Ouch!

[John Summerfied]

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'm a bit puzzled about this: patents have a limited lifetime. 17 years 
I believe.

FAT is older than that.
As I understand it, patents have to be applied for before the details 
are released publicly. Details of the long filename support in FAT would 
have been divulged no later than the release of the first beta of 
Windows 95.


I don't know about the betas, but I believe W95 was released in 1995.


Maybe it's time for us all to switch to a Linux distro that's not 
domiciled in the Untied States.


-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au  Z1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/

do not reply off-list