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.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: network appliances, sun

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sun Shows NetApp How A Patent Nuclear War Works”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re:

RandomThoughts, do you sit here all day reloading Techdirt? You seem to post before even *I* realize I’ve put a post up…

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.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re:

And if all a company does is sue, how can they infringe on someone else?

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.

4-80-sicks says:

Go Sun!
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.

Susheel Daswani (user link) says:

Same old Technique

I hate to start up the argument wheel, but Mike is avoiding the obvious retort to his statement that “[p]atents … remove competition — and therefore tend to hinder that innovation.” His statement ignores any innovation that resulted from the drive to patent. The patent system acknowledges that the loss of some competitive activity is balanced by the gain in innovation (or invention, whatever). I agree with a lot of what Mike says (i.e., it isn’t clear if the balance is worth it), but he stubbornly likes to frame the debate by labeling those who believe in the patent system as pro-monopoly / anti-competition.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Same old Technique

I hate to start up the argument wheel, but Mike is avoiding the obvious retort to his statement that “[p]atents … remove competition — and therefore tend to hinder that innovation.” His statement ignores any innovation that resulted from the drive to patent.

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.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: #9

If Mike accepted nuance he wouldn’t ignore that possibility that the patent system may be aiding innovation. He seemingly leaves no room for that possibility.

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.

Mart says:

I never really get how people can still claim that (only) patents lead to innovation. Just look at Europe. We don’t have any sort of patents on software here. If the patent theory was correct, this would mean that there would hardly be any innovation in that area. This is where the theory breaks off course, because there’s lots of innovation in Europe, from small to large companies developing all sorts of new products. So why don’t “you Americans” look outside of your borders for this one time and see that patents (in software) are only costing the industry, and don’t have practical use?

Bryan (user link) says:

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.

injection molding (user link) says:

As we all know, nearly almost plastic products around you was made through plastic injection molding – the mouse you are using to click, the PET containers you use to store water or food, and also China printing can help us made the labels to attract potential customers and steel and aluminum made scaffolding made for the purpose of construction and renovation works.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...