NetApp Hits Sun With Patent Infringement Lawsuit 217
jcatcw writes "Computerworld reports, "Network Appliance Inc. today announced that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sun Microsystems Inc. seeking unspecified compensatory damages and an injunction that would prohibit Sun from developing or distributing products based on its ZFS file system technology. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Lufkin, Texas, charges that the Sun ZFS technology infringes on seven NetApp patents pertaining to data processing systems and related software.""
Once again, the Patent Question to ask is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm kind of glad that Linux uses XFS, JFS and m (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be a damn shame if development on it were halted because of silly patents.
Arguing about patents won't change them (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that matters here is whether prior art can be forund for WAFL.
Sounds like the article misrepresents the facts... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds more like both Sun and NetApp are infringing on each others patents, and Sun simply wanted to formally resolve this in order to be on the safe side. This article seems awfully one-sided though, and the way the quote is paraphrased, it looks like the author is more interested in dragging Sun's name through the mud than presenting the facts.
Bloggers paid based on traffic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ComputerWorld Story Placement (Score:3, Insightful)
Normally, I would jump on the editor(s) more than the submitter. If a submitter's is *less* interested in getting stories of interest to the community posted and more interested in pulling traffic to their site, then it is the editor's job to recognise this over time and take it into account in their decision. IMHO, anyway.
But in this case, Carpenter has decided to preach about the submission system. She has a conflict on interest in this regard - she wants fewer people to have a say in whether her story is accepted yet doesn't declare her posting motivations. So fsck her - she's not being straight up in about her own motives when she questions those of others. She says:
Yeah, probably there are people being paid Joyce. Ya figure? How 'bout a statement on *your* motivations?
Her full comment is at the URL below. Be aware that you're generating ad revenue going there ...
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5550 [computerworld.com]Re:Apparently (Score:3, Insightful)
My toaster is from 1999 (Score:2, Insightful)
The filer is OLD!
Re:Once again, the Patent Question to ask is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once again, the Patent Question to ask is... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't create the model or design, or come up with a means to do so, too bad, no patent. Ideas are simple. Making something of them is what patents are supposed to protect.
Software is not a physical thing. Why a need to patent? You really shouldn't be able to patent math or the way that you apply it. Copyright, sure, but not patent.
They can do that now! (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, let's say I have a revolutionary new programming language. Great stuff, but, ultimately, it will need a bunch of existing technologies to make it work. I'll need parse trees, string manipulations, code generation, and hey, why not an IDE, all of which are covered by a bazillion patents already.
So, if I bring my product to market, the best I can possibly hope for is a cross licensing agreement with a major player, and that in turn, means they can crush me. Or, they can work around my patent in some way, still get the feature, and crush me. Patents don't protect ideas, unless you have a lot of very good patent attorneys and those cost big bucks.
In the world of machines, this doesn't happen. If I invent a new kind of a screw, its pretty obvious that the screw is a patentable thing. But software doesn't exist at that level of componentry and most likely never will. It simply can't. Software wants to integrate and to some extent, that makes it unique from the physical world. You don't need to integrate a particular kind of screw into every single socket and with every single tool, but ultimately, with software, you do wind up having to talk to every kind of protocol, database, and GUI, and in doing so, you wind up flying into a hailstorm of patents.
Seriously, when's the last time anyone has actually checked to see if they infringe before they write something? Only a big company can really afford to do it. Face it, the idea of a little guy with a software patent is a myth, 95% of the time, and its simply not worth the cost to the rest of us - even if we work in a big corporation.
Re:Arguing about patents won't change them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Original PDF and NetApp's explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a nice story, but Sun is claiming the exact opposite actually happened, with NetApp trying to extort them over ZFS first. On a purely intuitive basis I'd say that sounds more reasonable, NetApp has much more to fear from ZFS than Sun had to gain by trying to extort some licensing fees.
Re:Once again, the Patent Question to ask is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not so sure that's true. What about the brilliant inventor who comes up with a very complicated system but has no capital with which to finance a prototype? Seems to me that patents would come in pretty handy in such a situation. Sans patent, you could spend five years searching around for independent financing while GE, which got wind of your idea somehow, has been working on developing it and refining it. Given five years' lead time, GE manages to make one or two substantial improvements on your invention, which it then turns around and patents. Sound fair?
Re:hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My toaster is from 1999 (Score:3, Insightful)
If ZFS seems to mimic WAFL, as I hear, I'd say that's a tribute to NetApp engineering, but NetApp is the Rodney Dangerfield in IT (no respect, I tell ya). I find it disheartening that among the tech literate, no one seems to have heard of the pioneers in this area, least of all recognize the innovation.
If the
I have always liked the Sun logo, color, product names, etc., no idea why, it's just all sunny and light and fun and Internet, nothing like the real world.
OK, hypothesis: The ceiling potential use and popularity of a programming language is determined by the language's name. Try:
LISP
v.
JAVA
Re:Linux is impacted, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
So lemme get this straight: a modern filesystem designed and engineered with a specific purpose, capability- and feature-set outperforms an older, more modestly-specced general-purpose filesystem designed with smaller volumes in mind in tests of such capabilities and feature sets?
Say it ain't so!
Re:Arguing about patents won't change them (Score:2, Insightful)
How much does a patent cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he has no cash to build a prototype, how is he going to pay for a patent portfolio?
In the UK, it costs £200 to have a patent processed by the Patent Office, but there is an additional (approx) £3000 to have your patent drafted/checked by an agent against existing patents and translated into legalese. This £3000 is for each country that you want to apply for a patent. 20 countries, approx £60,000. Minimum. If you don't apply worldwide, the big guy, will simply take your patent and build and sell your product in the rest of the world.
Then, once you have your patent. The big guy sets his reverse engineering team on it, they find a slightly different way of doing the same job, and all your patents are useless. Go ahead, just try and sue that multi billion dollar organisation, see what happens to your house, job and family.
If you're a brilliant inventor with no money, you're pretty much fucked unless you can license your technology to a someone with deep pockets and who are reasonably honourable. Patents protect large organisations who can afford to roll them out worldwide... And patent lawyer's jobs.
They are not there for the small fry.