"Method and Device for Preventing Competition From and Innovation by Marketplace Peers"

Describes a method for compiling a warchest of "software patents" and deploying them as ammunition in lawsuits against technological competitors.

Seriously, wasn't the patent system intended to *encourage* innovation?

It's time to bring back drawing and quartering for whichever moron or morons decided to permit patents of software.

I read that networking patent and it seems to essentially describe 802.3ad which tons of companies support. From a quick search the furthest back I see 802.3ad stuff is 1998(with no Sun involvement), and the patent Sun filed for was in 1997.

I sent a note to an engineer at my networking vendor to see what they think.

Allstate has a patent pending for a declining deductible plan on auto insurance in which your collision deductible declines by a fixed amount for every fixed period you go without an accident. I had that kind of coverage from Citizens Insurance 30 years ago.

It's the whole idea that you can patent a "business method" that needs to be killed off, as it's usually a software implementation of a "business method" (e.g. Amazon's infamous one-click patent) that are the real problems.

Not that I really care who wins on this one, but it seems like NetApp wanted this and got it why?

Wile E. Veteran wrote: "Allstate has a patent pending for a declining deductible plan on auto insurance in which your collision deductible declines by a fixed amount for every fixed period you go without an accident. I had that kind of coverage from Citizens Insurance 30 years ago."

Heh. In Finland a plan like this (usually called "bonus") is standard practice with all insurers, and has been since the age of the dinosaurs, so its even part of the language: When someone says "bonukset meni" ("lost the bonuses") the listeners know the chap was involved in an automotive mishap, and went back to square one in the insurance bonus system.

This just demonstrates yet another serious problem in the patent system: it is virtually impossible to guarantee, or even make likely that a patent is really awarded to the first inventor. Especially with a system consisting of an overworked governement bureacracy...

The big, big error of judgement by NetApps was their choice of location for this suit.

Whatever one thinks of software patents, WAFL was a significant inventive step at the time it was introduced, and is still central to their product lines. And there is no reason why they should only use their patents defensively - the value is precisely on the temporary monopoly which they as inventors are granted. There are plenty of trivial software and business method patents granted in the US, but I don't consider WAFL to be among them. And it is to be expected that different organisations treat their patent portfolios in different ways, and in particular for companies like Sun to hold a sizeable portfolio of software patents which they have no intention of actively enforcing: rather, they are a form of Mutually Assured Destruction if someone has a go at them.

If NetApp had played this differently, they could have portrayed this as a David and Goliath struggle, with them being the "little guy" whose patents were being trampled by a bully. Whatever the situation with mutual infringements with Sun, they could portray WAFL as their "crown jewels" with Sun using its superior firepower to intimidate them into backing down.

But by choosing to sue in Eastern Texas, NetApps has portrayed itself as a patent troll rather than a genuinely aggrieved party. They are implying "we're having a go here to see what we can squeeze out" rather than "we have a principled objection and want a proper settlement". They are saying "no, we won't discuss this over dinner with Jonathan, we'll blow raspberries at him then run away". In the last few years we've seen "New Sun" kiss and make up with Microsoft, and play very nicely with IBM. Perhaps this more grown up Sun is more threatening to NetApps than the old one?