Re: [debian-knoppix] DOS boot image for syslinux -- MS patents
Hi Terry,
Thankyou for your informed intervention. I have since read the patents and despite my iffy interpretation of legaleze I more or less concur with your findings. Again I would like to thank all who've helped me. I was very alarmed at the MS anouncement that they would licence makers of removable media, including floppies (which use I beleive fat12) for distribution rights.
All the best, Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: terry <terry0051@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:35 pm
Subject: [debian-knoppix] DOS boot image for syslinux -- MS patents
> [a_wilson@mit.edu cited MS patents identified
> in a MS press release, and there was discussion
> about what they might cover.]
>
> While it is true that the Microsoft press
> release does say "FAT File System Technology
> and Patent License", there is a contrast as
> soon as you start reading the US patents
> themselves that were cited in the release --
> because these patents do not appear to make
> any reference to file allocation tables in
> their patent claims.
>
> Neither does the one European patent
> (EP 0 578 205) that corresponds to the
> US patents named by MS in the release.
>
> What the patent claims appear to be
> concerned with is a "common name space
> for long and short filenames", and/or
> a "multiple file name referencing system".
>
> The corresponding MS European patent
> 0578205 appears to be even more specific
> than that. Its claims all appear to focus
> on situations where there is "an operating
> system using an os file name format and an
> application using an application file name
> format", and where files are referenced
> via access to a B-tree that stores os
> entries for the os formatted names, and
> application entries for the application
> formatted names.
>
> (Several of the US patent claims are not
> tied to the use of B-trees, however.)
>
> Clearly these patents do not 'bite on' to
> the simple presence of an FAT file system.
> As has been mentioned already, FAT was
> public knowledge for a long time, e.g.
> before any priority date that can belong
> to any still-unexpired patent in Europe
> (priority date must be <= 21 years before
> the present), so any European patent
> claim that covers it now, must be invalid
> because of a lack of novelty.
>
> If a syslinux implementation relies on FAT
> along with 8.3 filenames, it is certainly
> hard in any case to see how these patents
> could be in any way relevant.
>
> Possibly also there can be ways to implement
> long filenames in a FAT system, that do not
> involve using any of the arrangements as
> set out in MSoft's patent claims for
> relating two kinds of filenames to each other.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry!
> Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to
> be. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21064/*http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> debian-knoppix mailing list
> debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
> http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
debian-knoppix mailing list
debian-knoppix@linuxtag.org
http://mailman.linuxtag.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-knoppix
Reply to: