Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Marty Fouts wrote: > Factoid: 90% of all patents are never challenged, while 80% of those that > are are overturned. In otherwords, 2% of patents are successfully defended, just enough to keep the serfs in line. >"Going into court is throwing the dice." If I am going to throw dice I'd much prefer to do it with 4/1 odds in my favor. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Here's a gem of a claim from the main WAFL patent: > > "20. The method of claim 8 further comprising the step of using one or > more of said read-only copies of said file system to back-up said > blocks comprising one or more consistency points of said file system." > http://innominate.org/~phillips/wafl.patent.5819292.html > > I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but this seems to say that they > claim proprietary rights to making a backup from a checkpoint. also sounds very similar to [one use for] lvm snapshots. does hp-ux have those too? (linux lvm documentation seems to say it [lvm] was based on a similar hp-ux feature...) j. -- john slee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Eirik Fuller wrote: > Is that really your email address? No, but my email address can easily be contructed putting together my last name and innominate.de. > I work at Network Appliance. I hate patents. I can't find anything in > your position on patents that I disagree with. I tried to be as accurate as I could. > I have seriously considered writing a patent rant for my web page > (http://hackrat.com/). Would you like to help? I have no objection to > making my connection with NetApp a highly visible part of my rant. Yes, by all means. You are not the first to ask permission to use my rant. I don't need credit for it; if it does some good, that is enough. > I've fallen behind on the Linux kernel email archives (I just got back > from a long weekend), but I would have seen your message eventually, > after I started catching up. As it happens, I found it because there > was internal discussion of your message here at NetApp. Dave Hitz > thinks that if NetApp leaves you alone, you'll go away. He thinks wrongly. There is no chance of that. > Steven Kleiman > presumes the correct strategy is to go after those who attempt to > distribute it commercially rather than going after you (he doesn't spell > out what he means by "it", but I assume your code). I won't accept *any* form of restriction on what I do with it, for two reasons: 1) I dreamed this up several years before you guys did 2) Patents are evil I'm not sure which one matters more to me. They both do. I'd like to reply to every point in your post, it's all interesting, but I should not, because I have a very simple point to make now: Netapp has a lot more to gain by doing the right thing now and releasing these patents under a GPL-compatible license than by trying to preserve their government-granted monopoly on the ideas. Please do the right thing. Does Walmart have a patent on their business process? No. Does Walmart make tons of money? Yes. Why? Because they give people what they need, in the most efficient way, and they make their customers feel *good* while they're doing it. That way of making money works, and I could swear that it works better than patent-aided extortion does. Netapp does not need the protection of patents to make money. If anybody does need such protection, then that is because they are lame and useless. Netapp will make more money by capitalizing on the goodwill and PR resulting from a high-profile giveaway then they ever would by forestalling competition with their patent. And it is not clear at all that these particular patents can be successfully used to forestall competition, either from free or commercial software. If Netapp opens up, Netapp can be known as the friend of the Linux community. I think that translates more or less directly into dollars. > If you'd like to contact me outside of NetApp, you can use the mailto > link in http://hackrat.com/resume.html (but feel free to use my NetApp > address too). I certainly will, and perhaps I will see you in Atlanta next week, and later in Miami. I would look forward to it. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > I've allocated $20,000 US for this, but i doubt you will use all of it. > Linux IP issues affect all of us since we ship Linux, so I am happy to > pick up the tab. Tux is hot stuff, and we plan to use it, along with > all the other great Linux stuff. Consider it our part to help Linux. > The structure of TRG is modeled a lot like Microsoft -- we are actually > a law firm thinly disguised as a software company (just like MS) > snicker... snicker :-) Is it legal to snicker about Microsoft? Thank you so much. The response I've gotten on this from all sides has been amazing. I still haven't heard a thing from Netapp, nor have I tried to contact them, other than through this public forum. Um, it's a public matter so I don't think I'm acting incorrectly. Q: What would be more evil than a patent? A: A copyrighted patent. Then you have to pay to find out what you can't do and they have a monopoly so they can make you pay whatever they want. Here's a gem of a claim from the main WAFL patent: "20. The method of claim 8 further comprising the step of using one or more of said read-only copies of said file system to back-up said blocks comprising one or more consistency points of said file system." http://innominate.org/~phillips/wafl.patent.5819292.html I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but this seems to say that they claim proprietary rights to making a backup from a checkpoint. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
I've allocated $20,000 US for this, but i doubt you will use all of it. Linux IP issues affect all of us since we ship Linux, so I am happy to pick up the tab. Tux is hot stuff, and we plan to use it, along with all the other great Linux stuff. Consider it our part to help Linux. The structure of TRG is modeled a lot like Microsoft -- we are actually a law firm thinly disguised as a software company (just like MS) snicker... snicker :-) Jeff Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Can I ask a stupid question: Who's paying for this? > > Err, like I said it was stupid. A better question is "why"? OK, you > don't have to answer. It's 4:20 am here, I should have been asleep long > ago, till tomorrow. > > -- > Daniel > "patents never sleep" > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Daniel, Andrew is the candidate for Attorney General for the State of Utah, and informs he has has television and radio interviews all day tommorrow, but promised he would get on it late tommorrow afternoon and get back to you. :-) Jeff Daniel Phillips wrote: > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > I've forwarded everything to Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He will > > contact Malinkrodt and assign a patent attorney to work with you on > > this. Andy's direct line is 801-222-9635. Since the Linux Community is > > basically a "client" now, your communications with him will be > > priviledged. After the analysis is completed, if you agree, I will post > > the results back to the list. Call Andrew and give him your phone # so > > we have a way for the patent attorneys to get in touch. > > Thankyou. :-O > > I will need a little time to prepare a formal description of the > algorithm. A tutorial description is here: > > http://innominate.org/pipermail/tux2-dev/2000-September/11.html > > Can I ask a stupid question: Who's paying for this? > > -- > Daniel > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Daniel Phillips wrote: > Can I ask a stupid question: Who's paying for this? Err, like I said it was stupid. A better question is "why"? OK, you don't have to answer. It's 4:20 am here, I should have been asleep long ago, till tomorrow. -- Daniel "patents never sleep" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > I've forwarded everything to Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He will > contact Malinkrodt and assign a patent attorney to work with you on > this. Andy's direct line is 801-222-9635. Since the Linux Community is > basically a "client" now, your communications with him will be > priviledged. After the analysis is completed, if you agree, I will post > the results back to the list. Call Andrew and give him your phone # so > we have a way for the patent attorneys to get in touch. Thankyou. :-O I will need a little time to prepare a formal description of the algorithm. A tutorial description is here: http://innominate.org/pipermail/tux2-dev/2000-September/11.html Can I ask a stupid question: Who's paying for this? -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Daniel, Sorry, this was directed to you about the phone number (Thomas can call as well if he has info). :-) Jeff "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > I've forwarded everything to Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He will > contact Malinkrodt and assign a patent attorney to work with you on > this. Andy's direct line is 801-222-9635. Since the Linux Community is > basically a "client" now, your communications with him will be > priviledged. After the analysis is completed, if you agree, I will post > the results back to the list. Call Andrew and give him your phone # so > we have a way for the patent attorneys to get in touch. > > :-) > > Jeff > > Thomas Davis wrote: > > > > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > > I am having Andrew McCullough review these patents to determine if there > > > > are any infringement issues that may affect us. Whomever is concerned > > > > her, if it would not be too much trouble, please forward what > > > > documentation and patent no.'s to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copy me at > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we will forward them to Malinkrodt & > > > > Malinkrodt in Salt Lake City. I'll pay them to do a patent infringment > > > > analysis, and post their analysis to interested/affected parties. > > > > > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5819292'.WKU.&OS=PN/5819292&RS=PN/5819292 > > > > > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5963962'.WKU.&OS=PN/5963962&RS=PN/5963962 > > > > > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&p=1&S1=6038570&OS=6038570&RS=6038570 > > > > > > I suppose you will need a formal description of my algorithm. > > > > > > > You probably also want to add > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06049528__ for the bonding > > driver.. Since it's already in the kernel, and prior work can be > > demonstrated also. > > > > -- > > +-- > > Thomas Davis| PDSF Project Leader > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > > (510) 486-4524 | "Only a petabyte of data this year?" > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
