Ouch!

[Mike McCarty]

STYMA, ROBERT E (ROBERT) wrote:
>>Robert P. J. Day:
>>
>>>i'm not sure i agree.  as a previous poster mentioned, a patent on
>>>the long names featurs of FAT has the potential to impact a lot of
>>>handheld/digital/personal devices -- PDAs, digital cameras, etc.
>>
>>Microsoft hoping to rake in more revenue from appliances using *their*
>>technology, more than trying to prevent people using it...
>>
>>Wouldn't such devices be better off with something like UDF, instead
>>though?
>>
> 
> This raises the question as to exactly what would have to be licensed.
> Since the format of a FAT file system has long been documented would
> you need a license to read at FAT file system, write a FAT file system, 
> create a FAT file system, or just have the file system on a device?
> 

I read the patents quickly, and there are two things which are
patented: the use of long file names, and the API to read and
write directory entries with LFNs. FAT itself is not patented,
since it has been in use since 1984 or so. (At least FAT12 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!