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 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. > > > > > > > > > Do you have a reference for "all data in RAM most be held". I guess we > > > need to build COW RAM as well. > > > > It is only a magistrate ruling so far -- but I think it is expected to be > > upheld. > > > > http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1181639142254 > > It sounds like the issue is that discoverable data (access logs) isn't > being kept on disk. Demanding that such data be kept persistently is > not the same as demanding that RAM be retained for discovery. Woo. Big > deal. Not. > > 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 contents. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