I've forwarded everything to Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). He will contact Malinkrodt and assign a patent attorney to work with you on this. Andy's direct line is 801-222-9635. Since the Linux Community is basically a "client" now, your communications with him will be priviledged. After the analysis is completed, if you agree, I will post the results back to the list. Call Andrew and give him your phone # so we have a way for the patent attorneys to get in touch. :-) Jeff Thomas Davis wrote: > > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > I am having Andrew McCullough review these patents to determine if there > > > are any infringement issues that may affect us. Whomever is concerned > > > her, if it would not be too much trouble, please forward what > > > documentation and patent no.'s to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copy me at > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we will forward them to Malinkrodt & > > > Malinkrodt in Salt Lake City. I'll pay them to do a patent infringment > > > analysis, and post their analysis to interested/affected parties. > > > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5819292'.WKU.&OS=PN/5819292&RS=PN/5819292 > > > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5963962'.WKU.&OS=PN/5963962&RS=PN/5963962 > > > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&p=1&S1=6038570&OS=6038570&RS=6038570 > > > > I suppose you will need a formal description of my algorithm. > > > > You probably also want to add > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06049528__ for the bonding > driver.. Since it's already in the kernel, and prior work can be > demonstrated also. > > -- > +-- > Thomas Davis| PDSF Project Leader > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > (510) 486-4524 | "Only a petabyte of data this year?" > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Daniel Phillips wrote: > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > I am having Andrew McCullough review these patents to determine if there > > are any infringement issues that may affect us. Whomever is concerned > > her, if it would not be too much trouble, please forward what > > documentation and patent no.'s to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copy me at > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we will forward them to Malinkrodt & > > Malinkrodt in Salt Lake City. I'll pay them to do a patent infringment > > analysis, and post their analysis to interested/affected parties. > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5819292'.WKU.&OS=PN/5819292&RS=PN/5819292 > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5963962'.WKU.&OS=PN/5963962&RS=PN/5963962 > > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&p=1&S1=6038570&OS=6038570&RS=6038570 > > I suppose you will need a formal description of my algorithm. > You probably also want to add http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06049528__ for the bonding driver.. Since it's already in the kernel, and prior work can be demonstrated also. -- +-- Thomas Davis| PDSF Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (510) 486-4524 | "Only a petabyte of data this year?" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > I am having Andrew McCullough review these patents to determine if there > are any infringement issues that may affect us. Whomever is concerned > her, if it would not be too much trouble, please forward what > documentation and patent no.'s to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copy me at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we will forward them to Malinkrodt & > Malinkrodt in Salt Lake City. I'll pay them to do a patent infringment > analysis, and post their analysis to interested/affected parties. http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5819292'.WKU.&OS=PN/5819292&RS=PN/5819292 http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5963962'.WKU.&OS=PN/5963962&RS=PN/5963962 http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&p=1&S1=6038570&OS=6038570&RS=6038570 I suppose you will need a formal description of my algorithm. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
I am having Andrew McCullough review these patents to determine if there
are any infringement issues that may affect us. Whomever is concerned
her, if it would not be too much trouble, please forward what
documentation and patent no.'s to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copy me at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and we will forward them to Malinkrodt &
Malinkrodt in Salt Lake City. I'll pay them to do a patent infringment
analysis, and post their analysis to interested/affected parties.
:-)
Jeff
"J. Dow" wrote:
>
> From: "Daniel Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Yes, I know the game, Unisys played it with gif. Wait until it's in
> > widespread use then appear out of the woodwork and demand licence fees.
> > It's called submarining. It's evil. People and corporations who do it
> > are little better than thugs.
>
> This one is a bad example, Daniel. The word from inside UniSys is that
> this was pure ineptitude in action.
> {o.o}
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
"J. Dow" wrote:
>
> From: "Daniel Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Yes, I know the game, Unisys played it with gif. Wait until it's in
> > widespread use then appear out of the woodwork and demand licence fees.
> > It's called submarining. It's evil. People and corporations who do it
> > are little better than thugs.
>
> This one is a bad example, Daniel. The word from inside UniSys is that
> this was pure ineptitude in action.
> {o.o}
I don't buy it. Sure, it might have started as ineptitude, but somebody
made the decision to stick it to everybody, and that turned it into a
submarine maneuver. They took advantage of the situation. They did not
take advantage of the opportunity to earn some good will and admit that
didn't properly advise the public of their intention to demand
royalties. They should have done the right thing and placed the patent
in the publilc domain because of their mistake. Instead they made their
name forever mud - I seriously doubt it was worth it.
