FAT and Microsoft patent?

FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Christopher Friesen]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

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.

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Ram Gupta]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Christopher Friesen]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

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.

RE: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Roger Heflin]

 

> -----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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Christopher Friesen]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Antonio Vargas]

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.

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Lee Revell]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Rik van Riel]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Alistair John Strachan]

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.

RE: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[linux-os (Dick Johnson)]

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.

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

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

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Arjan van de Ven]

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 ;)

Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

[Jeff V. Merkey]

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