>
> >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 "target".
>
> Ummm, unless NetApp is lying, one such "ballistic missile" has been
> fired from a Texas courthouse and targeted at ZFS.
>
> >So back to patent portfolios: yes there will be (public and
> private) posturing; yes there will be negotiations;
>
> You go to the courts when you feel you have nothing to gain by
> negotiations---by definition, a lawsuit is not a negotiation, it's
> an attempt by one party to get the government to coerce action
> out of the other party. And like a missile, you cannot call one
> back after it is launched. Suppose this is just "posturing":
>
> If NetApp and Sun were to settle today, there is no way would such
> an agreement not include dismissal of the suit "with prejudice" so
> that it could not be filed again. NetApp would not want such a
> possibility in case they later wanted to sue "for real".
Or to force more posturing pressure for negotiations -- many of these
cases end up settled out of court. In fact it seems to be a very complex
game of chess -- currently patents are most useful for cross licensing
deals (to hold players out of the market, expand into markets or to
collapse markets). Bringing patents into court can have the unwanted and
expensive side effect of negating the patents enforcibility (prior art,
failed measuring stick etc). Much of a patents value is perception. I
think this is why the first case put forward by NetApp is to rule on if
they infringe on Sun's patents (and to try to negate them). Sun's first
move will most likely be to engage on the second part of the suit -- to
lock NetApp into a battle where they must endanger their own patents (no
safe retreat), thus weakening netapps position.
>
> >and, ultimately, there will be a resolution.
>
> Indeed: my vote is for NetApp by the middle of the next decade being
> staked out on a bleached desert plain next to SCO, another stark
> object lesson to those who are tempted to compete in the courtroom
> instead of the marketplace.
>
> >All of this won't affect ZFS or anyone running ZFS. Just like
> nuclear ballistic missiles don't affect computer users either!
>
> While it proceeded the development of the modern ICBM or computers
> as we know then, I suggest you ask one of the survivors of the nuclear
> bombings of Japan if they weren't affected by the Little Boy or Fat Man.
>
> To suggest that the existence of thousands of ceni-kiloton warheads
> atop delivery systems have no real meaningful existence (I hope I'm not
> misinterpreting your words) leaves me at a loss for further comment....
>
While a colorful analogy, mutually assured destruction is not really a
good fit at all for these issues. It is chess (be it a game with a wager).
> >What does all this mean to current ZFS users? Absolutely nothing.
>
> Today, it means nothing.
>
> Tomorrow, if Sun is enjoined from developing ZFS, rather a lot. If
> that extends to other commercial users of it (directly, or if they
> decide they need more support than the community can provide), even
> more. Would the former kill off ZFS---*maybe* not. The latter?
> Almost certainly, except as a curiosity.
>
> >PS: If there was a _real_ issue with WAFL/Netapp patent
> infringement - it would have been brought up way before ZFS was
> released and open sourced.
>
> It only takes one to make a war---how could Sun possibly constrain the
> future behavior of a competitor (assuming for the moment that Sun's
account
> of the timeline is true and that the lawsuit is meritless)?
>
> While I'm not suggesting that people panic (certainly not for the next
few
> days :-), ignoring a clear existential threat to ZFS would be silly.
Perhaps
> discussing it is beyond what should be the scope of this list, in which
> case surely someone could set another one up---there is much to be said
for
> segregating the discussions especially when they don't hinge so much on
the
> technology per se---but to ignore this? I think not.
>
> - Harold
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
potential patent disputes you would not implement anything, ever.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
