On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Tim Cook <t...@cook.ms> wrote: > > > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents > are > > > invalid because of prior art. > > > > > > > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It > is > > your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated > > that statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have > > people running around believing what they're doing is safe. I'd hope > they'd > > be smart enough to consult with a lawyer, but it's probably better to > just > > not spread unsubstantiated rumor in the first place. > > If you have substancial information on why NetApp may rightfully own a > patent > that is essential for ZFS, I would be interested to get this information. > > Jörg > > The initial filing was public record. It has been posted on this mailing list already, and you responded to those posts. I'm not sure why you're acting like you're oblivious to the case. Regardless, I'll answer your rhetorical question: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080529163415471 You BELIEVING the are wrong doesn't make it so, sorry. Until it is settled in a court of law, or the patent office invalidates their patents, you are making unsubstantiated claims. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
