On 12/25/2010 10:59 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
<opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com
<mailto:opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com>> wrote:
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
<mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org> [mailto:zfs-discuss-
<mailto:zfs-discuss->
> boun...@opensolaris.org <mailto:boun...@opensolaris.org>] On
Behalf Of Joerg Schilling
>
> And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starting
from 1993.
> This
> is 5 years after I started to develop WOFS, which is copy on
write. This
still
>
> In any case, this is 20 year old technology. Aren't patents
something to
> protect new ideas?
Boy, those guys must be really dumb to waste their time filing billion
dollar lawsuits, protecting 20-year old technology, when it's so
obvious
that you and other people clearly invented it before them, and all
the money
they waste on lawyers can never achieve anything. They should all
fire
themselves. And anybody who defends against it can safely hire a law
student for $20/hr to represent them, and just pull out your
documents as
defense, because that's so easy.
Plus, as you said, the technology is so old, it should be
worthless by now.
Why are we all wasting our time in this list talking about
irrelevant old
technology, anyway?
Indeed. Isn't the Oracle database itself at least 20 years old? And
Windows? And Solaris itself? All the employees of those companies
should probably just start donating their time for free instead of
collecting a paycheck since it's quite obvious they should no longer
be able to charge for their product.
What I find most entertaining is all the armchair lawyers on this
mailing list that think they've got prior art when THEY'VE NEVER EVEN
SEEN THE CODE IN QUESTION!
--Tim
Well...
I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in
question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of
pseudo-code and some math, but no full, working code. And, granted that
I'm not a IP lawyer, but it does look like Joerg's work is prior art
(and, given that the standard is supposed to be what someone in the
industry would consider obvious, based on their knowledge, and I think I
qualify). Which all points to the real problem of software patents -
they're really patents on IDEAS, not on a specific implementation. Who
the moron was that really though that was OK (yes, I know who
specifically, but in general...) should be shot.
Copyright is fine or protecting software work, but patents?
Joerg - your paper used to be available here (which is where I read it
awhile ago), but not anymore:
http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/glone/employees/joerg.schilling/private/wofs.ps.gz
Is there a better location? (and, a full English translation? I read
it in German, but my German is maybe at 7th-grade level, so I might have
missed some subtleties...)
[As obvious as it is, it should be pointed out, I'm making these statements as
a very personal opinion, and I'm certain Oracle wouldn't have the same one. I
in no way represent Oracle.]
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
