FAT patent [LWN.net]

FAT patent

Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:46 UTC (Thu) by dps (subscriber, #5725)
In reply to: FAT patent by corbet
Parent article: Microsoft sues TomTom

According to a web page the FAT parent *was* invalidated in 2004. IANAL but surely claiming violation of an invalid patent is useless. I doubt TomTom's kernels include FAT support anyway.

I am one of those that thinks algorithms and data structures are mathematics, so never patentable in any circumstances. Did Fredman and Tarjan miss is a trick by not patenting Fibonacci heaps? Nobody knows a priority heap structure that is asymptopically better.

The USPTO *should* be able to uncover relevant journal articles and read them. Given some of the patents granted I have my doubts about whether they can.

(Log in to post comments)

FAT patent

Posted Feb 26, 2009 1:59 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

TomTom's kernels have FAT support because (most of) their devices allow (in some cases require) you to insert a formatted SD card full of data. Since users will inevitably access this SD card from a PC, it has to use FAT.

FAT patent

Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:28 UTC (Thu) by dr_lha (guest, #86) [Link]

Its not just SD card support. The lower end TomToms don't take SD cards, but themselves act like
flash drives when plugged into a computer via USB, allowing for installing of new maps, updates
etc. Of course so that the TomTom can be mounted on pretty much every computer, the thing is
formatted as FAT.

FAT patent

Posted Feb 26, 2009 13:04 UTC (Thu) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link]

Yes but then linux kernel FAT driver is not used at all, usb storage is block device. It is up to the host computer and its FAT driver to write there.

FAT patent

Posted Feb 26, 2009 14:03 UTC (Thu) by klaasjan (guest, #5492) [Link]

I think the navigation unit has to be able to read it's FAT-formatted filesystem to display the maps written there...

FAT patent

Posted Feb 26, 2009 20:08 UTC (Thu) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link]

You're right, completely forgot about this. But still, aren't those patents about methods of _writing_ long and short file names? Once it is so cleverly and innovativelly written you just read it, no space for creativity there. Would a read only driver violate patent too?