Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sun To Seek Injunction, Damages Against NetApp

Posted by kdawson on from the file-systems-want-to-be-free dept.

Zeddicus_Z writes to note that Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz has outlined Sun's response to Network Appliance's recent patent infringement lawsuit over ZFS: "As a part of this suit, we are requesting a permanent injunction to remove all of their filer products from the marketplace, and are examining the original NFS license — on which Network Appliance was started. In addition... we will be going after sizable monetary damages. And I am committing that Sun will donate half of those proceeds to the leading institutions promoting free software and patent reform... [Regarding NetApp's demands in order to drop its existing case against Sun:] ...[to] unfree ZFS, to retract it from the free software community, and to limit ZFS's allowable field of use to computers — and to forbid its use in storage devices."

9 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. In the interest of fairness by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's NetApps CEO's blog post about this.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  2. This is why we need to KEEP software patents by cperciva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I disagree completely: This is why we need to keep software patents. NetApp did something innovative with WAFL; Sun then came along, reimplemented everything, and called it ZFS.

    Remember, "innovation" means "doing something new" -- not "copying what someone else has done". There are certainly implementational issues with the patent system as it currently exists, but in principle the patent system is all about protecting people who do something new from corporations (like Sun or Microsoft) who just reimplement without adding anything new.

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
    1. Re:This is why we need to KEEP software patents by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that "copyright" and the logical extension of "patenting" physical objects are the same thing.

      You don't copyright a stove, because people can't just copy it. You patent it, and now people can't build an identical stove, even if they could build something very stovelike. But with software, you copyright the software, and now people can't copy it. Patenting would, in theory, fulfill the exact same purpose - "you can't build the identical software" - and that's software patents are kind of bizarre and shouldn't even exist.

      Instead, though, patents are being treated as "one step up from copyright" - you can't build an identical stove, and you "can't build software that does the same thing". Which isn't the equivalent of patents at all. It's more the equivalent of a concept monopoly. If software patents were imported right back into the physical world, you'd have people able to put patent on "cars", or "stoves", as an entire class of thing.

      I don't think software patents need to be "fixed". I don't think they need to be "abolished". I think what's necessary is realization that the entire concept of "software patent" doesn't even make sense, and that there really is no parallel with the physical world here.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    2. Re:This is why we need to KEEP software patents by The_Noid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're correct.
      A patent is on an implementation. Abstract ideas are not patentable. That's why software patents make no sense, as software is already protected by copyright.
      At least in Europe it still works that way :)

      And with regards to drugs, if some else is so much smarter then you that they can produce the same pills a lot cheaper then maybe you're in the wrong business. Do you want to withhold the sick population from cheaper drugs just because the current patent holder is too dumb to produce it cheaper? I personally do not. Patents take away the need to innovate and thus they are bad.

  3. Re:old news. by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For me, quite a lot. I'm wanting to start up a software house some time in the next year. These patent wars frankly wory me. I don't know if I'd be that keen on entering the US market, since some shark will no doubt try to take a bite if my product is seen to be making money. Better to work in Europe and the far east methinks.

    Yeah, software piracy is a tad rife there, but I'd rather be strategising against pirates (services instead of software payment etc), than have my company gutted because of some shitbar patent suit in texas.

  4. Re:old news. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't have any development in the US, so if someone goes after you it only affects distribution not development, don't ever incorporate in the US (makes it harder for them to go after you), and make sure you don't look too hard at existing patents (it's triple damages if you knowingly infringe a patent.. since its damned near impossible not to infringe a software patent with any sizable code it's far better if you're ignorant of which ones.. and yes a lawyer was the first one who advised us about that).

    We have a sales team in the US but there's no legal company there, to protect ourselves.

  5. Re:This is why we need to get rid of software pate by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a former Sun employee and still open solaris dev. I can say your 100 % right. They never like lawsuits. They understand all it does is make lawyers rich, and barely ever gets to the root of the issue, especially when a non technical judge or jury makes a decision based on how much a lawyer makes them think is right.

    --
    This package Does Not Contain a Winner
  6. Re:Translation for the non-lawyers by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sun used the product from the patent and created a Free version without permission. That makes them a great 'Robin Hood', but it also makes them the 'bad guy' in the eyes of the law.

    You're stating as a matter of fact that Sun "used the product from the patent". This is stretching the truth somewhat. The actual facts of the matter are that NetApp claims Sun have violated their patent (WAFL, etc), and filed suit requesting relief. Sun however disagree and believe they do not violate NetApps' patents - indeed Sun claim, in their counter-suits, that NetApp are violating Suns' patents. However, no-one is violating anyone's patents until either both parties agree they are, or a judge says so.

    You can read Suns' response to NetApps' complaint (which #include's most, if not all, of NetApps' complaint).

    NB: I am a Sun employee. I have tried to keep the above post be 100% fact-based and opinion-free, but I am obviously biased, I also may be wrong and finally IANAL. Lector emptor.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  7. Delighted to see Netapp takiing it! by HKcastaway · · Score: 5, Informative

    Netapp are a company that do their best to make sure their products are not sold in the 2nd hand market and once a product EOL there is little chance to use it.

    I have a few Netapps here and can't use them because Netapp will not release the activation license key.

    An IT future without Netapp's built in obsolescence is a better future.
    I hope Sun has a field day with them.