"Garrett D'Amore" <garr...@nexenta.com> wrote:
> 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
RSA never has been a patent in Europe as it was files after the decription
was published ;-)
> 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
Patent claims in this area are usually a result of missing competitive products
at the side of the plaintiff.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
