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 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 Sun I would feel a very strong urge to clear any public
>>>conversation about the topic with management. As always, I do appreciate
>>>the frank insight given from the sun folks -- I am just worried that you
>>>may be doing yourself a disservice talking about it.
>>
>>"The wicked flee when none pursue, but the righteous are bold as a lion."
>>
>>(Proverbs 28:1)
>>
>>Legally dangerous today, but I entirely understand the attitude. And
>>this case will be fought as much in the court of public opinion as
>>anywhere else; for Sun to get so lawyered up they silence their
>>people while NetApp's CEO is playing a restrained version of the
>>McBride game ... not a good idea, I think.
>>
>>E.g. what am I to think about taking the last steps to get OpenSolaris
>>and ZFS running on my just built home file server? NetApp's assurances
>>they aren't going to go after non-commercial and individual users is
>>entirely worthless (can be withdrawn in a moment), and of course silly
>>WRT the long term viability of ZFS. I, for one, do not welcome our new
>>storage overlords, I don't want to add a $$$ NVRAM RAID-6 host adaptor
>>to my system and switch to Linux (ugh) since it is unlikely to have
>>OpenSolaris support....
>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".
Ummm, unless NetApp is lying, one such "ballistic missile" has been
fired from a Texas courthouse and targeted at ZFS.
>So back to patent portfolios: yes there will be (public and private)
>posturing; yes there will be negotiations;
You go to the courts when you feel you have nothing to gain by
negotiations---by definition, a lawsuit is not a negotiation, it's
an attempt by one party to get the government to coerce action
out of the other party. And like a missile, you cannot call one
back after it is launched. Suppose this is just "posturing":
If NetApp and Sun were to settle today, there is no way would such
an agreement not include dismissal of the suit "with prejudice" so
that it could not be filed again. NetApp would not want such a
possibility in case they later wanted to sue "for real".
>and, ultimately, there will be a resolution.
Indeed: my vote is for NetApp by the middle of the next decade being
staked out on a bleached desert plain next to SCO, another stark
object lesson to those who are tempted to compete in the courtroom
instead of the marketplace.
>All of this won't affect ZFS or anyone running ZFS. Just like nuclear
>ballistic missiles don't affect computer users either!
While it proceeded the development of the modern ICBM or computers
as we know then, I suggest you ask one of the survivors of the nuclear
bombings of Japan if they weren't affected by the Little Boy or Fat Man.
To suggest that the existence of thousands of ceni-kiloton warheads
atop delivery systems have no real meaningful existence (I hope I'm not
misinterpreting your words) leaves me at a loss for further comment....
>What does all this mean to current ZFS users? Absolutely nothing.
Today, it means nothing.
Tomorrow, if Sun is enjoined from developing ZFS, rather a lot. If
that extends to other commercial users of it (directly, or if they
decide they need more support than the community can provide), even
more. Would the former kill off ZFS---*maybe* not. The latter?
Almost certainly, except as a curiosity.
>PS: If there was a _real_ issue with WAFL/Netapp patent infringement - it
>would have been brought up way before ZFS was released and open sourced.
It only takes one to make a war---how could Sun possibly constrain the
future behavior of a competitor (assuming for the moment that Sun's account
of the timeline is true and that the lawsuit is meritless)?
While I'm not suggesting that people panic (certainly not for the next few
days :-), ignoring a clear existential threat to ZFS would be silly. Perhaps
discussing it is beyond what should be the scope of this list, in which
case surely someone could set another one up---there is much to be said for
segregating the discussions especially when they don't hinge so much on the
technology per se---but to ignore this? I think not.
- Harold
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
