Bill Todd - you don't happen to be a NetApp employee, relative of an employee or shareholder, eh? Why didn't you just cut and paste Dave's (NetApp CEO) blog and saved yourself the energy?

require that you actually *defend* them in some manner, rather than simply make an utterly unfounded attempt to cast doubt on those who criticize them? The latter is the traditional refuge of those with nothing more substantive to offer.

And since I've never had any connection whatsoever with either NetApp or Sun, even that attempt falls completely flat. I mostly dislike incompetent and biased reporting, especially when it so closely mirrors the spin of one of the antagonists in a dispute - not that this is anything new at The Inquirer, of course, but I do think it should be pointed out.

- bill

While Eastern Texas does enjoy a reputation for being sympathetic to patent holders, the arguably more important part of NetApp's suit is its request for a judgment that NetApp's products do not infringe upon Sun's patents - precisely the kind of judgment that Eastern Texas is *not* renowned for granting.

If NetApp fails to obtain this judgment and Sun succeeds in its bid to prohibit NetApp from using the contested technology, then NetApp is out of business (or must otherwise satisfy Sun's demands), whereas if NetApp fails in its suit to get ZFS declared as infringing NetApp's patents (the kind of judgment that Eastern Texas is more expected to be sympathetic toward) then there's no change in the status quo at all (and even if NetApp succeeds in getting the judgment it wants in this area it's not clear that it will constitute much more than a moral victory: since Sun does not directly make any money from ZFS, any monetary judgment is likely to be fairly low).

Thus NetApp's choice of venue if anything demonstrates faith in the weakness of Sun's patents (by far the greater danger to NetApp) more than any concern about the strength of its own (a far less critical issue for NetApp, which is probably why it hadn't bothered to address it at all until Sun started getting pushy about its own patents). Perhaps NetApp was more interested in Eastern Texas's reputation for relatively speedy justice, rather than the many-years'-drawn-out fiascos that such disputes often become.

In any event, any suggestion that NetApp qualifies as a 'patent troll' constitutes outright incompetence. You can check out the first couple of Google hits on "patent troll" if you're not familiar with the accepted definition: NetApp meets *none* of the criteria listed as constituting patent trolling (though, interestingly enough, Sun meets the one about attempting to extort payment for patents it acquired from someone else...).

- bill

Holland isn't officially an US state though, although their government will do anything for, and sell out anybody to the Americans.

I think the ability to pick out where your case gets tried is a fantastic idea. If I ever get busted for smoking marijuana, I'm going to tell them I want the case decided in Holland.

(No, I don't actually smoke marijuana)