Sun Shows NetApp How A Patent Nuclear War Works
from the you-sure-you-want-to-do-that... dept
While you can question the motives, Sun has actually been quite vocal recently over the question of software patents. Sun CEO Jonathon Schwartz has pointed out that successful companies innovate while unsuccessful ones litigate. And, indeed, Sun hasn't been going around filing patent lawsuits left and right, (or threatening to do so) like some other companies. However, it's quite clear that Sun understands the value of defensive patenting, since patents have become the nuclear stockpiling of the software world. Thus, it should come as no surprise that following Network Appliance's decision to sue Sun for patent infringement that Sun has struck back hard, accusing Network Appliances of violating 12 patents, and basically saying that many of NetApps' offerings are in violation and should be blocked. Schwartz makes it clear that he'd prefer to avoid this sort of nuclear response, but he's sending a message: if you're going to sue rather than innovate, you need to be prepared for the response to come back much more forcefully. There's no doubt that some of this is clearly posturing on Sun's part, to win more fans in the open source community -- but that's a perfectly good reason for doing what they're doing. The end result is expressing what many of us around here believe: competition drives innovation. Patents, on the other hand, remove competition -- and therefore tend to hinder that innovation. Having to use patents defensively is an unfortunate and expensive negative externality of the system, and it's nice to see Sun publicly supporting that position.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lawsuits, patents
Companies: network appliances, sun
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So Sun innovated (wait, I thought bringing something to market was innovation, not patents?) and now uses patents defensively, this reduces innovation?
Now you're just playing around, right? Go back and read the post. There are two separate things: innovating and getting patents. They're not the same. No one ever said that they were mutually exclusive, however. So someone could innovate and patent at the same time.
But, yes, it does reduce innovation. Companies waste money filing for and defending patents -- money that could go towards more real innovation. And, all those patent disputes delay or hold back the competitive elements that really drive innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is exactly the big complaint many people have about the companies that just sue. In the past, many of these patent nuclear wars were held at bay, because no one wanted to get sued back (the "nuclear stockpiling" argument). The patent hoarders made that much more difficult because there was no way to sue them back for infringement as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Wait
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071021/141623.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand how NetApp can try to sue over ZFS. Is this a case where someone files a patent for something that already exists and is already in use? Schwartz says NetApp wants Sun to pull ZFS from OSS and not allow it to be used on hard drives--what elese would you use it on?? And what claim can NetApp lay to ZFS when it's clearly documented that Sun came up with it in the first place? Whattabuncha jerks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Mike!
very witty indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same old Technique
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old Technique
Susheel, I'm not ignoring it. I've pointed to the research that shows that it's not needed. Yes, patents give some people monopoly rents, but the purpose is not monopoly rents -- it's to create incentive for innovation. Yet when you look at the economic research, you see over and over again two important trends: innovation works just fine in the totally open market without patents *and* patents quite often hinder innovation.
So, no I don't deny that there may be cases where patents can create incentives for *some* kinds of innovation -- but it's skewed, because it focuses research efforts just on innovation that can be patented, and that's a problem. It is, in effect, the gov't picking who gets a subsidy and who doesn't.
And, if you believe in the open market to do a better job picking winners and losers, then you probably don't want the gov't subsidizing some times of winners and losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #9
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #9
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: #9
I'm all for nuance, but I like to keep my posts relatively short. That's why I link back to older articles so people can dig and understand the more nuanced points.
As I said, I've never ignored the fact that the patent system creates certain incentives, but I argue (and the econ research backs this up) that those incentives skew the market, and that's not good for anyone.
In the meantime, when I pick on a specific patent fight and show how it's harming innovation, I believe I'm pretty clear on the specifics. If you believe that this particular patent battle is NOT harming innovation, please explain how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I know that's not sensible - well, or is it? Obviously, the system in place now is far from sensible..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good For Sun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proportionate response
Waitaminute. Sun fired its popgun first, saying: Hey, we want $36M in licensing for tech we bought some patents to.
NetApp fired a popgun back, saying in effect: OK, on this matter, let's go to court and see who owns the IP.
Sun fired the third shot in the war, a nuclear bomb: All your NetApps are belong to us. Kiss your business goodbye, suckers, nobody plays proportionate response with us! Oh, and don't forget, we're the nice guys!
This is considered justifiable? Mike, I usually agree with you, but I wonder if you don't want to rethink this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proportionate response
NetApp went to StorageTek in 2002 asking to buy some of storageTeks patents.
StorageTek refused to sell but it said that it would license those patents to NetApp.
Sun buys StorageTek and continues the negotiations that NETAPP started.
NetApp then files a lawsuit against Sun....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
newest jordan shoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]