Slashdot Mirror


Has Microsoft's Patent War Against Linux Begun?

Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft has filed a suit against TomTom, 'alleging that the in-car navigation company's devices violate eight of its patents — including three that relate to TomTom's implementation of the Linux kernel.' What's interesting is that the intellectual property lawyer behind the move, Horacio Gutierrez, has just been promoted to the rank of corporate vice president at Microsoft. Is this his way of announcing that he intends going on the attack against Linux?"

108 of 644 comments (clear)

  1. Patenting mistakes by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Informative

    3 patents relate to car navigation systems and I can't really tell who's right...

    But patent 5579517 is very simple for all to understand: it's the infamous way of Windows 95 to offer long file names (32 characters) over DOS, which only allowed 8-character names.

    So Microsoft patented the way to store a cross-reference between the nice, readable filename, and the ugly, DOS name.

    Does Linux do that? Sure, there might be a FAT driver somewhere... But I hope TomTom doesn't use FAT. If so, Microsoft is abusing the patent process.

    And am I the only one to see irony in the fact that Microsoft patented a software defect?

    1. Re:Patenting mistakes by Computershack · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tomtom does indeed use FAT on the memory cards the maps are stored on.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    2. Re:Patenting mistakes by Vince · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FAT, as the lowest common denominator, is the best choice for flash cards and any other device that has to work in any random Windows, Mac, or Linux box. Otherwise, you'll have to develop and maintain filesystem drivers for your end users.

    3. Re:Patenting mistakes by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not really, it's been widely debated that the FAT patent would not hold up on a review....so I wouldn't be so jumpy.

    4. Re:Patenting mistakes by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think it's a little more simple than that.

      1) Is it technology related?
      2) Does it work?
      3) Does it work better than what we can do?

      If you've answered yes to the above questions, Microsoft has the right to sue you.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    5. Re:Patenting mistakes by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And anything you use to backup the GPS unit. Or update it. So, for my own experience (TomTom ONE XL), it has to be supported by FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Linux 2.6, Windows XP and Windows Vista.

      What would be the point of a flash card if you couldn't take it out or update the unit anyway.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    6. Re:Patenting mistakes by Directrix1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Doesn't this seem like anticompetitive behavior? I think we're needing a new lawsuit.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    7. Re:Patenting mistakes by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I remember that Microsoft wasn't going to enforce their FAT patents? I read it more than a year ago, and my wetware memory isn't perfect, but I really think they claimed it.. IIRC I even went to their site to verify.

      (I could be wrong, but I would really like to hear others with better a recollection than I have..)

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    8. Re:Patenting mistakes by Artraze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You jest (or at least the mods think so), but actually, you're not so far off the mark. As Windows does not come bundled with support for any file system that isn't patented by Microsoft, lording those patents over people is quite anticompetitive. Or, at the very least, more-so than the whole IE thing which started all this monopoly stuff to begin with.

      Then again, the entire point of software patents is to make monopolies, so perhaps this is just what's supposed to be happening.

    9. Re:Patenting mistakes by lorenlal · · Score: 3, Informative

      From Wikipedia (cause I'm lazy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

      Microsoft has recently secured patents for VFAT and FAT32 (but not the original FAT). Despite two earlier rulings against them, Microsoft prevailed and was awarded the patents.

      If TomTom uses FAT (12 or 16), then they're in the clear... Unless they're specifically using the VFAT extension.

    10. Re:Patenting mistakes by morghanphoenix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      THat's the only reason FAT32 is still used. Despite the limitations of the file system it "just works" when I plug it in to a windows, mac or linux system. NTFS may work on Linux but it can be a pain, ext3 works on Windows, but you have to install support for it, and it seems to manage to mount all of my ext3 file systems even the ones I've told it not to mount. Can't make a comment on HFS+, not much of a mac person and unlike Windows I've never had a reason to use it despite my distaste.

    11. Re:Patenting mistakes by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      True, but for a limited time. They're supposed to expire someday. The point of them expiring is so that somebody can take this prior knowledge, build on it, and come up with something better, not keep us stuck in the Stone Age.

      FAT's been around since DOS, FAT32 since what, 1998? Shouldn't its patent be expiring Real Soon Now?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    12. Re:Patenting mistakes by Thinboy00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IANAL, but if I was I'd recommend filing in the EU rather than the US, given Opera's progress there.

      --
      $ make available
    13. Re:Patenting mistakes by ximenes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, all patents expire. Because of the date on which this patent (#5579517) was filed, it will expire 17 years after the issue date (Nov 26, 1996). So approximately November 2013.

      However, it seems clear that Microsoft, as with most companies in this position, will continue to develop new derivative work that can be patented in turn. This will allow them to continue to constraint the filesystem under patent as it will be implemented in 2013, which may or may not matter depending on how the world works in the distant future.

    14. Re:Patenting mistakes by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As Windows does not come bundled with support for any file system that isn't patented by Microsoft, lording those patents over people is quite anticompetitive.

      Well that was the whole fucking point of patents: keeping people away from your invention. Granting you a time-limited monopoly so you can capitalize on it.

      Unfortunately said time limit is waaaay too long. Law does not keep up with the exponential nature of technology. That's the real problem, not what MS does with their patents.

    15. Re:Patenting mistakes by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That, and the fact that Solomon's observation that "there is nothing new under the sun" was never more apt than when applied to software.
      Physical devices, with huge sunk costs in R&D and fabs make a patent a reasonable tradeoff to incentivise development.
      Software, not so much.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    16. Re:Patenting mistakes by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Informative

      A Darwin award? For using FAT? Like every camera maker on the market? And every DVD player with memory card slots? And TVs that have them for that matter? Not to mention stereo systems with USB plugs.

      FAT is ubiquitous for flash storage.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    17. Re:Patenting mistakes by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Informative

      My Tomtom unit can read music and photos off an arbitrary SD card for playback while I'm driving an MP3 player or photo browser. It also supports Ebooks. The device itself shows up as two USB drives when plugged in by USB -- one for the internal memory, one for the flash drive.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    18. Re:Patenting mistakes by Cylix · · Score: 4, Informative

      They've been suing over FAT implementations for years so this one isn't new per say.

      Which is funny because it promotes interoperability for windows and doesn't require some funky file system.

      If you don't want to pay the microsoft tax... use ext2 and put some cycles into making sure the windows ext2 driver is working well.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    19. Re:Patenting mistakes by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft isn't suing for providing any cards, they're suing because the TomTom device can read the FAT32 cards everybody uses. Doesn't matter that the driver was cleanroom written from published API specs, Microsoft saw a way to stomp on them and took it.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    20. Re:Patenting mistakes by DittoBox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what's really fucked up about this is that Microsoft is just now deciding to do something. FAT has existed for almost two decades, and the FS driver in Linux for quite some time as well. They waited for their FS to become a de facto standard so they could drop the hammer on people.

      If you own a trademark you have to actively defend it, lest it become a standard term for the product type. Shouldn't technology and patents be the same way? If you allow entire industries to adopt your patented method without defending it you should lose the patent. Coming in after the fact just so you can grab your competitors by the balls is just crooked.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    21. Re:Patenting mistakes by LuYu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you don't want to pay the microsoft tax... use ext2 and put some cycles into making sure the windows ext2 driver is working well.

      The "microsoft tax" is unavoidable. Unless you can figure out a way to buy unformatted removable storage, you have already paid MS.

      --
      All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    22. Re:Patenting mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So that there's no confusion:

      US patents filed before 6th Sept. 1995 had expiry dates 17 years in the future from the date of issue. Patents filed after that date have expiry dates 20 years in the future from the date of first application.

      #5579517 was filed on 24th April 1995.

    23. Re:Patenting mistakes by suckmysav · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmmm, I may be wrong but I'm sure I recall MS suing camera makers for using FAT in their cameras and that was thrown out of court.

      This is more about the long filename hack rather than FAT itself.

      I'm sure it will end with the same result tho

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    24. Re:Patenting mistakes by mgiuca · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This exact patent is the example I use when people ask what's so bad about software patents. It is the most retarded patent I've seen. It's sillier than it seems at first glance.

      If you read the Wiki, it explains that there are no patents on the basic 8.3 (DOS Filename) FAT itself, or even FAT32. It's a patent on the long filename support.

      The basic problem is this: Assume you have a file system which only supports very short filenames. It has directory entries, which are a simple array of 32-byte entries. Setting a certain bit flag will cause the OS to ignore the directory entry.

      You wish to add support for long filenames in a backwards-compatible way.

      9 out of 10 software engineers, given this task, will tell you exactly this: "What you do is, you create the files as usual, but you also create dummy directory entries (with the "hidden" flag set), containing the extra characters of the filename."

      THAT is what this is all about. That is trivial. It is not only not clever. It is obvious, and it is also not a "useful" invention - it's only useful given the horrible mess that is the existing FAT, which is only necessary because Microsoft has a monopoly.

      The fact that we need to use this hack is an embarrassment to our industry. The fact that the hack itself is what MS thinks gives them the right to sue everybody else on the planet is laughable.

    25. Re:Patenting mistakes by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Informative

      FAT was publicly documented in the early 80's and is NOT patented. MS has a patent on using long file names on top of FAT. So if any device sticks to only supporting 8.3 file names they can use FAT without violating the patent.

    26. Re:Patenting mistakes by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      FAT has existed for almost two decades

      Making the problem far less serious, as patents run out in 20 years. Too bad copyrights don't, creativity is creativity and all new art, ideas, and inventions hinge on what has come before. Inventors have it far better than artists, since they can make new things out of 20 year old things, while artists can't make new things out of anything made after about 1920.

      And I agree, if you don't defend a patent you should lose it.

    27. Re:Patenting mistakes by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

      echo "I think what's really fucked up about this is that Microsoft is just now deciding to do something. FAT has existed for almost two decades, and the FS driver in Linux for quite some time as well. They waited for their FS to become a de facto standard so they could drop the hammer on people. If you own a trademark you have to actively defend it, lest it become a standard term for the product type. Shouldn't technology and patents be the same way? If you allow entire industries to adopt your patented method without defending it you should lose the patent. Coming in after the fact just so you can grab your competitors by the balls is just crooked." | mail -s "Patent Law Complaint" your_state_representative@us.gov

      There, fixed that for ya.

    28. Re:Patenting mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume you do not manage software projects. The assumption that software does not have a huge sunk cost is incorrect. Think about it.

      Lets take an obvious example, win95 vs. win98 - three years with hundreds of developers, QA staff, tech writers, etc. (we'll assume only 100), at a low assumed price (today dollars) of say 60K each, including benefits etc., that is 3 years * 100 staff * 60K avg salary = 18 million dollars. A more realistic example might be 200-300 staff and 80-100K salary/benefits/cost (salary, benefits, heat, lights, rent, software tools, hardware, ...) getting you to something like 60-90 million dollars to produce the gold master CD/DVD. Glad you do not think that's a large R&D sunk cost.

      Before you start, yes win 95/98 is way back when. That's not the point, the point is that ANY large software project has staff and that staff costs dollars (direct in salary and indirect in benefits, hardware, software, and 'cube space'). So the sunk cost for a software project R&D is AT LEAST staff * time * salary (forget, management, marketing, research, ... for now), which can add up.

      I WILL AGREE that software has little per unit distribution cost. Burning another CD/DVD is cheap, but getting the first one right can be REALLY expensive. Software development is ALL about sunk cost recovered over time.

      Before someone else chimes in about open source. Open source projects have the same issues/costs BUT they POTENTIALLY get subsidized (Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc. being counter examples). Developers donate time ($0 salary), work from home ($0 space/lights/heat), use personal equipment ($0 hardware) and use open source tools ($0 software). Obviously this reduces sunk cost from a cash flow perspective for projects using those 'advantages'.

  2. And now we know why Bill G's house is underground! by Steve1952 · · Score: 2, Funny

    People who live in glass houses not an issue here!