Excuse me, the gif fiasco is well-known and everything useful that could
be said about it has already been said. I don't know why I even posted
this.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
From: "Daniel Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, I know the game, Unisys played it with gif. Wait until it's in
> widespread use then appear out of the woodwork and demand licence fees.
> It's called submarining. It's evil. People and corporations who do it
> are little better than thugs.
This one is a bad example, Daniel. The word from inside UniSys is that
this was pure ineptitude in action.
{o.o}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Chris Good wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Phillips wrote: > >Thomas Graichen forwarded me some interesting information from the > >freebsd-fsdevel list regarding 3 patents held by Network Appliance > > A couple of points: > First their patents are very much tied into their implementation > of WAFL, your implementation of Tux2 should be sufficiently different > not to cause a problem. This may well be the case, see below. > You mentioned multi-bit maps which sounds > like a big enough difference on its own. Yes, thats a big difference. Here is my current list of significant differences: - No defree list in WAFL (see multiple bits/block below). Tux2 puts all blocks freed or rewritten on a list for freeing later, after the next phase change. *probably very important* - Tux2 uses one bit per block for allocation map, WAFL uses 32. Perhaps one reason for this is that Tux2's snapshot algorithm is separate from its atomic commit algorithm. Perhaps combining those two parts clouded somebody's thinking. - Atomic updating and snapshotting are combined in WAFL, separate in Tux2 - Different sense of WAFL's in snapshot bit: WAFL: snapshot bit on -> block must not be flushed or modified Tux2: inphase bit on -> block must not be flushed but *ok to modify* Again,this is probably key. - WAFL maintains one divergent tree in memory, Tux2 maintains two. - WAFL has to block some file transactions while blocks are written to disk, Tux2 doesn't. - WAFL maintains a single filesystem root, overwriting it on each atomic update. Tux2 keeps a group of metaroots, choosing for the atomic update the nearest one not overwritten in the previous update. All this suggests the algorithms are different in some fundamental sense. ***But I have not seen the patents themselves, only the abstracts*** If anyone has copies of these patents, would they please be so kind as to send them to me. > Second Netapp are a pretty nice bunch and chasing someone doing GPL > code isn't their style. Netapp may be great guys but they have still claimed to own something that properly belongs to me and the rest of humanity. > Thirdly a hell of a lot of people buying Netapp products are fans > of linux/*BSD, I very much doubt that they're going to risk their > bottom line. I retract anything I may have said that might reflect negatively on Netapp. I haven't met them, I know very little about them. I wasn't calm yesterday. I suspected such patents might exist ever since I first heard of WAFL last spring. When I actually saw the patent abstracts I became angry, not angry at Netapps but at the whole barbaric patent system. Netapps had no choice but to apply for their patent and I have no choice but to confront it. If they are really great guys then let them prove it by licencing their patents for unrestricted use in GPL-compatible code. They don't have a lot to lose: my work is superior and GPL, and directly based on work I did in 1989. They should realize that their main patents aren't worth much now except to lawyers, so they might as well collect some good karma by making their licence GPL-compatible. It was suggested to me privately that I contact Netapp and show them my algorithm. That seems to me to be a very good idea. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 09:42:04AM -0700, Thomas Davis wrote: > Ion Badulescu wrote: ... > > For another fine example of GPL technology covered by a parent, check out: > > > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06049528__ > > > > This a patent filed by Sun in June 1997 and awarded in April 2000 which > > covers very well the ethernet bonding device in Linux 2.2.x. > > > > I wonder if the equalizer device present in Linux kernels since before > > 1996 could count as prior art. IANAL, of course. > > Or, even better, the fact that Ethernet bonding has been available as a > Linux patch since about 1995.. I am fairly sure that that is in series of "will patent that so that nobody can ransom us"... (Like IBM did with HTML.) Surprisingly I don't see any patent at Cisco Systems which relates to that ? They have been doing ether-channel for ages, but perhaps their solution is just an implementation of Sun's idea ? > I'm sure Donald Becker could produce prior art on that one! > -- > +-- > Thomas Davis | PDSF Project Leader > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /Matti Aarnio - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Thomas Davis wrote: > > For another fine example of GPL technology covered by a parent, check out: > > > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06049528__ > > > > This a patent filed by Sun in June 1997 and awarded in April 2000 which > > covers very well the ethernet bonding device in Linux 2.2.x. > > > > I wonder if the equalizer device present in Linux kernels since before > > 1996 could count as prior art. IANAL, of course. > > Or, even better, the fact that Ethernet bonding has been > available as a Linux patch since about 1995.. > > I'm sure Donald Becker could produce prior art on that one! I'm pretty sure Sun won't force the issue. Since prior art is available on a few hundred FTP sites, they would be foolish to sue and nullify their patent ;) [better keep up the status quo so they can try to get a few bucks from random sucke^W^Wother software companies infringing on their intellectual monopoly^W^Wpatent] regards, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Ion Badulescu wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > It is important that all technology used in GPL software be free of > > patent restrictions. > > Indeed. > > For another fine example of GPL technology covered by a parent, check out: > > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06049528__ > > This a patent filed by Sun in June 1997 and awarded in April 2000 which > covers very well the ethernet bonding device in Linux 2.2.x. > > I wonder if the equalizer device present in Linux kernels since before > 1996 could count as prior art. IANAL, of course. > Or, even better, the fact that Ethernet bonding has been available as a Linux patch since about 1995.. I'm sure Donald Becker could produce prior art on that one! -- +-- Thomas Davis| PDSF Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (510) 486-4524 | "Only a petabyte of data this year?" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Daniel Phillips wrote: > It is important that all technology used in GPL software be free of > patent restrictions. Indeed. For another fine example of GPL technology covered by a parent, check out: http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US06049528__ This a patent filed by Sun in June 1997 and awarded in April 2000 which covers very well the ethernet bonding device in Linux 2.2.x. I wonder if the equalizer device present in Linux kernels since before 1996 could count as prior art. IANAL, of course. Ion -- It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Phillips wrote: >Thomas Graichen forwarded me some interesting information from the >freebsd-fsdevel list regarding 3 patents held by Network Appliance A couple of points: First their patents are very much tied into their implementation of WAFL, your implementation of Tux2 should be sufficiently different not to cause a problem. You mentioned multi-bit maps which sounds like a big enough difference on its own. Second Netapp are a pretty nice bunch and chasing someone doing GPL code isn't their style. Thirdly a hell of a lot of people buying Netapp products are fans of linux/*BSD, I very much doubt that they're going to risk their bottom line. Chris -- Chris Good WebTop.com http://www.webtop.com Tel: +44 (0) 1223 715000 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 715001 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
IANAL That said, I would refer anyone interested in 'prior art' in patents to http://www.ipmall.fplc.edu/ipcorner/bp98/welch.htm especially the brief discussion on what 'prior art' is to the patent office. Also, for those who believe that similar concepts will void patents, I would suggest a search of the IP literature on the topic of 'narrowly defined.' As to whether or not Network Appliance's patents would hold up in court, I offer two contradictory opinions: Factoid: 90% of all patents are never challenged, while 80% of those that are are overturned. and "Going into court is throwing the dice." I will defer discussion of the 'evil' of patent law to some more appropriate forum. Marty - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Alan Cox wrote: > Its also very unlikely Network Appliance would both responding to you. Its > not in their legal interest to admit lack of validity. Yes, I know the game, Unisys played it with gif. Wait until it's in widespread use then appear out of the woodwork and demand licence fees. It's called submarining. It's evil. People and corporations who do it are little better than thugs. Well, my part of this is to make it public before the obvious improvements end up being the subject of patent applications. I'm a designer and inventor, I do it for the satisfaction, and patents make me sick. I could have had lots of patents, I've been there first on many occasions. This is purely because I was born before somebody else, or happened to get access to a real computer before somebody else did. I got there first and high-graded the easy stuff. So what? I didn't create the things I found, they were already there. I just dug them up. They belong to everybody. Ideas are like antiquities. If I dig them up, I get paid for digging, yes, I could and should get paid very well, but I don't own those antiquities: there are laws against that. Why are we enlightened in that respect, and so barbaric when it comes to intangible ideas? Simple: the common man isn't aware of the problem. The solution is equally simple: we have to educate people. How I don't know. We have to remember, we're doing this to ourselves. We're being fooled into doing this to ourselves by the myth of the lone inventor striking it rich. People like that myth, it plays well and they'll justify it to the ends of the earth. Perhaps they will stop if they learn how much it is costing them. There, I feel better now. I've stated the problem, lets see if any good comes of it. I'll go back to work on my slides. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Tux2 - evil patents sighted
> patent restrictions. Unfortunately for Network Appliances, I developed > all the essential concepts they describe in 1989 (the RAID optimization > excepted, see below for what I think about that) and implemented them in > a production system. In other words, I've got prior art; their patents > are worthless. Furthermore, I developed the entire Tux2 design and Not neccessarily. It depends why they took them out. It is common in the US to patent something that you suspect isnt original just so nobody else patents it and attacks you (fun isnt it). And they may genuinely think they are original. Its also very unlikely Network Appliance would both responding to you. Its not in their legal interest to admit lack of validity. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Tux2 - evil patents sighted
Thomas Graichen forwarded me some interesting information from the freebsd-fsdevel list regarding 3 patents held by Network Appliance, Inc., Santa Clara, CA that seem to describe much of the mechanism that underlies Tux2. I haven't heard anything from any representative of Network Appliance, which I find very curious because they must certainly have heard of Tux2 by now. But of course when I do hear from them they will want something, and I will want them to FOAD. http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05819292__ http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05963962__ http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06038570__ It is important that all technology used in GPL software be free of patent restrictions. Unfortunately for Network Appliances, I developed all the essential concepts they describe in 1989 (the RAID optimization excepted, see below for what I think about that) and implemented them in a production system. In other words, I've got prior art; their patents are worthless. Furthermore, I developed the entire Tux2 design and implemented most of it before I ever even heard of their software, much less their patents. And on top of that, other people also have prior art (check out Auragen, if you don't know what it is, ask Victor Yodaiken). OK, I sense there's going to be a fight, because Network Appliance is a profit-making corporation and they would be remiss if they didn't try to defend their IP. Did I mention that software patents are evil? Did I mention that software patents make people behave in evil ways? I'm not going to change my course at all, I'm determined to bring this better idea to Linux in a free and open way. I will continue to develop it until it's finished. Oh, and the phase tree algorithm is fundamentally superiour to their WAFL algorithm, as I will demonstrate next week in Atlanta. I invite anyone who's interested to email me and help out. Are you a patent lawyer that likes to work for free? *Especially you*, please email me. Now let me state my position on patents: - Patents are evil - Software patents are especially evil - Patents, and especially software patents, constitute nothing less than government-sponsored theft of property that properly belongs to humanity. - If we did not have any form of patent, humanity would be better off. - If we did not have any form of patent, the world economy would benefit. Yes, that means corporations too. - If we did not have any form of patent, *most voters would benefit* <-- pay close attention to this one - Patents are anti-capitalist: they interfere with the proper functioning of the market economy. Patents on business methods are already rearing their ugly head. - It's getting worse. If the current trend continues, you will soon see the life of patents being extended, you will see patents being granted in areas that were previously considered off-limits, and you will see countries outside the U.S. being pressured into supporting the patent system in various ways. - We can't change the world overnight, but we do already possess the power, if we excercise it, to send the laws that gave birth to software patents back into the cesspool they crawled out of. - In spite of the popular myth about the lone inventor who strikes it rich, the only real beneficiaries of patents are corporations. Yes, a few lone inventors strike it rich, but not enough to undo the damage done to humanity in general. Most lone inventors just get ripped off by people who prey on them and their dreams. - If all patents were to vanish today and never come back research in general would accelerate, not slow down. Linux is proof of that. - Lawyers built the patent system. Tim O'Rielly once asked a patent lawyer how he would feel if other lawyers could patent legal arguments and charge him money to use those arguments in court. Though he tried to twist out of answering that one, eventually he had to admit that he had no answer. This lawyer IIRC is the director of the U.S. Trade and Patent office. OK, I'll stop ranting now. I knew it was going to happen, and not only that, this is going to happen more and more until the evil patent system is uprooted and composted. Now, the specifc discussion: US patent 5,819,292 "Method for maintaining consistent states of a file system and for creating user-accessible read-only copies of a file system"; ApplDate 1993-06-03 <- Four years after I did my work. "A method is disclosed for maintaining consistent states of a file system. The file system progresses from one self-consistent state to another self-consistent state. The set of self-consistent blocks on disk that is rooted by a root inode is referred to as a consistency point. The root inode is stored in a file system information structure. To implement consistency points, new data is written to
