> > 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,
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 so valued by patent sharks holding
potentially unsupportable patents (they face little risk of losing
enforceability of the patent and better odds of winning).
-Wade
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
