[Gllug] FAT patent

[Christian Smith]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Richard Jones wrote:

>On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:39:37PM +0000, Dan Stevens (IAmAI) wrote:
>> Does this apply to FAT 32 as well?
>
>First of all there are two patents.  Together they cover the method (I
>believe "hack" is a more appropriate term) used to encode long
>filenames into the 8.3 short filenames on FAT.  None of this would
>matter if Microsoft had used a reasonable disk format in the first
>place.  I believe from looking briefly at the claims that if you don't
>use the long filenames then you are not infringing.


To be fair, FAT uses 8.3 names to be compatible with CP/M-86, as the
original DOS was a CP/M clone.

Where MS went wrong was letting DOS stagnate, and not improving DOS to
handle more than FAT. DOS v2 used a largely UNIX compatible FS interface
(MS were, at the time, the biggest UNIX vendor!), and so should have been
free of the CP/M shackles. Pluggable file systems would have solved that
problem, or simply a version field in the FAT superblock to indicate a
non-8.3 filename directory format.

FAT itself was designed for a particular job, and did it relatively
efficiently.


>
>The patents probably don't apply in the EU.
>
>The method used is bleeding obvious.


Not really. The dirty filthy hack they used was not by any means obvious.
The obvious solution would be to extend the filesystem structures.

I'd still contest that the solution used is more akin to hard links (the
first FAT entry being the i-node pointer.)


>
>Microsoft probably won't assert them (yet) against Linux because they
>don't want the bad publicity, nor to rock the anti-trust boat so soon,
>nor to stir up sentiment against software patents until they've
>managed to get them through in Europe.


Big deal. It's easy to remove the code from the Linux kernel. That's all
that would be required by the distributors.


>
>You may have a defence of laches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches)
>because Microsoft took about 10 years to begin enforcing its claims.


Laches didn't stop Unisys enforcing their LZW patent.


>
>You probably don't want to test any of the above in court because even
>when you win, you'll end up having spent huge amounts of money.
>
>All the more reason to pay attention (and donate money) to
>organisations such as FFII, PUBPAT (in the US), and the Open Rights
>Group [when are they going to get their sign-up process in place!].
>
>If you want an open file system format which works across operating
>systems, take a look at UDF.
>(http://homepage.mac.com/wenguangwang/myhome/udf.html)


Hmm, didn't realise UDF was a re-writeable FS. Will have to have a look at
that.


>
>Rich.
>
>

-- 
    /"\
    \ /    ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
     X                           - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS
    / \
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug