On 7/9/2010 2:55 PM, Peter Taps wrote:
Folks,
I would appreciate it if you can create a separate thread for Mac Mini.
Back to the original subject.
NetApp has deep pockets. A few companies have already backed out of zfs as they
cannot afford to go through a lawsuit. I am in a stealth startup company and we
rely on zfs for our application. The future of our company, and many other
businesses, depends on what happens to zfs. If you are in a similar boat, what
actions are you planning?
Regards,
Peter
Congratulations. You've tied your boat to a system which has legal
issues. Welcome to the Valley.
Part of being a successful startup is having a flexible business plan,
which includes a hard look at the possibility that core technologies you
depend on may no longer be available to you, for whatever reason. Risk
analysis is something that any good business *should* include as a part
of their strategic view (you do have periodic strategic reviews, right?)
If you're planning on developing some sort of storage appliance, and
depend on OpenSolaris or FreeBSD w/ ZFS, well, pick another filesystem.
It's pretty much that simple. Painful, but simple - each of the other
filesystems has well known weaknesses and strengths, so it shouldn't be
a big issue to pick the right one for you (even if it's not just like
ZFS ). Of course, the smart thing to do is get this strategy in place
now, but wait to execute it until it becomes necessary (i.e. ZFS can't
be used anymore).
If you're writing a ZFS-dependent application (backup?) well, then,
you're up the creek. You have no alternate, since you've bet the farm
on ZFS. Good news is that it's unlikely that NetApp will win, and if
it does look like they'll win, I would bet huge chunks of money that
Oracle cross-licenses the patents or pays for a license, rather than
kill ZFS (it simply makes too much money for Oracle to abandon).
IANAL, but I'd strongly advise against trying to get a license from
NetApp, should they come calling for blood money. My personal feeling is
that it's better to bet the startup's future on not needing the license,
than on forking over a substantial portion of your revenue for what most
likely will be unnecessary. But it's up to your financial backers - in
the end, it's a gamble. But so are all startups, and trading away
significant revenue for dubious "safety" isn't good sign that you
startup will succeed in the long-haul. I'd strongly suggest trying to
stay off of NetApp's radar for now, as they're in the mode of a
shakedown bully while they still have leverage. If you do get a call
from NetApp, go see an IP lawyer right away. They should give you
strategies which you can use to stall the progress of any actual lawsuit
until the NetApp/Oracle one is finished. And, even now, that strategy
is likely less costly than one involving forking over a portion of your
revenue to NetApp for a considerable time.
Do remember: Oracle has much deeper pockets than NetApp, and much less
incentive to settle.
None of the preceding should infer that I speak for Oracle, Inc, nor do
I have any special knowledge of the progress of the NetApp v Oracle lawsuit.
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
