[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what I gather about the East Texas venue they tend to repeatedly
dismiss very competent technical testimony (prior art/non-infringement) --
instead relying more on the lawyer's arguments, lay conjecture and soft
fact. This seems to be why the venue is so
Invalidating COW filesystem patents would of course be the best.
Unfortunately those lawsuits are usually not handled in the open
and in order
to understand everything you would need to know about the
background interests
of both parties.
IANAL, but I was under the impression that it
David Hopwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
So back to patent portfolios: yes there will be (public and private)
posturing; yes there will be negotiations; and, ultimately, there will
be a resolution. All of this won't affect ZFS or anyone running ZFS.
It matters a great
Joerg Schilling wrote:
David Hopwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
So back to patent portfolios: yes there will be (public and private)
posturing; yes there will be negotiations; and, ultimately, there will
be a resolution. All of this won't affect ZFS or anyone running ZFS.
Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night
discussing some
of the prior art, going back to some of the disks
could do this too
discussions by early tree structured binary data
structures inventions,
mentioning other copy-on-write structure ideas
floating around in the
late 80s
On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite; it seems to all be done with blogs.
After Netapp's blog, we now see Sun's CEO enter into the fray:
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/on_patent_trolling
And now NetApp's response:
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
of the prior art, going back to some of the disks could do this too
discussions by early tree structured binary data structures inventions,
mentioning other copy-on-write
George William Herbert wrote:
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html
Curiously, I posted to the blog comments last night discussing some
of the prior art, going back to some of the disks could do this too
discussions by early tree structured binary data structures
More here
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasicarticleId=9034496
On 9/5/07, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Not sure if anyone at Sun can comment on this, but I thought it might
be of interest to the list:
This morning, NetApp filed an IP
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
topic. It seems like something users should be aware of, but if I were
working
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
topic. It seems like something users should be aware of, but if I were
working
At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
topic. It seems like something
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harold Ancell wrote:
At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be
Playing with patent portfolios is the modern equivalent to playing the
mutually assured destruction game with nuclear missiles. Yes we all
appreciate how dangereous this game is and how high the stakes are.
But ... notice that a live/armed ballistic missile has never been
fired at a target.
At 11:06 AM 9/6/2007, Al Hopper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harold Ancell wrote:
At 09:33 AM 9/6/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for
Playing with patent portfolios is the modern equivalent to playing
the mutually assured destruction game with nuclear missiles. Yes
we all appreciate how dangereous this game is and how high the
stakes are. But ... notice that a live/armed ballistic missile has
never been fired at a
It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know what
will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the
end of the day, if you waited for a sure bet on any technology or
potential
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
what
will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the
end of the day,
It's Columbia Pictures vs. Bunnell:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/torrentspy/columbia_v_bunnell_magistrate_order.pdf
The Register syndicated a Security Focus article that summarizes the
potential impact of the court decision:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/08/litigation_data_retention/
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:18:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
what
will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
all data in RAM be held
If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly
written. Or am I misreading the story?
Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge
should have been clearer that the issue is the specific data, as opposed
to generic RAM contents.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:38:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly
written. Or am I misreading the story?
Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge
should have been clearer that the issue
On 9/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun
encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to
falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this
topic. It seems like
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:16:50PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Allowing for technical illiteracy in judges I think the obvious
interpretation is that discoverable data should be retained and that
but it exists only in RAM is not a defense,
On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Exactly the articles point -- rulings have consequences outside of
the
original case. The intent may have been to store logs for web server
access (logical and prudent request) but the ruling states that
RAM albeit
working memory is no
That but it existed only in RAM in my servers should not be a defense
for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
But only if you were told you needed to retain the data in the
first place. How can you be faulted for not
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:45:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That but it existed only in RAM in my servers should not be a defense
for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
But only if you were told you needed to
Casper,
Do you have a reference for all data in RAM most be held. I guess we
need to build COW RAM as well.
Is that one of those genetic hybrids?
Regards... Sean.
BTW: I remember the days when only RAS and CAS kept your data in memory
intact ;-)
Hello,
Not sure if anyone at Sun can comment on this, but I thought it might
be of interest to the list:
This morning, NetApp filed an IP (intellectual property) lawsuit
against Sun. It has two parts. The first is a “declaratory
judgment”, asking the court to decide whether we infringe
29 matches
Mail list logo
