Ouch!

[Mike McCarty]

Rickey Moore wrote:
> 
> "STYMA, ROBERT E (ROBERT)" <stymar at lucent.com> 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?
> Whatever  happened to Caldera's Canopy Group's lawsuit against MS after
 > they  acquired the rights to Digital's DrDOS? There was alot of 
restraint of

   trade issues raised... CP/M used 8.3 file names too... way before DOS.

   <cackles> I remember, I used CP/M, I'm that old and crusty. 
<cackles> Ric

I suggest that you read the patents. They don't patent FAT, they
patent a means for storing LFNs in a manner "compatible" with
FAT. And 8.3 certainly is not what the patents cover.

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!