Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
Jochen Schulz wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West:
[snip]
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.
IANAL, but I did take a course in "intellectual property rights"
once upon a time.
Patents cover (in the USA) four things exactly, viz. (1) processes,
(2) improvements to processes, (3) devices, and (4) improvements
to devices. The words "process" and "device" are very generously
interpreted. A mouse with special genes may be, for example, a
device.
I have an idea for a time machine. But that idea is not patentable.
A time machine *device* would be patentable. So would special
processes for manufacturing key parts of the device, if there
were some.
At least one patent has been retracted due to someone later showing
that a device constructed on the principles claimed in the patent
would not work as described.
Ideas are not patentable (in the USA).
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
No such patent could be granted in the USA. (I realize that you are
speaking hypothetically.)
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".
What you say about copyright is correct as far as it goes. Copyright
protects the actual words used to tell a story. If you and I go
on a boating trip, and come back and write about our adventures,
even though we tell the same story, we do not infringe on each
other's rights.
Likewise, the "clean room" argument made above by Andrew is
inapplicable to a patent. What is covered by the patents I
read would (IMO) preclude anyone from creating LFN entries in a
FAT style directory without license from MicroSoft. (Using the
technique described in the patent, that is.)
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!
Reply to: