Andrew Sackville-West:
> John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
As already suggested, MS tries to generate revenue by licensing the FAT
patents to hardware producers which deliver disks with FAT on it. But I
don't know whether the patents could also be used against software
authors.
> If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system is a
> clean-room creation and would probably be okay.
No, you are confusing the patent system with copyright. A patent covers
*an idea*, not an implementation.
Say, you are Shakespeare and hold a patent for a story about a girl and
a boy whose friends/families don't like each other. In the end, both of
them commit suicide. Now, only two years after your patent has been
granted, Leonard Bernstein comes along and produces the West Side Story.
Since you have the patent, you can sue Bernstein and in the end he would
have to pay a license fee to you. If you didn't have a patent on the
story, but only the copyright, you had no grounds to sue Bernstein
since he only stole the *idea*. not the "implementation".
J.
--
Ultimately, the Millenium Dome is a spectacular monument of the
doublethink of our times.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature