> of the prior art, going back to some of the "disks could do this too"
> discussions by early tree structured binary data structures i
>http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
of the prior art, going back to some of the "disks could do this too"
discussions by early tree structured binary data structures inventions,
mentioning other copy-on-wri
On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quite; it seems to all be done with blogs.
>
> After Netapp's blog, we now see Sun's CEO enter into the fray:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/on_patent_trolling
And now NetApp's response:
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/litigoper
Casper,
> Do you have a reference for "all data in RAM most be held". I guess we
> need to build COW RAM as well.
Is that one of those genetic hybrids?
Regards... Sean.
BTW: I remember the days when only RAS and CAS kept your data in memory
"intact" ;-)
___
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:45:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >That "but it existed only in RAM in my servers" should not be a defense
> >for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
> >of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
>
> But only if you were told you ne
>That "but it existed only in RAM in my servers" should not be a defense
>for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
>of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
But only if you were told you needed to retain the data in the
first place. How can you be faulted for not
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:16:50PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >Allowing for technical illiteracy in judges I think the obvious
> >interpretation is that discoverable data should be retained and that
> >"but it exists only in RAM" is not a de
On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> Exactly the articles point -- rulings have consequences outside of
>> the
>> original case. The intent may have been to store logs for web server
>> access (logical and prudent request) but the ruling states that
>> RAM albeit
>> working m
On 9/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
> encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
> falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
> topic. It seems like
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:38:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly
> > > written. Or am I misreading the story?
> >
> > Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge
> > should have been clearer tha
> >
> > If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly
> > written. Or am I misreading the story?
>
> Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge
> should have been clearer that the issue is the specific data, as opposed
> to generic RAM conten
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:25:32PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:18:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
> > > >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
> > what
> > > >will happen in co
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:18:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
> > >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
> what
> > >will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
> > >all data in RAM
It's Columbia Pictures vs. Bunnell:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/torrentspy/columbia_v_bunnell_magistrate_order.pdf
The Register syndicated a Security Focus article that summarizes the
potential impact of the court decision:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/08/litigation_data_retention/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
>
>
> >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
what
> >will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
> >all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the
> >end of
>It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know what
>will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
>all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the
>end of the day, if you waited for a sure bet on any technology or
>poten
>
> >Playing with patent portfolios is the modern equivalent to playing
> the "mutually assured destruction" game with nuclear missiles. Yes
> we all appreciate how dangereous this game is and how high the
> stakes are. But ... notice that a live/armed ballistic missile has
> never been fired
At 11:06 AM 9/6/2007, Al Hopper wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harold Ancell wrote:
>
>>At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>>>encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>>>falter comm
>Playing with patent portfolios is the modern equivalent to playing the
>"mutually assured destruction" game with nuclear missiles. Yes we all
>appreciate how dangereous this game is and how high the stakes are.
>But ... notice that a live/armed ballistic missile has never been
>fired at a "t
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harold Ancell wrote:
> At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>> encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>> falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be co
At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
>topic. It seems like something u
> This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
>encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
>falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
>topic. It seems like something users should be aware of, but if I were
>worki
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
topic. It seems like something users should be aware of, but if I were
working
More here
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9034496
On 9/5/07, David Magda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Not sure if anyone at Sun can comment on this, but I thought it might
> be of interest to the list:
>
> > This morning, NetApp filed a
Hello,
Not sure if anyone at Sun can comment on this, but I thought it might
be of interest to the list:
> This morning, NetApp filed an IP (intellectual property) lawsuit
> against Sun. It has two parts. The first is a “declaratory
> judgment”, asking the court to decide whether we infring
31 matches
Mail list logo
