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

[Hal Vaughan <hal@thresholddigital.com>]

On Wednesday 11 January 2006 09:55 pm, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jason Michaelson wrote:
> > One thing that i find interesting about this is that if, indeed, the
> > patents only apply to using multiple directory entries on an "8.3" file
> > system to simulate long names (as appears to be the case), digital
> > cameras don't fall under the patent.
>
> Personally, if someone can show that fat long filenames are the only
> thing that falls under the patent, I think it would be great if support
> for them got removed from linux's fat filesystems. It's not as if
> windows manages to use long filenames consistently anyway, so everyone
> knows how to deal with MICROSO~.1 already.

I guess you've never had to set up many partitions that are easily readable by 
Windows and Linux.  It's not like Windows reads much besides MS proprietary 
formats (except things like ISO filesystems on CDs).

Hal