Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:41:57 -0600
Mike McCarty <email@example.com> wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600
> > John Hasler <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> We've been using FAT since
> at least 1984 or so. Any patent on FAT per se would have
> expired. Perhaps FAT32 only?
> 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 debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com