On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:41:57 -0600 Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600 > > John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>hendrik writes: > >> > >>>Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US, > >>>anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel? > >> > >>No (that patent is not new). > > > > > > They can pry my FAT from my cold dead... ohhh, sorry, this isn't slashdot. > > ;) > > > > > >>>Do we have to stop distributing the kernel until we've done so? > >> > >>No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents. > >>Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the > >>owner is likely to enforce them on us. > > > > > > Unfortunately, my understanding is that M$ intends to enforce this patent. > > and its not clear to me whether the patent applies to drivers or to the act > > of writing a FAT system. If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT > > system is a clean-room creation and would probably be okay. If it applies > > to the act of writing a FAT system (talking outmy FAT *ss here) then nobody > > can write FAT with out paying their $0.25 > > Which Patent? What is the date? Stolen from Cnet talkback posting: According to http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp they are talking about 3 Patents U.S. Patent #5,579,517, U.S. Patent #5,758,352, & U.S. Patent #6,286,013 they are dated 1996, 1998 and 2001 respectively. I'm too lazy to read them, but here are the links http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,579,517.WKU.&OS=PN/5,579,517&RS=PN/5,579,517 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,758,352.WKU.&OS=PN/5,758,352&RS=PN/5,758,352 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,286,013.WKU.&OS=PN/6,286,013&RS=PN/6,286,013 A > We've been using FAT since > at least 1984 or so. Any patent on FAT per se would have > expired. Perhaps FAT32 only? > > Mike > -- > p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} > This message made from 100% recycled bits. > You have found the bank of Larn. > I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. > I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that! > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
