On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, SP wrote:
> SCO claims "Unix is mine"...
I cant comment on that, since I am part of that procedure.
> Microsoft claims "FAT is mine"...
Yeah, looks like they do :)
The funny part is, that after careful reading, they indeed base their
claims on patents for something *related* to FAT (the LFN addons to
implement long(er) file names), but not FAT itself. As Sellam already
pointed out, in those days, software was not patentable as such, and
even copyrights were still worked on :)
So.. the question remains: regardless of who *invented* the FAT disk
structure (GAT, FAT, FAT16, MACDOS) principle, was it ever subject to
a *license* of sorts?
I very seriously doubt this. If this were so, anyone being subpoenad
by MS *now* could claim belated charges (you cant let something happen
for 20 years, and then suddenly go "oooh, darn, thats not right, sue
the bastard!"), and be done with it. Microsoft will have to come up
to me with better paperwork than those patents.
(yes, I just sent them a FAX announcing the refusal to comply in my
PDP-11 OS.)
Cant remember who wrote this, but: they are not licensing their *code*
to process FAT file systems, they intend to license the file system
itself. Meaning not just the software that handles it (think any phone
or camera, Cisco's IOS software, etc) but also the media that physically
implements (SD/flash/MemoryStick card around) this great finding of
the past..
Cheers,
Fred
--
Fred N. van Kempen, DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) Collector/Archivist
Visit the VAXlab Project at http://www.pdp11.nl/VAXlab/
Visit the Archives at http://www.pdp11.nl/
Email: waltje_at_pdp11.nl BUSSUM, THE NETHERLANDS / Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Received on Thu Dec 04 2003 - 15:13:25 GMT