Authored by: perpetualLurker on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 04:13 PM EDT







Corrections in the title, Please!



......pL........



---

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --

Mark Twain

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: perpetualLurker on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 04:14 PM EDT







Let's try this again, with Feeling... and my ID....





........pL........



---

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --

Mark Twain

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: perpetualLurker on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 04:15 PM EDT







Thank you!





........pL..........



---

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." --

Mark Twain

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 04:35 PM EDT

I can't comment on the kernel license, but I think you make an incorrect statement when you say If they had upgraded the kernel to GPLv3, that would have been the end of this kind of Microsoft nonsense. The reason is: I don't know (and honestly I doubt) that TomTom has a kernel sufficiently recent to have an eventual GPLv3 license: they probably use a kernel version that is older than the GPLv3. If I'm wrong please hit me on the head (preferably hard). Loïc [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 04:37 PM EDT

Seriously, did anyone really believe that M$ had changed

their ways? All that talk has been PR, plain and simple.

Honorable people and organizations don't need PR. Their

actions speak for them.



;-)



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 05:14 PM EDT

I sent this idea to SFLC, but I'll post it here, too. If the agreement between

Microsoft and TomTom allows TomTom to meet its obligations under GPLv2, then at

least one of the following must be true: there is no code that infringes any of

the named patents that are valid, or, Microsoft has granted TomTom a license to

distribute infringing code without restriction, as required by GPLv2. In either

case the effect is the same: there is nothing preventing the code from remaining

in the Linux kernel.



I am not a lawyer, so it is likely I'm missing something. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 05:53 PM EDT

Unfortunately a lot of devices, with which Linux systems want to interoperate,

use FAT. FAT is everywhere, on every memory stick and thumb drive. Every

camera, every cellphone, every MP3 player, they all use FAT. So every system

that wants to share data with those devices has to talk FAT. I think. Is there

any way around this? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: gard on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 06:12 PM EDT

Hi,



I understand why the complete kernel can't go GPLv3 until all contributors

consent or GPLv2 parts are rewritten and released under v3. But why should the

entire kernel be under a single license? So long as the maintainers would agree

to accept GPLv3 code, the v3 license itself does not preclude co-existence with

v2 code; or, does it? A mixed GPLv2, v3 kernel will have to be released by

acknowledging that parts are under one license and parts under the other. But

distro-vendors can not sign patent agreements of the Novell kind without losing

their rights to release the GPLv3 parts of the kernel or cover all parts of the

kernel under their agreement. I am sure I am missing something very obvious

here. What is it?



gard [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ghopper on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 06:39 PM EDT

FAT is trivial to replace in these embedded devices. However, the problem comes

when you want to connect your device to your computer that runs Windows.

Windows does not support very many file systems (FAT and NTFS are the only ones

that come to mind). Most people don't want to install some 3rd party device

driver to download pictures from their camera. If the device doesn't speak FAT,

then Windows will not be able to read it. None of the device manufacturers want

to invent a new file system that makes their product incompatible with Windows.

(How would that affect sales?)



Even Apple folded on this one. An iPod comes formatted with an HFS variant, but

if you want to sync with a PC, you need to reformat it with FAT. This isn't

because Apple doesn't have another file system, it's because Microsoft refuses

to support anything other than FAT. Instead, Apple could have written an HFS

filesystem driver for Windows, but would customers have accepted that?



Seriously, if an embedded device manufacturer wanted to invent a file system,

they would pick something with better wear-leveling characteristics than FAT.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 07:25 PM EDT

Both the novell deal and this one promises ms wont sue end users, im kinda

curious as to what realistic chance they would have against an end user that

bought a product that the end user doesn't, and cannot posibly know infringes a

patent.

I know it is not very likely to happen anyway, but am still curious about the

possibilities. [ Reply to This | # ]



curious - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 01:37 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 08:02 PM EDT

maybe it's time for a preemptive suite like red had filed against SCO, force

Microsoft to defend those patents [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mexaly on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 08:28 PM EDT

When do(es) the(se) FAT patent(s) expire? 1990 was 19 years ago; there were

floppy disks back then, that had FAT filesystems.



I realize FAT has evolved, and the later versions probably have later patents.



But if there is an old enough patent, or a new FAT-compatible, non-monopoly

filesystem can be created to interoperate with the FAT family, wouldn't that get

around Microsoft's death-grip?



How long before the FAT patents don't matter anymore?



Also, how did this issue get killed with GIF? It was pretty much the same

picture until the owner of the patent buckled: old, ubiquitous technology that

had so many users that the owner couldn't sue them all.



---

IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on television.

My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 08:35 PM EDT



This quest needs to end.



We've seen now how much Microsoft respects it, so Linux needs to kiss off

Microsoft, too. If Microsoft wants to interoperate with Linux, they can do so

very easily. After all, it is acceptable, even under GPL3, to write proprietary

apps for Linux. Microsoft should come to us, not the other way around.



Isn't Linux mature enough now to do without FAT, VFAT, or even NTFS? Isn't it

time for Linux to make the break now? Get it out of the Linux kernel. Get a new

plan, Stan, and get yourself free.



Corporations can keep just enough Windows around to run their specialty apps. I

have a feeling that the critical mass of Linux will come. The specialty app

companies will follow.



This is because Microsoft has an uncanny ability to make enemies. I doubt that

anyone WANTS to do business with them. So, in this sense, I think Microsoft may

be Linux's best recruiter -- and I might even welcome more Microsoft lawsuits,

just for this reason.









[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 01 2009 @ 10:32 PM EDT

Is it possible to counter sue a group like the SD association for using exFAT in

the next generation format now due to the strings attached issues with

Microsoft, based on the issues over FAT. It is just another vendor lawsuit

waiting to happen like this one. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 12:27 AM EDT

I'd say getting the FAT out would be a very good idea. Just think-if everyone

got the FAT out of all FOSS software, and enough people would switch to Linux,

Microsoft would find themselves shut **OUT** instead of their customers locked

in.



Well, a fella can dream, can't he?



---

Trusted computing:

It's not about, "Can you trust your computer?"

It's all about, "Can your computer trust you?" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 12:28 AM EDT

I'm not a litigation lawyer, but isn't there a concept in litigation where

somebody who has an interest in a case can intervene?



For example, in the Tom Tom case Microsoft has apparently provided Tom Tom with

a promise not to sue Tom Tom's customers. Couldn't Tom Tom's customers move to

intervene in the case and see exactly what this supposed promise consists of,

since the promise affects THEM?



Or couldn't Linux copyright holders intervene and also seek to have their

interests protected? Why is it okay for Microsoft to sue and enter into

settlements with third parties like Tom Tom when the terms of the settlement

very much affect the actual Linux copyright holders?

Shouldn't the people this actually affects have a say? [ Reply to This | # ]



Why no intervention lawsuits? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:07 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 01:29 AM EDT

I would sure love to read it, but will not.

I would have a stroke half way through.

Dennis H.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 04:45 AM EDT

I'm keeping mine as GPL2, thanks all the same. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 05:45 AM EDT

I'm sorry - I'm probably being a bit naive here.



Surely the whole ethos behind the development of the patent system is that,

unlike copyrights, patents run out in less than 20-30 years. The patent system

was developed primarily to bring technologies into the open. A secondary

consideration (and the carrot for companies to look to patent their innovative

ideas) is that it gives the patent holder protection from copying or the ability

to financially exploit the patent for a LIMITED period.



I would think that, under the British system (and presupposing it could be

patented) any patent raised on FAT system "innovations" would have run

out by now. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:22 AM EDT

But let's face the simple truth. The Linux kernel guys have a role to play too. If they had upgraded the kernel to GPLv3, that would have been the end of this kind of Microsoft nonsense. If the kernel had gone GPLv3, what we would have seen is the first real test of that license against a patent attack. That's when we find out whether it is a worthwhile improvement to the GPL which would "end this nonsense", or a Quixotic attempt to nail the fog of the MS/Novell agreement to a wall which would have simply forced TomTom to cave and expensively re-tool to a non-free OS. All distributers of embedded Linux would have been watching closely. (The interesting bit would have been when TomTom made their decision and the kernel team had to decide whether it violated the GPLv3 and, if so, what to do...) As it is, TomTom have had to promise to remove the FAT functionality, rather than simply pay a license fee because the GPLv2 makes it quite clear that you can't do that. Score one for GPLv2. Now we see how TomTom deal with complaints from people who can't use FAT formatted cards (from phones, cameras, media players etc.) in their satnav. Do they (a) persuade the memory card industry to switch to ext4, (b) pay someone to write a proprietary binary-blob, userland FAT implementation that they can license or (c) use their grace period to switch to a closed-source OS. Place your bets. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 09:51 AM EDT

Since the settlement might have violated the GPL, couldn't someone compel the

courts to open it up to a GPL lawyer as a potentially affected party? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 10:01 AM EDT

