Eastern Texas
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?