Run away! Run fast little Netapp. Don't anger the sleeping giant - Oracle!
David Magda wrote:
Seems that things have been cleared up:
NetApp (NASDAQ: NTAP) today announced that both parties have agreed to
dismiss their pending patent litigation, which began in 2007 between Sun
Microsystems
Seems that things have been cleared up:
NetApp (NASDAQ: NTAP) today announced that both parties have agreed to
dismiss their pending patent litigation, which began in 2007 between Sun
Microsystems and NetApp. Oracle and NetApp seek to have the lawsuits
dismissed without prejudice. The terms
This is welcome news.
-- richard
On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:38 AM, David Magda wrote:
Seems that things have been cleared up:
NetApp (NASDAQ: NTAP) today announced that both parties have agreed to
dismiss their pending patent litigation, which began in 2007 between Sun
Microsystems and NetApp.
On 9/9/2010 10:25 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
This is welcome news.
-- richard
On Sep 9, 2010, at 9:38 AM, David Magda wrote:
Seems that things have been cleared up:
NetApp (NASDAQ: NTAP) today announced that both parties have agreed to
dismiss their pending patent litigation, which began
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Yes, it's welcome to get it over with.
I do get to bitch about one aspect here of the US civil legal system, though.
If you've gone so far as to burn our (the public's) time and money to file a
lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to seal up the court
dm == David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca writes:
dm http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/09/oracle_netapp_zfs_dismiss/
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050121014650517
says when the MPL was modified to become the CDDL, clauses were
removed which would have required Oracle to
On 9/9/2010 11:11 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 12:58 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Yes, it's welcome to get it over with.
I do get to bitch about one aspect here of the US civil legal system, though.
If you've gone so far as to burn
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
True. But, I wonder if the settlement sets a precedent?
No precedent has been set.
Certainly the lack of a successful lawsuit has *failed* to set any
precedent conclusively indicating that NetApp has enforceable patents
where ZFS is concerned.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
There should be little doubt that NetApp's goal was to make money by
suing Sun. Nexenta does not have enough income/assets to make a risky
lawsuit worthwhile.
But in all
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
True. But, I wonder if the settlement sets a precedent?
No precedent has been set.
Certainly the lack of a successful lawsuit has *failed* to set any
10 matches
Mail list logo