Given the agreements Microsoft has signed on OOXML, and the fact that it has pretty clear terms covering possible OOXML patents, bringing in OOXML seems tinged with equal parts tinfoil hat and overreaction. If Microsoft had brought LFN FAT through a standards body of any sort, that might have made for some comparisons. But it didn't. Since LFN FAT was never in a standard, companies that decided to roll the dice and not take a license for something that they knew Microsoft had a patent on deserve what they get. It's not like LFN FAT patent snuck up on anyone; Ravisher was fighting about this years ago. Moreover, it's worth noting that the biggest patent holder in the world, IBM, doesn't seem to really be worried about this. Part of it might be that they currently cross license patents with Microsoft and are therefore protected - why should they go out of their way to help competing companies? It's obvious that there are newer filesystems that are better, so go forth and promote them at every turn. Whining about Microsoft's decision to make money from selling/protecting products seems like a "no kidding sherlock" effort. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 10:38 AM EDT

"...Mono. Once again. And OOXML. Might governmental agencies wish to

particularly take note of OOXML..."



I recently attended a Linux User Group meeting where the presenter was providing

a presentation on Mono. He had put his slides together before Microsoft bought

the Tom Tom suit.



One of the slides brought up the Microsoft Patent risk, but Microsoft would not

likely sue for patent violations. I interrupted the presentation to mention Tom

Tom, and he admitted that was an exception.



Whatever good will had been built up, whatever fears that had been allied by

Microsoft's Open Source initiative, have been smashed, quashed, destroyed by

this suit. I don't know what legal "expert" in Microsoft decided this

would be a good thing to do, but how ever the, er, individual was that person

undid a lot of hard work on the part of some Microsoft people.



Trust Microsoft? HA



PJ,



You asked why develop for the Windows platform. The sad state of affairs is

that you have to be able to communicate with Windows system. If we can't use

Fat to share with Windows, then we need a way to talk to a Linux FS from

Windows. One or the other we are stuck with, and so, it appears we need to

develop a Windows product. (I think one is in the work, or has been developed,

but I've not looked for it.) That still doesn't solve the problem Tom Tom has

of having to interface with people who are running Windows on their systems.

Any other product that has to talk to windows, also has that problem.



Just sign me, I HATE MICROSOFT!!!!!!!!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 11:04 AM EDT

Please do not use GPL3!

says paid Microsoft shills in their plea,

How can Microsoft steal

or sign a patent deal?

When you license PLEASE choose BSD.





Somehow we must kill GPL.

We don't think that it is very swell.

Hippies like it a lot!

It's a communist plot!

We can't monitize your code to sell!











---

The price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bjnord on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 11:12 AM EDT

'As venture capitalist Larry Augustin wrote: "Those of us who have PhDs in

computer disciplines and have studied operating systems and file systems, don't

see anything particularly innovative in FAT or its extension to support longer

file names, FAT32." ...'



Whoops... the extension to support longer file names is VFAT. FAT32 is a version

of FAT that supports more clusters, which was needed once larger and larger hard

drives came on the scene and exceeded what FAT could use efficiently. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 11:33 AM EDT

I use Linux on a daily basis.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux and CentOS at work.

Ubuntu, Debian and variants thereof anywhere else.



I do not use (or need to use) ANY MICROSOFT SOFTWARE on a daily basis and certainly do not do so on my own computers.



I create documents using OpenOffice 3.x and swap them with users running Microsoft Office 2003/2007 without problems. I use GIMP to modify images (instead of Adobe PhotoShop on the PC) and CUPS-PDF to render things to PDF (rather than needing Acrobat Acrobat/Distiller). I use Eclipse and Code::Blocks to develop code and MySQL to hold my data and read my email using a company SquirrelMail web portal



My portable USB hard drive is formatted as EXT3 (actually set up as 3 partitions - root, swap and home with a bootable copy of i386 Ubuntu 8.10 on it) and /home contains a copy of EXT2IFS (Windows file system driver for EXT2/EXT3) and Explore2fs. At this point other people can use my flash drive/USB disk under Windows if they want to.



I prefer to boot from this if possible (as it has OpenOffice and all of my development tools on it) rather than using Windows but in some cases I boot briefly into Linux just to transfer EXT2IFS to the NTFS volume or Explore2fs if I cannot install any drivers on the PC). Once installed I ALWAYS use EXT2/3 in preference to NTFS or FAT/FAT32



FAT32 is a real pain in the behind anyway as cluster sizes become huge with modern hard drives and not being able to create a single file bigger than 2GB is just plain stupid.