  3. FAT32 patents by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft has patented a bunch of stuff related to FAT32 and has aggressively licensed FAT32. They would have pursued this regardless of the OS underneath the TomTom software.

    1. Re:FAT32 patents by downix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And where are the lawsuits against Digital Cameras, USB Flash Drives, portable HDD's, the iPod....

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    2. Re:FAT32 patents by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're on the way, probably. This is most likely a shot across the bow.

    3. Re:FAT32 patents by Fastolfe · · Score: 5, Informative

      USB flash drives are normally implemented as a USB disk, not a FAT32 "device", so the FAT32 implementation (and patent concerns) are pushed off to the host that reads/writes to the disk. Digital cameras and iPods could be considered hosts in that sense, and they probably already have FAT32 licensed.

    4. Re:FAT32 patents by Dolohov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you say that? The people who understand software and software patents well enough to understand what's going on already dislike Microsoft. Those who don't aren't going to change their mind over this.

    5. Re:FAT32 patents by saleenS281 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're assuming none of those people have paid for a fat32 license. Microsoft approached the entire CFA about licensing fat32 in 2006.

    6. Re:FAT32 patents by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > What makes you say that? The people who understand software and software patents well enough to understand what's going on already dislike Microsoft. Those who don't
      > aren't going to change their mind over this.

      Because people who aren't patent/tech nerds but who have tomtoms are going to hear about this and go `what the fuck?`...

    7. Re:FAT32 patents by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Insightful

      UFDs and portable HDDs don't care what FS you put on them; they're just block devices and don't understand anything FS-level.

      To my knowledge the iPhone/iPod no longer uses FAT32.

      You might have a point with digital cameras.

    8. Re:FAT32 patents by JonStewartMill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need public opinion on your side when you have corporations lining up to buy your products. Microsoft is loathed in the datacenter but adored in the boardroom and this won't change that.

    9. Re:FAT32 patents by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > What makes you say that? The people who understand software and software patents well enough to understand what's going on already dislike Microsoft. Those who don't
      > aren't going to change their mind over this.

      Because people who aren't patent/tech nerds but who have tomtoms are going to hear about this and go `what the fuck?`...

      Nah. Think about what's going to happen with this thing.

      Currently Microsoft has filed a suit against TomTom. Most TomTom users probably don't know about it, or don't care. It's TomTom's problem.

      If Microsoft loses, all is well, TomTom users won't care.

      If Microsoft wins, and TomTom has to pay money to license the patent - TomTom will continue doing business, all will be well, TomTom users won't care.

      If Microsoft wins, and TomTom changes their platform as a result, then TomTom users might care if it starts to impact them - but they might not make the connection or blame Microsoft.

      If Microsoft wins, and TomTom as a company dies as a result, then TomTom users will probably care. "Where am I gonna get map updates or new, funny voices?" But how likely is this scenario? Microsoft doesn't want TomTom out of business, they just want money... and they want to assert their patents over pieces of Linux code. They can't continue to extract money if TomTom is out of business. And of course, TomTom themselves don't want to lose their lucrative business so they'll be trying to find a way to make this all work...

      So I really don't see why TomTom users will get all outraged over this.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    10. Re:FAT32 patents by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're on the way, probably.

      Probably. Because when you can't produce value, then you're down to monetizing your patent portfolio.

      Bring it, Monkeyzilla!

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    11. Re:FAT32 patents by home-electro.com · · Score: 2, Informative

      "USB disk" has nothing to do with this. File system is property of the storage, not of the interface, be it USB, or SATA, or IDE. It is likely not implement as a USB disk to save cost, anyway.

    12. Re:FAT32 patents by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This sort of thing boggles my mind. You, as a company, make a lot of lovely commercials talking about how easy your OS is to copy pictures, and do all sorts of cool things. You employ a kid to pimp your OS. Everything is clouds and rainbows.

      In the past, you made it so your OS *only* supports file systems that you hold patents for. It's sketchy, but that's what you did. It even seems convenient to the end user cause they don't need to decide what format to do. Camera and device makers are faced with a choice to either:
      A) Use your file system in the storage to make it easy to copy (like in the commercials you make later).
      B) Force the makers to create an interface and make the copy process a pain for the end user.

      So, most makers choose A since the standard's been published and things seem pretty calm and clear. Happiness abounds, and since the standard is readily available almost everyone else has employed usage of said OS. It's lightweight, does a simple job quite well. Device makers make plenty of products that directly support and utilize your FS and it seems to add value to your OS.

      Then, you decide it's time to enforce the patent. Against certain competitors, or you start charging licensing fees. Device makers and the competition has to suffer since your OS dominates the market and there's no way to go back and stop using the FS since that requires recalling your entire product portfolio.

      I guess the point I'm trying to make is: WHY DO THIS? Greed.. At least that's a simple answer.

      More importantly though, does this qualify as either abusive or anti-competitive? I certainly think so. IANAL, but even if it's neither the former, it's certainly un-ethical. It's certainly a great way to get more people to hate you. It's only a matter of time before someone with enough resources hates you enough to pull you into court or a governmental session and start killing you in the public eye and in the bottom line.

    13. Re:FAT32 patents by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Boy, you've made a very good argument for an ANTITRUST case. Perhaps the government will look at this and get the antitrust case against Microsoft right this time....

    14. Re:FAT32 patents by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Informative

      To my knowledge the iPhone/iPod no longer uses FAT32.

      I can't say anything about iPhones, but iPods can be plugged in to any Windows XP/Vista computer and be accessed as a plain old USB drive. In order for that to happen, they need to use FAT (of some variety), HPFS, or NTFS. If they are larger than 2GB, they must use FAT32, and to support long filenames, they have to use the VFAT variant.

      Which means, they have to have a file system that is patented by Microsoft.

      You can format an iPod using HFS+ on a Mac, but then it won't work with Windows until you re-format it.

