Ouch!

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 09:58, Roger Heflin wrote:
> > >
> > > It is not a patent for FAT in general.
> > 
> > um ... so the concept of supporting longer filenames 
> > qualifies as "novel and non-obvious?"  really?
> 
> 
> Apparently the screwball way they did it, yes, they had to come
> up with the method to put things into the already existing structures,
> and I believe it is rather a odd hack, since the pre-existing structures
> only have space for 8+3, how they are doing it is a lot different than
> the way one does it for a filesystem designed from the ground up to accept
> long filenames.

So the way to protect something is to do it badly the first time
and then add a quirky work-around to fix some of the problems?
I don't think that qualifies as "novel" for Microsoft, though.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com