If you use a 'device' then it should use an unencumbered file system. EXT2 would work for flash disks (which is what I use on my USB flash drives). The biggest pain is things like Cameras which use FAT/FAT32 at the moment although they do not NEED long file names and hence cannot be clobbered by Microsoft.



The point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft Software IS UNNECESSARY, their patented broken standards and bloatware is not worth paying for and the Universe will not collapse without Microsoft Software. I have heard so many people say that they cannot survive without Microsoft software but when it comes down to it - this is just a fear of the unknown and in the vast majority of cases turns out not to be true.



They have simply been brainwashed by Microsoft.



The thing that will kill Microsoft's stranglehold on the IT industry is to show as many people as possible that you can simply replace Microsoft software/tools with open source replacements, save lots of money, use less memory/CPU/GPU and still do the sorts of things that you are used to.



Don't let this TomTom case fool you. Microsoft has started to feel the the winds of change and knows that its monopoly days are numbered. Lets help them on their way shall we :)



One last thing - if a loved one wants you to fix a broken Microsoft system - do it in a loving way but TELL THEM NO. If you give in, you are prolonging their ADDICTION to Microsoft and as with drug addicts this is not helping them. Suggest switching to open source applications running on Windows first then over to Linux when they are happy with that.



---

Microsoft Software is expensive, bloated, bug-ridden and unnecessary.

Use Open Source Software instead. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 12:24 PM EDT

FAT (the original system that restricted you to "8.3" filenames) isn't

patented. The patents in question cover the encoding of long filenames that

VFAT uses, and furthermore if you read the patent claims, every single claim

requires the creation of a new file with a long name.



So a read-only implementation does not infringe, and an implementation that

refuses to create new files whose names aren't in 8.3 format doesn't infringe.



Crippling Linux systems so they can no longer read cards from digital cameras,

when this is completely unnecessary, would be a disaster.



Groklaw's reputation will also be harmed if this article isn't corrected.



In any case, the patents are wildly overbroad, designed to cover any possible

way of encoding long file names in a system originally designed with length

limits. If it's upheld, next Groklaw will be telling us to rip CD-ROM support

out of our Linux systems. You do know how the Rock Ridge extensions work, don't

you? If not, you'd better find out.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 02:52 PM EDT

"But let's face the simple truth. The Linux kernel guys have a role to play

too. If they had upgraded the kernel to GPLv3, that would have been the end of

this kind of Microsoft nonsense."



Interesting. So you don't hold the FSF responsible in any way? Linus asked to be

consulted privately, they said no.



I guess we should wait for The Hurd. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsi on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 02:55 PM EDT

I am a little confused. Why couldn't TomTom, or anyone else just use FreeDOS to

implement FAT/VFAT/VFAT32? And why hasn't Mickey$oft tried to shut down

FreeDOS, or attempt to force it to pay the M$ Tax???



Wouldn't the fact that FreeDOS exists royalty free trump Mickey$oft in any

Patent Suit???



I may be missing something.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, April 02 2009 @ 03:46 PM EDT

I think we need to try and re-think the approach here. If we look back at the

history of both MS/DOS and the FAT File System, they have some common ancestry.

MS/DOS, which from a Microsoft perspective introduced the FAT file system and

it's various peculiarities, was really cloned from CP/M.



Lots of good debate in earlier posts in this thread point out that, for a patent

to be granted, it has to be both innovative *and* non-obvious.



Can anyone tell me how Microsoft can claim, with a straight face, that MS/DOS is

both unique and innovative when others had developed this technology before they

did???



There is no way that this patent would withstand a properly structured

challenge. It's clear from all of PJ's research and the posts of others that

TomTom folded in all probability because Microsoft made it easier for them to

reach a settlement than to fight on.



We might well speculate that such a result was Redmond's game plan from day one,

especially if the settlement had a confidentiality clause in it. Such a term

benefits a corporate bully who wants to use the legal result to encourage others

to follow in TomTom's footsteps.



PJ and other regulars have made a terrific start here, in terms of building a

body of evidence that can be used to demonstrate the invalidity of the so-called

8 Microsoft FAT patents. Perhaps we can all help to augment that with more

material, and clearly help other companies who may already be in conversation

with Microsoft.



And for what it's worth, isn't it about time that companies who file specious

patent claims get sanctioned for deceptive business practices.



Oh, and this may or may not be a related question, but is obtaining monies or

other benefits through false pretenses [ were such to be the case ] a crime? I'm

sure there's something 'not quite cricket' with such a situation.



Anyone with more specific experience able to clarify? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 03 2009 @ 12:19 PM EDT