    15. Re:FAT32 patents by Tacvek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Start charging for map updates? I've not hear of a single GPS with free map updates, except limited free updated in the event you bought the unit within like a month of a new update.

      Otherwise the maps tend to cost at least half the price of the whole unit.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    16. Re:FAT32 patents by zigga15 · · Score: 2

      FAT is useless as a hard disk file system because of fragmentation etc. So, why use it in a mobile device?? because the decision on where to read/write memory from/to is implemented in hardware for most portable devices. The eePC has solid state and uses the Linux ext3 journaling system. Runs perfectly fast. The is no benefit for using FAT anywhere! Anyway in regards to Micro$oft and their patents. They can monopolize business entities, but their control of the users is slowly dissipating. Linux will rule the world within 5 years.

    17. Re:FAT32 patents by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why I use Polaroid and 35 millimeter film. Yeah it's old-fashioned, but you don't have to worry about your photos self-erasing themselves (like DVD=Rs) or simply dying (like a hard drive).

      Analog has a permanence that digital lacks. We still have 150-year-old analog photographs; they've deteriorated a bit but can still be viewed and enjoyed. Who here thinks we'll still be able to read a DVD-R photo album one hundred fifty years from now? Most don't even survive five years, much less thirty times that long.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. The right answer to this by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is to get companies to start using a different FS on memory cards. In particular, it might be useful to pick one of the OSS FS and see it dominate the industry. All it would take is several large companies to decide to change NOW, and the rest would follow.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:The right answer to this by dpilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Look at it this way...

      Is your data SAFE in a Microsoft format?
      What other patents do they have that my not have been asserted in this case?
      Is your company future safe with anything other than pure, fully accepted and vetted open source I.P.?
      How about your documents, and your ability to manipulate them at will, without encumbrance or fees?

      Microsoft isn't the only company that can play the fear game.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:The right answer to this by computerman413 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only issue there is getting it to be supported on Windows. Grandma wants to plug her memory card/flash drive into any computer and have it "just work". If M$ doesn't give in and support the OSS FS, it'll be a tough battle.

    3. Re:The right answer to this by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not a problem. Windows uses an Installable File System (IFS) architecture. All that has to happen is that the filesystem driver gets installed with the hardware driver. This can be entirely transparent to the end-user.

    4. Re:The right answer to this by quantum+bit · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't tried plugging in a memory card formatted with ext2fs but does Windows prompt for a driver when it finds an unknown FS or simply ignore it?

      No, it shows up as an unknown file system, and if you double click on the drive letter that it gets assigned, it "helpfully" offers to format it for you.

    5. Re:The right answer to this by saleenS281 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sounds like a GREAT way to lose all market share overnight. "My old camera can load pictures to my laptop just fine, this new one doesn't work. I'm going to return it!".

      If you honestly think MS is going to adopt whatever open source filesystem they choose, you're nuts.

    6. Re:The right answer to this by horza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is your data SAFE in a non-Microsoft format? How's that new version of ReiserFS coming along? You're spreading the very FUD people complain about going the other way.

      You are completely wrong Saleen. Your data will be fine in ReiserFS format as it's open source and unpatented, hence nobody will be able to hold your data hostage. Which is effectively what Microsoft is doing. Microsoft aren't the only scumbags around that allow a format to gain widespread acceptance before launching widescale blackmail. Remember Unisys and the LWZ patent affecting GIF images?

      Phillip.

    7. Re:The right answer to this by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > is to get companies to start using a different FS on memory cards

      It's not going to happen, and here's why:

      * The royalties are capped. Beyond a certain point, it costs SanDisk, Minolta, and the others nothing in additional royalties for cards produced during a given year.

      * As a practical matter, Microsoft can only force you to pay royalties if you sell the card preformatted. Leave it up to the end user to format the drive himself, and Microsoft can't make you pay them a cent. Technically, the end user would be responsible for paying the royalties himself if he formats the card with FAT32, but as a practical matter Microsoft isn't going to come knocking on his door.

      Thus, it's self-limiting for large users, and there's a de-facto escape hatch for small users. The limit is high enough to make Microsoft lots of money, but low enough to not be worth the development and support costs of any alternate filesystem for the large users.

      In any case, I'll be shocked if Microsoft ever launches into an all-out assault on Linux. Frankly, Microsoft BENEFITS from having a small & noisy group of people loudly insisting there are alternatives to Windows. It lets them point and say, "See, we aren't REALLY a monopoly!

    8. Re:The right answer to this by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Blackmail? MS has been selling licenses for Fat32 for a LONG time. TomTom used the format very well knowing they were doing so illegally without paying a licensing fee. They were just hoping the patent will be invalidated like the FAT patent was. They lost the gamble and now it's time to pay up. Sad I get labeled a troll, but expected with all the zealots running around here.

    9. Re:The right answer to this by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could write their own implementations. The filesystem themselves are *not* covered by the gpl.

    10. Re:The right answer to this by doshell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It means that an algorithm is a mathematical construct with certain properties. Not that different from a natural number, a graph (as in graph theory), a real-valued function, or a finite state automaton.

      You can't (and shouldn't be able to) patent any of these, so why should you be able to patent an algorithm?

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    11. Re:The right answer to this by Grail · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ubuntu and Mac OS X are the two operating systems I can think of where things "just work" when you plug them in.

      Windows is the operating system where plugging something in will break Windows unless you've previously installed the right driver for the thing you're about to plug in.

      I plug my Nikon into my Mac and the Mac helpfully shows the contents of the CF card. I plug the same Nikon into a Windows box and it doesn't give me any option except to install the drivers. The Nikon is just presenting itself to the computer as a USB storage device.

      I can't even plug my Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 into a Windows machine without being prompted to install drivers.

      Windows doesn't "just work" except when you replace "just" with "barely".

    12. Re:The right answer to this by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ....And you think that Obama is going to change any of this? Obama is just the same as Bush, both don't have a clue about technology. Sure, Obama knows what every other middle aged person knows about the internet, how to set up and use Facebook and Youtube and to be able to use a BlackBerry but do you think he even knows what a filesystem is? I doubt it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    13. Re:The right answer to this by NinjaCoder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do you work for Sony?

    14. Re:The right answer to this by iplayfast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you view software as text, as instructions on how do do something, like a recipe, then it is obvious that copyright is the preferred method of protecting your IP.
      If instead you say that software isn't just text it's special text that incorporates an algorithm then what you are trying to patent is the algorithm. As has been stated, algorithms are mathematically based, and so this is where the expression "Software is math" comes from. Not that all software is math, (although that can be argued as well), but that the parts that are worth patenting are.

      At least that's how I see it.

      Personally I think software patents are a terrible idea, and copyright is too long.

    15. Re:The right answer to this by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tomtom are a european company (from holland i believe), software patents are not valid in europe therefore they had no reason to waste money.
      They also had no choice but to use fat32 in order to interoperate with windows, a potential antitrust issue... Other filesystems are light years ahead but ms don't bother to implement them in windows.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  5. Actual complaint: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Skip the ads and get the PDF of the complaint:

    http://media.techflash.com/documents/tomtomComplaint.pdf

    A quickie read of it still has me going "WTF!?" a lot. Seriously - they patented such things like:

    "Vehicle Computer System with Wireless Connectivity"

    "Portable Computing Device-Integrated Appliance"

    A quick look at the dates these things were granted, and most gadget geeks' memories should spark something: Most of this crap shouldn't have been patentable in the first place (wish they appended the patents to the complaint, though... it'd make things a lot easier to eyeball and evaluate in one spot).

    I'm guessing MSFT is just hoping to force a settlement, so that they can then use it as a cudgel... thing is, Microsoft is using a lot of OSS code nowadays too (IIRC in MSN/Live Messenger, Visual Studio 2008, and etc - linky here).

    1. Re:Actual complaint: by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      That settles it.

      I'm going to file a patent for "something cool you can do with technology".

      I'll make millions.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Actual complaint: by oGMo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm going to file a patent for "something cool you can do with technology".

      I'll make millions.

      That would require someone do something cool with technology. Who is? Google may be a nice company, but web mail, craptastically feature-light "office apps", and search engines aren't exactly "cool". And who is doing anything else? (No, Apple isn't doing anything cool, either.)

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    3. Re:Actual complaint: by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I'm guessing MSFT is just hoping to force a settlement, so that they can then use it as a cudgel...

      MSFT is looking for the FUD quotient. Apparently, from their perspective, anything they can do towards casting doubt on OSS is a good thing.

    4. Re:Actual complaint: by Keyper7 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Refrigerators?

    5. Re:Actual complaint: by mini+me · · Score: 2, Informative

      MS never even made an in-car mapping device to my knowledge, or any kind of in-car computer

      The BMW iDrive as well as Ford SYNC both run Windows Automotive.

  6. Linux cannot be stopped... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Informative

    But its growth can be stunned. The lawsuits are not designed to stop Linux; a defendant with sufficiently deep pocket can fend off the attack, EVENTUALLY. The real intend of these suits are to stun the growth of Linux through FUD.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Linux cannot be stopped... by unitron · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have been the victim of someone who did not enunciate clearly. The phrase is "stunt growth", not "stun". For instance, for more years than either of us have been around, people have been telling young smokers "Hey kid, don't you know those things will stunt your growth?".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    2. Re:Linux cannot be stopped... by microbee · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know suspend/resume on Linux isn't the best supported feature, but it cannot be stopped???!!! Look at me on a freshly installed bash 4.0:

      # shutdown -h now

      See, it can be stopped perfe

  7. They will face my rage! by linhares · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is to be expected, as the follow the RIAA MPAA desperation road. And a giant backlash against ms, of course.

    Netbooks are a serious threat to them, and they know it. To follow the netbooks will be larger machines with limited processing for the avg joes out there.

    On a personal note, I find it very delightful that a company that Embraced, Enhanced, Extinguished, might be brought down by a tiny, cheap machine called EEE.

  8. Microsoft's last line of defense by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know that it's always silly to try to predict the future, but here I go none the less. For the most part, all of the core computing applications have already been developed. Unless business processes change significantly, there are only so many systems that a company will ever need to deploy. There will be word processing applications, spreadsheets, databases, webpages, file servers, print servers and a slew of other devices. However the core of the network and the computing environment will remain rather static. Over the last decade, Microsoft developed a lot of core business applications in the form of Windows, Windows Server, Office and Exchange. As the room for innovation in the IT world shrinks, Microsoft will have to fall back to the patent portfolio. If their lawyers were smart, they patented every single technology that they could with the foreknowledge that sooner or later, someone else would want to develop software to do the same thing.

    I think we are going to see Microsoft leveraging their patents more and more aggressively as time goes on. They have poured untold billions of dollars in R&D. It seems to me like they need to pursue patent litigation to generate some sort of ROI on all those R&D dollars.

    1. Re:Microsoft's last line of defense by James+Youngman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the most part, all of the core computing applications have already been developed.

      Record that, and come back to read it in 20 years. Or wait 10 years and ask your information agent to find it for you.

    2. Re:Microsoft's last line of defense by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just one problem: They risk stepping on the toes of folks like IBM, Apple (who has more cash in the bank right now than Microsoft does), and other biggies that can make life very, very hard for MSFT.

      Also, the payouts aren't as fast or as big as you would think: Sure, a small corp could/would cave in and settle almost immediately, and enough of them would provide an ongoing income for awhile. That said, doing so would force a lot of up-and-comers to simply abandon as much of MSFT as possible, just to avoid potential conflict.

      Look at the GIF/LZH patent as an example - the whole damned thing mostly withered and died because Unisys was too desperate and stupid to realize that they could have taken a better approach. World+dog simply avoided using compressed GIFs, instead turning to other tech to get the job done.

      I can see people start to do the same things with .NET, ASP, and more, if MSFT becomes an aggressive RIAA-style extortion machine.

      To mangle a well-worn phrase: Nowadays, application developers see patent lawsuits as damage, and tries to route around them.

      (I can also see other corps banding together and assaulting MSFT just out of preventative self-defense, too... see also SCO's troubles as a model.)

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Microsoft's last line of defense by Trogre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      World+dog simply avoided using compressed GIFs, instead turning to other tech to get the job done.

      ...World+dog-Slashdot, that is :p

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:Microsoft's last line of defense by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and is not just an evolution of existing software taking advantage of faster and more widespread hardware?

      You're going to say the nanotech revolution (if it ever happens) wasn't innovative, because it was just a hardware upgrade. :(

      Why are there so many bitter ancient geezers on /.?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    5. Re:Microsoft's last line of defense by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok lets reverse that think back 10 or 20 years ago and what has truly been innovated today? and is not just an evolution of existing software taking advantage of faster and more widespread hardware?

      20 years ago. That would be 1989.

      *World Wide Web and everything it entails
      *Global positioning system
      *Digital Cameras
      *3D Graphics cards
      *Rewritable Optical Data Storage
      *Digital Audio (MP3/iPod)
      *Digital Video (DVD)
      *Practical Cell Phones
      *Wireless Data
      *Mobile Computing
      *Roomba
      *Instant Messaging

      The iPhone still feels like it belongs in a Sci-Fi movie. You mean I can pull this small rectangle from my pocket and:
      1) Call anywhere in the world.
      2) View a movie on it.
      3) Hold my entire music collection.
      4) Take a picture of someone and send it instantly to anyone on earth.
      5) Connect to some whole world network and read or watch the latest news and find out the weather anywhere.
      6) Play a video game with 3d graphics that blow away anything from 1989.
      7) Have a large photo album on it
      8) Find my location anywhere on earth and be able to plot a path from where I am to anywhere in the country.
      9) With Google Earth, bring up a satellite image of practically anywhere on earth.
      10) Have more classic books than most libraries thanks to Project Gutenberg.

      All of this in a device that is 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches and 4.8 ounces. It may not seem like much since we have been through the changes

      gradually, but if you take a step back it is mindblowing.

      There are also a host of other technologies that were around in 1989 but were not in widespread use due their cost. Presumably, that means that

      there are a host of technologies that exist today that we are barely aware of that will be widespread in 2029.

    6. Re:Microsoft's last line of defense by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Microsoft has just a small handful of core computing patents like that, they are set for as long as people are using computers to organize and share their data.

      The problem is that most of those really core ideas, like your "retrieving data from a database", were done in the '60s if not earlier... yet the patent system allows companies to dress them up in new language, maybe add an "on the internet" or "in a car", and re-patent the whole thing.

      Patent 6,175,789 is exactly this: It's a patent on a computer system... IN A CAR. The other patents are on driving directions (I don't know enough to judge this one), the infamous FAT32 long-name patents, and one on flash memory file systems (which I simply do not believe Microsoft was first to invent).

    7. Re:Microsoft's last line of defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the fact that GIF is patent-encumbered isn't what made it lose out to PNG.

      It was a question of features, pure and simple. GIF can simply not represent pictures with more than 256 colours, and JPG - while it can store more than 256 colours, is not a lossless compression format.

      PNG simply filled the void - a losslessly compressed raster image file format with support for more than 256 colours. And it happens to have transparency support that sucks considerably less than GIFs.

      PNG, however, does not support animation. (Yes, there are extentions and sister standards to PNG that do, but they are not widely implemented in web browsers.) And GIF only supports a very limited range of animation. What filled that void? Macromedia Flash -- the single most non-free part of the world wide web today. GIF animations are still used, though, because they're considerably lighter than an obnoxious Macromedia Flash crapplet.

      Same argument - why does everyone still use MP3 even though it's patent-encumbered and there are better alternatives both technically (AAC, for example) or in terms of freedom (OGG Vorbis)? Because MP3 is good enough.

      GIF simply wasn't good enough. So it got supplemented by PNG and Macromedia Flash. It has nothing to do with patents.

  9. TomTom not exactly a historically good actor... by morganew · · Score: 5, Informative

    TomTom were found to be a gpl violator in '04, sued Garmin in '07 and Toyota in '08 for infringing TomTom patents, and have a very restrictive EULA.

    --
    A sig?!? I don't think so.....
    1. Re:TomTom not exactly a historically good actor... by ianare · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't seem any worse than any other corporation.

      Looking at the EULA, it's really only the US version that has a lot of the typical bullshit, the European versions are much saner. Can't really blame them for doing the same things all other companies operating in the US are allowed to do.

      And from the gpl-violations page (which was resolved in a friendly manner) :

      As part of the agreement, TomTom will show it's appreciation of the Free Software and technology enthusiast movement by making a significant donation to the Chaos Computer Club (http://www.ccc.de/).

      So they may not be exactly saintly, but don't seem overtly evil ... and compared to Microsoft ? Come on !!

  10. Patent Abuse by Demonantis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A patent is supposed to protect a commercial product from being copied by the market. This is to promote people to share their ideas and collaborate while protecting the inventor. Patenting software concepts is counter intuitive to this process where no ingenuity of solving a problem is demonstrated. A lot of the patents that make it though now a days are really abusive of the protection and way to generalized to the technology they use.

  11. This has been foreshadowed for years by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft has been totally consistent in their rants on this topic. They are all for "Open Source" so long as they get a per copy patent royalty when it gets deployed in a shipping product. Because nobody can do anything without infringing their all encompassing patent portfolio. And they are probably right. And Linux is infringing patents held by every other tech company. Normally they just cross license between each other and little money actually changes hands, it is just a gate keeping new competitors without patents of their own to cross license at a disadvantage. Which is exactly where Linux is.

    The patent system needs to be fixed. But every large company has billions invested in the current broken system AND, as noted above, depends on patents to keep new unexpected competitors from springing up.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:This has been foreshadowed for years by tgatliff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft will no doubt tread lightly because IBM and others will not tolerate them taking Linux head on... Hence, why they are trying to go around the edges. Their hope, I am assuming, is classic FUD...

      Meaning, in no way will Microsoft ever be able to take on Linux directly.... Doing so would force the hand of IBM to get involved because they have much at stake...

    2. Re:This has been foreshadowed for years by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > Meaning, in no way will Microsoft ever be able to take on Linux directly....

      Which they have no intention of doing, for exactly the reasons you mention. They don't have to. IBM can do what it wants with Linux, safe in the knowledge they are one of the companies with a patent portfolio. Tom Tom on the other hand....

      Which is the message they want to send. Only players are allowed to play in the big leagues. If Tom Tom wants to enter the game they must license their IP from someone with a patent portfolio. Somebody like Novell or even IBM. But thinking one can just download Linux and enter the arena without a major defender is going to be shown as too dangerous for VC money, large instituitions, etc. At which point the major potential for market disruption implied by Linux, Open Source, Free Software, etc. is gone. This is just the warning shot. If companies like ASUS and Acer don't get the message expect an example to be made of one of the netbook makers soon.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  12. Linking to a blog about the article...? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is the third link in the summary to a blog about the first link? Ok so the first link is the story itself then the third one which only has three statements of thought:

    It's been in the air for ages, and now it's happening:

    /*He copies in some summary sentences from the article. */

    Presumably those are the three that relate to Linux, in which case this is likely to have broader implications than just the in-car navigation market.

    Here's a nice statement of how Microsoft views all this:

    /* He then posts a small quote from the first article. */

    In other words, Microsoft "respects and appreciates" open source until it actually starts to replace Microsoft's offerings, in which case the charming smile is replaced with the shark's grimace.

    It may not be a coincidence that Gutierrez has just been promoted to the rank of corporate vice president: could this legal action be his way of announcing the direction he and Microsoft will now take in the battle against Linux?

    Is someone trying to get page hits here? What's the "direct hits to my blog" form of Slashvertisement?

  13. Re:The 3 patents by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Short filenames doesn't seem like a "Linux" issue to me since Linux doesn't do this. If Linux does have a driver that does this, then there may be some validity toward their claims. Perhaps that driver should be removed from Linux.

    Linux's FAT32 driver does this. Removing the FAT32 driver would cause a lot of interoperability problems that would make Linux unsuitable for huge volumes of applications, e.g. accessing pictures stored on digital cameras (off the top of my head). TomTom needs this driver because they store the system on an SD card with the aim that systems can be upgraded/fixed by directly accessing the filesystem from a Windows PC, so they have to use either FAT32 or NTFS, and as Linux's support of NTFS is essentially a joke FAT32 is the only real option, therefore distributing a version without the offending driver compiled in is not an option for them.

  14. Grandma shouldn't be running Windows by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only issue there is getting it to be supported on Windows. Grandma wants to plug her memory card/flash drive into any computer and have it "just work".

    If every OS except Windows is able to

    1. use a modern filesystem for flash and have it "just work"
    2. connect to the internet and not become virus-infected unless the user is an expert

    then Windows isn't the right OS for Grandma.

    I know Windows still has major market penetration in many segments of society, but Grandmas just aren't where it should be. Get 'er a Mac. Or if you'll install it for her, get her Linux.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:Grandma shouldn't be running Windows by Xtravar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My grandpa breaks everything despite it being Windows XP.

      Every two months... the printer doesn't work, the taskbar is 'missing', the screen won't turn on...

      You know what would save half of the world's problems and increase productivity? Killing all printer manufacturers. How the fuck is it in the age of USB and memory protected OS's that printers still don't work seamlessly?

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    2. Re:Grandma shouldn't be running Windows by DeathElk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's odd - I had exactly the opposite experience. Granma's ubuntu 6.04 linux box was great. She could browse the web, do email, photos and letters (four icons on the desktop). Great that is, until the nice young bloke at the computer store convinced her to buy a vista PC. Now she's whining "why doesn't this work? It did before!" Meh my ass.

    3. Re:Grandma shouldn't be running Windows by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a strong feeling that, were it a postscript printer, I would not have these issues.

      Actually you probably would. Without proper (colour) calibration with both the screen and printer its not easy getting colours to "look" the same. Low end gear generally can't be calibrated without some cheating. You even need to take the lighting conditions into account. Also you can represent more colours on a printed sheet than you can on a monitor. But BW is easy to calibrate ;) .

      My printer is a BW HP P1005 (without ps) and i run only slackware. The OS drivers worked better than the HP ones and its so fast to print from cold. I have already printed >10000 pages without a hitch. It cost only 80EU. Thats all good. For colour I take stuff to a copycenter. Top end gear for only about twice my printers per page cost. They are calibrated and let you preview on calibrated monitors. Its perfect. But then we don't do that much colour work really.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  15. Re:The 3 patents by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 3, Informative

    TomTom needs this driver because they store the system on an SD card with the aim that systems can be upgraded/fixed by directly accessing the filesystem from a Windows PC, so they have to use either FAT32 or NTFS, and as Linux's support of NTFS is essentially a joke

    Linux's NTFS support is a joke? When did it stop working? I've been using it without problems for a couple of years now.

    --
    I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
  16. Those patent numbers by gringer · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the shorter PDF:
    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6175789.html — Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7054745.html — Method and system for generating driving directions

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6704032.html — Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7117286.html — Portable computing device-integrated appliance

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6202008.html — Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5579517.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5758352.html — Common name space for long and short filenames

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=02YIAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,256,642 — Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory.

    Some other text seems necessary in order to type stuff and get links in.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  17. patents by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, but I'd watch for the Democrat-majority congress and along with the new Democrat administration to Bono-ize patent terms just as was done for copyright terms. If they'll do it for Disney, why not for the US' largest OS vendor Microsoft?

    Because many other large corporations will also be adversely affected by extending patent terms. Also it's not just Democrats who extended copyrights, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was also called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act after the artist/performer Sonny Bono who was a Republican. Also though a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, signed it the Republicans controlled congress. 55 Senators and 228 members of the House, a majority in both cases, were Republicans.

    Falcon

  18. Filesystem 4 flash mem(wasRe:The right answer..) by sowth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been wondering what filesystem I should use for a flash card. Especially if I need compatibility. FAT doesn't quite fit the bill, especially if MS starts suing people over it. UDF seems to be the answer. (Wikipedia page)

    It already has native drivers in most, if not all operating systems, MS windows (apparently XP doesn't have write support), Macs, Linux and even FreeBSD (as I understand). Frome what I understand, it is intended to reduce the number of writes (intended for rewritable CDs/DVDs), so it should give the longest life to the card. It supports many Posix / Unix filesystem features (hard/sym linking, sparse files, long filenames without ugly hacks, etc...)

    However, I have troubles figuring out how to make Linux autodetect UDF, so I am not sure in my experiments I am creating the FS correctly.

    What other choices are out there? For linux specific, ext2 seems to be the choice for native stuff, plus cramfs (sp?) for read-only. (I'm thinking of making a bootable flash card for my Asus EEE). I will probably have to use FAT for my digital camera as this is the only format it supports, but it appears to be the old-fashoned DOS shortname (not vfat or 32), so I guess these patents are not a problem?

    This is what my research tells me, but it is not much.

  19. UMSDOS as prior art? by fireman+sam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could UMSDOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umsdos) be seen as prior art for at long file name patent (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5579517)?

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  20. Microsoft might have tried to push WinCE on tomtom by wtarreau · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suspect MS has tried to push WinCE on Tomtom to replace Linux, and threatened them to sue them if they refused. These days, we see windows coming on devices where we would not expect it, and it is possible that there is some back pressure from MS.

  21. Patents are supposed to be circumvented by Yizzerin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing to add into this debate: Microsoft can have a big imposing patent portfolio and can patent something like the filename table mentioned above, but its patents *can* be bypassed by similar inventions. The original point of the patent system (as I understand it) was both to allow inventors to earn money from their inventions by giving them an exclusive right to them AND to give others an incentive to develop *new* mechanisms to work around patented ideas.

    Basically, if your competitor had patented something and was successful, the only way you can make money is if you figure out how to develop around your competitor's patent (thus, supposedly spurring innovation). This is also, I guess, why software patents are significantly more difficult to administer than hardware patents.

    It makes many patent cases (and patent portfolios) seem less intimidating when you look at them in this way.

  22. Re:Software patents by AlXtreme · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I use a TomTom myself and find it a great little Linux device but I'm less than impressed with the way they treat the Linux community, for example you can only update via a Windows application that doesn't even run in wine.

    Even more as their TomTom Home Windows application was built using xulrunner (mozilla).

    Having so many Linux developers, yet not wanting to put in any effort to help Linux users. It's a shame, but not uncommon with companies using Linux for embedded devices and appliances.

    --
    This sig is intentionally left blank
  23. Similar to the GIF fiasco? by VShael · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember back when GIF was the number one image type on the internet? And then there was a licensing issue?

    Almost killed the use of GIF as a filetype. Gave rise to the predominance of JPG and the growth of the PNG format.

    I can't remember the last time I saw a gif that wasn't animated (Which seems to the be preferred small moving animatic format. For now.)

  24. Re:The 3 patents by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

    ntfs-3g is the driver to use. I don't remember if they still have the big scary warnings but in the usual Linux trend it was probably to say "do no use this in a mission-critical setting!!!" in the early days, I've used it with write support for years and never experienced any data corruption. I did earlier experience a bug in that writing files past the 2GB (or was it 4GB?) limit on external disks would fail with error, but that's gone too. My read/write speeds are completely on par with Linux file systems though the CPU usage is a bit higher.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  25. Good LORD, some of you are WHINNERS. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As I read through all this, I have to think that you are the same management type that have left companies beholden to MS.
    1. MS ppl are USE to installing drivers. Get a new toy, and you install a driver. Show me any large company with a product that does NOT have a CD with it, that does not have drivers to install.
    2. Yes, some ppl will whine. Those are YOU. The very same type of ppl whining here will whine to the company. But they would find SOMETHING to whine about.
    3. Saying that MS will not support something else is a joke. MS does NOT like to be left behind. If a new FS is used by MULTIPLE products, such as Apple, HP printer, Sony Cameras, Sandisk memory, then MS will include it. In fact, they will support it and try to push something new about it (EEE).

    There was an interesting point in these posts. Linux's FS ARE under GPL. 4 ways around that.

    1. Linux world moves one of the FS to under lgpl or under BSD. If under lgpl, issue solved.
    2. A new implementation of a current GPL code is done, and released under a LGPL or BSD license.
    3. Pick a BSD FS. Nice start. BUT, it allows for easy EEE by one company. That is why lgpl would be good on such an important item.
    4. Industry gets together and comes up with something totally new. Getting a bunch of companies to agree CAN occur, but it is rare.

    My own suggestion is that the Linux world should consider LGPLing the ext2 FS (yes, have to get ALL the authors to agree, but that is limited).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  26. idiotic patents by jipn4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The patents in question are idiotic.

    In two patents, Microsoft basically tries to claim rights to running a general purpose OS on a computer designed for a car and having Internet access on such a machine. This is trying to patent a market niche.

    In two other patents, they are trying to claim rights to the awful long/short filenames compatibility hack in FAT file systems. One patent is trying to claim allocating space from flash erasable memory in blocks. And the last patent is related to modes in user interfaces. All of these are trying to patent what any competent software developer would come up with when faced with such a programming task.

    I hope Microsoft will be shredded to pieces in court.

  27. Forgt TomTom - what about my in-car entertainment by markana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aside from the FAT issues, these are even more troubling:

    6175789 - Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture

    6202008 - Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity

    There are a lot of people in the geek community who build Linux-based car computers: http://www.mp3car.com/ . These patents, at first reading, seem to lock up that entire product space. Or at least, that's how Microsoft is going to spin it...

  28. Asimov hates Microsoft by louzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent

    --
    Heroes die once, cowards live longer.