Ten Reasons To *NOT* Use ZFS:

[Mikkel L. Ellertson]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>>> I don't see a solution there... Either a company patents it now as a
>>> protective measure or they let someone else do it.  Either way
>>> it might end up owned by someone else later.  What's the alternative?
>>> Do you expect the patent office to suddenly start doing their job
>>> and disallowing patents that are obvious or mathematical algorithms?
>>>
>> There is one - publish it without patenting it. Then it is prier
>> art, and can not be patented. You may still end up in court, but it
>> makes it fairly easy to defend yourself when you can produce a
>> publication of the application that the other company says infringes
>> on their patent that predates their patent.
> 
> But that opens the door to small variations that others can still
> attempt to patent.  For example the only real difference in the
> (now expired) RSA patent that was granted early on in this mess
> and a prior version was the use of prime numbers as factors.
> 
I guess if you had a patent, you could threaten to sue the other
company on patent infringement. Outside of that, I do not see the
difference. If it is different enough not to be covered by prier
art, then it is different enough to get a patent on.

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!