decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
These patents seem squarely aimed at SSD storage, ie static RAM | 167 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
These patents seem squarely aimed at SSD storage, ie static RAM
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, April 09 2013 @ 10:43 AM EDT
Nothing in these patents demands a hard disk. It requires only a memory system,
and a non-volatile memory section.

That includes:
static RAM, tape drive, RAID, CDRW, floppy disk.

Nothing in this "management system" requires continuous monitoring, it
merely has to be a system that is "capable of detecting faults" and
repairing said faults. It never says it can't be a management system started by
a manual process. So any PC which has volatile and non-volatile memory and has a
software program for checking disks for bad sectors and removing them from use
qualifies. You have to read the actual wording of the claims. Everything else is
fluff. The claims are controlling and nowhere does it imply the memory system
has to do this error checking and repair in real-time.

The only sticking point I see, is a memory system which detects and disables
volatile memory and copied a back up to static memory. I can't say my old XT
clone did that. But certainly the old 1970s and 80s mainframes did. You have to
go to the bigger iron for this patent to be fully debunked. But ALL the
mainframes from the 70s and 80s and 90s did EVERYTHING in these patents. Just
pick one, that's all you need is one. Here IBM S/390, commercially available in
1991, more than a decade before. The Sperry Univac 1108 (1964). Sperry Univac
1100/60 (1979).

For the frosting on the cake:

UNISYS 2200/3800 introduced in 1997, I could be wrong but I remember a tech
hotswapping memory block from this when it detected a memory system error once!
An entire drive went bad, the system routed around it and we hotswapped a drive,
once it arrived next day air from Unisys.

I don't know how these patent trolls can keep a straight face with these claims.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )