German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
In judgement number X ZR 27/07, handed down on Tuesday, the tenth civil division of the Karlsruhe-based court confirmed the enforceability of the company's commercial rights in Germany. It has not yet published its reasoning, but has confirmed the decision in a short press release."
Posted Apr 23, 2010 18:32 UTC (Fri)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 23, 2010 21:36 UTC (Fri)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link]
Posted Apr 24, 2010 16:45 UTC (Sat)
by fb (guest, #53265)
[Link]
Posted Apr 24, 2010 0:04 UTC (Sat)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'm going to be documenting this on en.swpat.org. All help welcome.
I can't read German, so German speakers might be particularly helpful.
Posted Apr 24, 2010 20:48 UTC (Sat)
by hjkoch (guest, #45353)
[Link]
Posted Apr 24, 2010 7:45 UTC (Sat)
by kunitz (subscriber, #3965)
[Link]
The court came to the conclusion that it teaches something new, because the ISO-9660 rock-ridge extension stores the long and short file name in the same directory entry and FAT stores it in two entries. The decision was based on a subject matter expert statement. For technical issues German courts name a subject matter expert and the judgement depends mainly on the opinion of the expert. There is nothing more, the court will publish a reasoning of the decision and we might learn more reading it.
If it mentions the software patentability issue I expect the court to say, that it hadn't the task to look on this, but only to verify whether the judgement of the lower court that the patent doesn't teach anything new was correct.
Posted Apr 24, 2010 10:00 UTC (Sat)
by petegn (guest, #847)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Apr 24, 2010 15:08 UTC (Sat)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (8 responses)
Thanks.
Posted Apr 24, 2010 16:32 UTC (Sat)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 24, 2010 17:35 UTC (Sat)
by DOT (subscriber, #58786)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 26, 2010 9:36 UTC (Mon)
by lmartelli (subscriber, #11755)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 24, 2010 19:02 UTC (Sat)
by endecotp (guest, #36428)
[Link]
Posted Apr 24, 2010 20:38 UTC (Sat)
by biged (guest, #50106)
[Link] (2 responses)
Elsewhere I've seen downvoted comments styled as grey - they fade out. (Better than drawing attention to them, and more public than a killfile approach.)
(I'm not suggesting a voting system, just an editorial control. I realise it's some programming effort, and I realise you don't want to find yourself working as a censor. But it's a way for the site to advertise its integrity.)
Posted Apr 24, 2010 20:46 UTC (Sat)
by rvfh (guest, #31018)
[Link]
Posted Apr 24, 2010 22:52 UTC (Sat)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted Apr 26, 2010 12:07 UTC (Mon)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link]
If a court is asked a specific question, it has to answer that, period.
Go over to Groklaw (or a number of other law-oriented sites about the US system for that matter) and you will see exactly the same pattern.
Posted Apr 29, 2010 14:24 UTC (Thu)
by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
[Link] (1 responses)
Sigh. So are the times, not even good flames nowadays.
And now get off my lawn.
Posted May 8, 2010 17:52 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Apr 25, 2010 15:41 UTC (Sun)
by callegar (guest, #16148)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 25, 2010 16:39 UTC (Sun)
by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
[Link]
Since I am using UDF only for file transfer, not for storage (for storage I would simply use btrfs or ext4), I have no real need for any kind of fsck; I can simply run mkudffs again.
Posted May 6, 2010 17:30 UTC (Thu)
by Epicanis (guest, #62805)
[Link]
I was quite annoyed to find my shiny new Linux-based Android phone did NOT support UDF. I was hoping to switch to UDF rather than patent-choked FAT for my cards. I imagine one could simply recompile the Android kernel to support UDF, but from the messages I saw it appears that Android is possibly hard-coded to assume that the sdcard will always be Microsoft FAT format and will error out if that is not the case. (The Android kernel on my phone claims to support ext2 at least, but it still fails to mount ext2-formatted sdcards, giving me some kind of complaint about the FAT filesystem checker failing when trying to read the card...) Dear Google: Please save us! optional UDF support in addition to FAT would be helpful... Since every modern OS can read and write UDF just fine (I'm not counting XP as "modern", but even XP can at least READ UDF), and is suppposed to be POSIX compliant, it seems like a much better option for non-Windows devices...
Many Europeans seem to think that software patents are a purely American problem. This should disabuse them of that notion.
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
Flames to appear here
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
documenting it on http://en.swpat.org/
documenting it on http://en.swpat.org/
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/German-appeal-cour...
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
This kind of thing seems not very helpful; I'd sure like to see less of it on LWN. Any chance you could hold off next time?
Please
Jon, you have the power to see less of that on LWN. You could remove offensive, off-topic, bigoted comments.
Please
Please
Please
Please
Please
Please
Please
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent (The H)
UDF FTW