On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 18:52 -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 6:33 PM, Peter Taps wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > As you may have heard, NetApp has a lawsuit against Sun in 2007 (and now
> > carried over to Oracle) for patent infringement with the zfs file system.
> > Now, NetApp is taking a stronger stance and threatening zfs storage
> > suppliers to stop selling zfs-based storage.
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/netapp_coraid/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+shovelarts+%28Shovel+Arts%29
> >
> > Given this, I am wondering what you think is the future of zfs as an open
> > source project.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter
> >
>
> Go take a look at the archives for this list. It's been discussed before.
>
> NetApps' relevant patents were recently declared void (Joerg Schilling's
> work [amongst others] predates the patents by almost a decade). NetApp
> is appealing the decision, but I can't see how they'll win.
>
> Fundamentally, NetApp's desperate. The squeeze on folks like CoRaid and
> Nexenta is a shakedown, pure and simple. They're hoping to get cash from
> others before their suit is thrown out completely.
Nexenta has not been hit as far as I know. Some companies shipping
products based on NexentaStor have been threatened, but I'm not sure its
gone anywhere yet.
This situation is why I'm coming to believe that there is almost no case
for software patents. (I still think there may be a few exceptions --
the RSA patent being a good example where there was significant enough
innovation to possibly justify a patent). The sad fact is that when a
company feels it can't compete on the merits of innovation or cost, it
seeks to litigate the competition. What NetApp *should* be doing is
figuring out how to out-innovate us, undercut us ("us" collectively
meaning Oracle and all other ZFS users), or find other ways to compete
effectively. They can't, so they resort to litigation. Sounds like a
certain operation from Santa Cruz, doesn't it?
>
> Oracle certainly isn't going to stop development for one of their prize
> technologies on the remote possibility that NetApp prevails. Which, as
> time goes on, is smaller, and smaller. So long as Oracle continues to
> do development, I see no reason for a change in the Open Source nature
> of ZFS (i.e. it matters not to the patent suit that ZFS is Open or Closed).
>
>
> Note: I do not speak for Oracle here in any way, nor have any privileged
> knowledge of the suit.
Fundamentally, I agree. I don't think its too likely that Oracle will
settle for any situation which gives NetApp any leverage, particularly
given the weak position NetApp is in.
There could always be a surprise, but right now my money is on NetApp's
suit failing. (And I've put my money where my mouth is on this issue --
as a recent Nexenta hire leaving behind a stable position at Oracle, I'm
confident that we're in good shape.)
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
