* FAT and Microsoft patent? @ 2006-01-11 14:59 Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's patent on FAT is valid. Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 14:59 FAT and Microsoft patent? Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:43 ` Ram Gupta ` (2 more replies) 2006-01-11 15:35 ` Bernd Petrovitsch ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: linux-os (Dick Johnson) @ 2006-01-11 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: > According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's > patent on FAT is valid. > > Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? > > Chris You mean the expired patent circa 1980 for their first use of this technology? This is 2006, 26 years later. Patents don't run forever, you know. That's the reason why it has become the 'universal' file- system, not because it's a good file-system, but because it's now in the public domain due to expiration. And, can you cite the 'various sources'. They seem to be like spooks under the bridge, completely without merit. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.71 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. . **************************************************************** The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) @ 2006-01-11 15:43 ` Ram Gupta 2006-01-11 15:46 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:52 ` Roger Heflin 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ram Gupta @ 2006-01-11 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-os (Dick Johnson); +Cc: Christopher Friesen, linux-kernel On 1/11/06, linux-os (Dick Johnson) <linux-os@analogic.com> wrote: > > > You mean the expired patent circa 1980 for their first use of this > technology? This is 2006, 26 years later. Patents don't run forever, > you know. That's the reason why it has become the 'universal' file- > system, not because it's a good file-system, but because it's now > in the public domain due to expiration. > There is some discussion on eweek http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1867102,00.asp about it . It does not seem quite settled yet. Ram ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:43 ` Ram Gupta @ 2006-01-11 15:46 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:59 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:52 ` Roger Heflin 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-os (Dick Johnson); +Cc: linux-kernel linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: > > >>According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's >>patent on FAT is valid. >> >>Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? >> >>Chris > > > You mean the expired patent circa 1980 for their first use of this > technology? No, I mean the three listed on Microsoft's website: # U.S. Patent #5,579,517 "Common name space for long and short filenames" Nov 26, 1996 # U.S. Patent #5,758,352 "Common name space for long and short filenames" May 26, 1998 # U.S. Patent #6,286,013 "Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system" September 4, 2001 Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:46 ` Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 15:59 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: linux-os (Dick Johnson) @ 2006-01-11 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: > linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: >> >> >>> According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's >>> patent on FAT is valid. >>> >>> Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? >>> >>> Chris >> >> >> You mean the expired patent circa 1980 for their first use of this >> technology? > > No, I mean the three listed on Microsoft's website: > > # U.S. Patent #5,579,517 "Common name space for long and short > filenames" Nov 26, 1996 > > # U.S. Patent #5,758,352 "Common name space for long and short > filenames" May 26, 1998 > > # U.S. Patent #6,286,013 "Method and system for providing a common name > space for long and short file names in an operating system" September 4, > 2001 > > Chris > Ah yes. The "container file" patents. Filed somewhat late, too. About 20 years after first use by Xerox. I don't think you need to worry too much. The FILENAME.TYP standard file-name had it's start with Intel's MDS-200 and was appropriated by Gary Kildall of Digital Research for CP/M. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.71 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. . **************************************************************** The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* RE: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:43 ` Ram Gupta 2006-01-11 15:46 ` Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 15:52 ` Roger Heflin 2006-01-11 15:49 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:51 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Roger Heflin @ 2006-01-11 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'linux-os (Dick Johnson)', 'Christopher Friesen' Cc: linux-kernel > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of > linux-os (Dick Johnson) > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:32 AM > To: Christopher Friesen > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: > > > According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's > > patent on FAT is valid. > > > > Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? > > > > Chris > > You mean the expired patent circa 1980 for their first use of > this technology? This is 2006, 26 years later. Patents don't > run forever, you know. That's the reason why it has become > the 'universal' file- system, not because it's a good > file-system, but because it's now in the public domain due to > expiration. > > And, can you cite the 'various sources'. They seem to be like > spooks under the bridge, completely without merit. The patent upheld is for long filenames on a FAT filesystem, not for FAT in general. Not a major thing to go without. It would be nice it the original poster would have done 30 seconds more research before posting. Roger ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:52 ` Roger Heflin @ 2006-01-11 15:49 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:57 ` Antonio Vargas ` (2 more replies) 2006-01-11 15:51 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roger Heflin; +Cc: 'linux-os (Dick Johnson)', linux-kernel Roger Heflin wrote: > The patent upheld is for long filenames on a FAT filesystem, not > for FAT in general. It appears that Microsoft specifically lists three patents, but they're all related to long filenames. > Not a major thing to go without. True. > It would be nice it the original poster would have done 30 seconds > more research before posting. The question still holds in modified form...will we need to remove this functionality, or is it currently implemented in a way that does not infringe on the patent? Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:49 ` Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 15:57 ` Antonio Vargas 2006-01-11 17:48 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-11 16:12 ` Bernd Petrovitsch 2006-01-11 17:13 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Antonio Vargas @ 2006-01-11 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen, Roger Heflin, linux-os (Dick Johnson), linux-kernel On 1/11/06, Christopher Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com> wrote: > Roger Heflin wrote: > > > The patent upheld is for long filenames on a FAT filesystem, not > > for FAT in general. > > It appears that Microsoft specifically lists three patents, but they're > all related to long filenames. > > > Not a major thing to go without. > > True. > > > It would be nice it the original poster would have done 30 seconds > > more research before posting. > > The question still holds in modified form...will we need to remove this > functionality, or is it currently implemented in a way that does not > infringe on the patent? > > Chris The linux-kernel implementation could be argued to be needed for inter-operation with a parallel install of windows on a dual boot machine ;) -- Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network http://wind.codepixel.com/ windNOenSPAMntw@gmail.com thesameasabove@amigascne.org Every day, every year you have to work you have to study you have to scene. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:57 ` Antonio Vargas @ 2006-01-11 17:48 ` Lee Revell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Lee Revell @ 2006-01-11 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Antonio Vargas Cc: Christopher Friesen, Roger Heflin, linux-os (Dick Johnson), linux-kernel On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:57 +0100, Antonio Vargas wrote: > The linux-kernel implementation could be argued to be needed for > inter-operation with a parallel install of windows on a dual boot > machine ;) IANAL but I'm pretty sure there is no interoperability exception for patent infringement. Lee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:49 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:57 ` Antonio Vargas @ 2006-01-11 16:12 ` Bernd Petrovitsch 2006-01-11 17:13 ` Rik van Riel 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Bernd Petrovitsch @ 2006-01-11 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen Cc: Roger Heflin, 'linux-os (Dick Johnson)', linux-kernel On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 09:49 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote: [...] > The question still holds in modified form...will we need to remove this > functionality, or is it currently implemented in a way that does not > infringe on the patent? This is a law question (and not a technical one) and AFAICS it can only answered by a judge in court. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:49 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:57 ` Antonio Vargas 2006-01-11 16:12 ` Bernd Petrovitsch @ 2006-01-11 17:13 ` Rik van Riel 2006-01-11 17:20 ` Alistair John Strachan 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2006-01-11 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen Cc: Roger Heflin, 'linux-os (Dick Johnson)', linux-kernel On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: > The question still holds in modified form...will we need to remove this > functionality, or is it currently implemented in a way that does not > infringe on the patent? I would not be surprised if the UMSDOS filesystem predated VFAT by a few years - but this was all quite a while ago, and I'm not sure the patents cover something that UMSDOS could have prior art on... -- All Rights Reversed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 17:13 ` Rik van Riel @ 2006-01-11 17:20 ` Alistair John Strachan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Alistair John Strachan @ 2006-01-11 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rik van Riel Cc: Christopher Friesen, Roger Heflin, 'linux-os (Dick Johnson)', linux-kernel On Wednesday 11 January 2006 17:13, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: > > The question still holds in modified form...will we need to remove this > > functionality, or is it currently implemented in a way that does not > > infringe on the patent? > > I would not be surprised if the UMSDOS filesystem predated > VFAT by a few