Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?

[Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net>]

Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600
> John Hasler <jhasler@debian.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? 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!