| |||||||||||
FAT not the problemFAT not the problemPosted Dec 8, 2003 18:05 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165)Parent article: Microsoft aiming IBM-scale patent program at Linux? (Register) It will be easy to work around the FAT patents, for most uses. They only apply to creating (or renaming) files with long names. To copy files between MSWindows and our systems, we can just avoid the long names. Cameras don't create files with long names, they can easily stick to 8.3 names. Flash memory manufacturers can format the devices with no files on them at all, so they also are not affected. However, the vfat driver in the kernel might need to be pared down. The bigger issue is what other patents MS has. Probably if IBM cuts a deal with MS, it will be that MS promises not to enforce anything against Linux, in any form. MS is likely to cheat by "encouraging" nominally-unrelated companies to attack Linux, just as they have bankrolled SCO.
(Log in to post comments)
FAT not the problem Posted Dec 8, 2003 18:52 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] You're assuming that the patent is valid; first look for prior art.
FAT not the problem Posted Dec 9, 2003 4:17 UTC (Tue) by larryblunk (guest, #12587) [Link] Patent 5,579,517 mentions a couple of articles from PC Magazineon "long file names and extended attributes" that were published in April and May of 1990. They were written by one of the patent authors, Ray Duncan. However, the initial patent application was not filed until April 1, 1993. I was under the impression you only had a year to file from the date of the initial publication of the details of your patent claims. Perhaps, the extensions mentioned in the PC Magazine articles are substantially different from what's in the patent claims. However, it would seem to be worthwhile to look up these articles. I wonder if the patent examiner even bothered to do this?
|
|||||||||||