years - but this was all quite a while ago, > and I'm not sure the patents cover something that UMSDOS > could have prior art on... I think the patents are on LFN, which is not VFAT, probably a lot younger, and as other people have mentioned on this thread, a lot less of a patent threat. -- Cheers, Alistair. 'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.' Third year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* RE: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 15:52 ` Roger Heflin 2006-01-11 15:49 ` Christopher Friesen @ 2006-01-11 15:51 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: linux-os (Dick Johnson) @ 2006-01-11 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roger Heflin; +Cc: Christopher Friesen, linux-kernel On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Roger Heflin wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org >> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of >> linux-os (Dick Johnson) >> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:32 AM >> To: Christopher Friesen >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? >> >> >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote: >> >>> According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's >>> patent on FAT is valid. >>> >>> Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? >>> >>> Chris >> >> You mean the expired patent circa 1980 for their first use of >> this technology? This is 2006, 26 years later. Patents don't >> run forever, you know. That's the reason why it has become >> the 'universal' file- system, not because it's a good >> file-system, but because it's now in the public domain due to >> expiration. >> >> And, can you cite the 'various sources'. They seem to be like >> spooks under the bridge, completely without merit. > > The patent upheld is for long filenames on a FAT filesystem, not > for FAT in general. > > Not a major thing to go without. > > It would be nice it the original poster would have done 30 seconds > more research before posting. > > Roger > Yes. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.13.4 on an i686 machine (5589.71 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. . **************************************************************** The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 14:59 FAT and Microsoft patent? Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) @ 2006-01-11 15:35 ` Bernd Petrovitsch 2006-01-11 15:53 ` Arjan van de Ven 2006-01-11 18:47 ` Jeff V. Merkey 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Bernd Petrovitsch @ 2006-01-11 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 08:59 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote: > According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's > patent on FAT is valid. "ruled"? Isn't that the job of courts (and of course not of the executive part of a government)? And yes, there is another interpretation possible - justice is no longer separated from the executive part. And it is the job of the USPTO to grant patents and not to hinder them. > Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? There are lots of patents in the USPTO. Have fun removing everything which is claimed by some granted patent. It boils down or `rm -rf world`. Bernd, NAL -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 14:59 FAT and Microsoft patent? Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:35 ` Bernd Petrovitsch @ 2006-01-11 15:53 ` Arjan van de Ven 2006-01-11 18:47 ` Jeff V. Merkey 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2006-01-11 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen; +Cc: linux-kernel On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 08:59 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote: > According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's > patent on FAT is valid. > > Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? this only impacts people who took a license, since then section 7 of the GPL forbids distribution of linux by those people ;) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: FAT and Microsoft patent? 2006-01-11 14:59 FAT and Microsoft patent? Christopher Friesen ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2006-01-11 15:53 ` Arjan van de Ven @ 2006-01-11 18:47 ` Jeff V. Merkey 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jeff V. Merkey @ 2006-01-11 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Friesen; +Cc: linux-kernel Christopher Friesen wrote: > According to various sources, the USPTO has ruled that Microsoft's > patent on FAT is valid. > > Does this impact Linux? Will we have to remove the filesystem? > > Chris > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > This also affects DRDOS. I will notify folks about this. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-11 20:31 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-01-11 14:59 FAT and Microsoft patent? Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:31 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:43 ` Ram Gupta 2006-01-11 15:46 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:59 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:52 ` Roger Heflin 2006-01-11 15:49 ` Christopher Friesen 2006-01-11 15:57 ` Antonio Vargas 2006-01-11 17:48 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-11 16:12 ` Bernd Petrovitsch 2006-01-11 17:13 ` Rik van Riel 2006-01-11 17:20 ` Alistair John Strachan 2006-01-11 15:51 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson) 2006-01-11 15:35 ` Bernd Petrovitsch 2006-01-11 15:53 ` Arjan van de Ven 2006-01-11 18:47 ` Jeff V. Merkey
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).