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 running ZFS. >> It matters a great deal what the resolution is. The best outcome, for >> everyone wanting to use any COW and/or always-consistent-on-disk filesystem >> (including btrfs and others), would be for the invalidation part of >> NetApp's lawsuit to succeed, and the infringement part to fail. >> A cross-licensing deal or other out-of-court settlement would be much >> less helpful. > > 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 impression that it was possible to file an "amicus brief" or "amicus curiae", which in this case would detail known prior art -- whether or not it is prior art that benefits either party in the case. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae> The EFF does this quite often, and it has a "patent busting project" which is described at <http://www.eff.org/patent/>. (The EFF "wanted list" does not currently include the WAFL and ZFS patents, but it's only been a few days since the NetApp suit was announced.) It is true that, as the WP article says, "The decision whether to admit the information lies with the court." But surely, even in East Texas, it would be difficult to completely dismiss prior art on COW and always-consistent- on-disk filesystems, no matter how submitted. Or am I being too naive? -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
