All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it. - H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
Sun files a countersuit against Network Appliance
AS PROMISED by CEO Jonathan Schwartz, Sun Microsystems not only answered Network Appliance's complaint in East Texas Thursday but also countersued it in California Monday.
Sun's General Counsel Mike Dillon wrote in his bog, "Today, we filed a second complaint against NetApp for infringement of six additional patents and other related claims. Although it may appear a separate case, it is in reality, part of the same litigation originally brought by NetApp in Eastern Texas to impede the adoption of ZFS."
Legal decorum prevented Dillon from mentioning that NetApp undoubtedly filed its lawsuit against Sun in East Texas because that venue has been notoriously friendly to patent trolls. That NetApp had hied its lawyers all the way to East Texas to file its claims is a clue that it doesn't have overwhelming confidence in the validity of its patents or the merits of its case.
Instead, he writes "...we believe California is a more appropriate forum for any dispute between Sun and NetApp. Why? For starters, our companies are headquartered less than 10 miles apart here in Silicon Valley. All of the key witnesses in this case are located here, as are our attorneys. The same for most of the documentary evidence. And, almost all of the technology in dispute was developed here as well."
Sun will be filing a motion shortly to consolidate both lawsuits and remove them to Federal District Court in Northern California, Dillon writes. In addition to the reasons he mentioned, which are persuasive, there's also the fact that Sun's lawsuit alleges violations of California State law. That alone should be sufficient to get the California court to take jurisdiction. µ
L'INQ
Mike
Dillon's bog
See Also
Sun
to countersue Net Apps
Share this:
Share
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)