Slashdot Mirror
Analyzing Microsoft's Linux Lawsuit
jammag writes "Open source advocate Bruce Perens takes a close look at Microsoft's lawsuit against TomTom (discussed here last week), which involves an implementation of the Linux kernel, and calls it essentially a paper tiger. He notes: 'the technologies claimed in the 8 patents involved are so old and obvious that it's fair to say they have a high "Duh!" factor. There's an anti-trust angle to this suit that could blow up in Microsoft's face. And there's a high probability that some or all of the patents involved are invalid, due to recent court decisions.' Although the legal expense for TomTom to defend itself in court could be astronomical — meaning they may be forced to settle — in Perens' view Microsoft is aware its case is weak, yet hopes for a PR victory at limited cost." And reader nerdyH adds speculation from Open Innovation Network CEO Keith Bergelt that Redmond's action could be retaliation for TomTom's spurning a Microsoft acquisition bid in 2006.
Why do we get so many legal analyses on slashdot from non-lawyers?
Would there be any difference in how Microsoft handled this case if TomTom had used FreeBSD instead of Linux?
transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Seriously? I mean, really, what's the point here? Are we that gigantic of a bigot that we have to resort to stupid little stunts like this to make ourselves feel important?
Bleh. I guess I can't say I'm surprised. "Screw the rules, I have money!" Or something like that.
I was reading one of the patents involved earlier today and it claims to patent the installation of a computer for navigation, and word-processing (of all things) in a car. So if I get my laptop and stick it on the dash board have I violated there patent? Seems a bit dumb.. However....I know nothing about the law so....
Microsoft is evil.
Linux is jesus.
Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds are my personal heros.
Microsoft is evil.
Microsoft likes to take control of the industry.
This is the year of the linux desktop.
Tom Tom, from what I've read, has been a bad open-source citizen. Nevertheless, all Linux users have a shared interest in defending Linux against FUD. It would be so cool if the Linux community swarmed this problem. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to apply here. If MS is squashed here, there much less likely to go after even smaller businesses and people.
This type of law suit in which the righteous party is forced to settle because of legal costs is exactly why Microsoft needs criminal sanctions. It is also exactly why stiff punitive fines should be levied against Microsoft. Hundreds of billions would be appropriate.
... Linux has nothing to worry about, that's good enough for me. After all, he's undoubtedly got many cases of intellectual property litigation under his belt that would lead us to believe that he knows what he's talking about.
Right?
what would you call it if they had actually written a linux kernel?
I read the article, Microsoft contest their FAT patent. But why would anyone need a translation table from 8.3 FAT names to the longer versions, that was only for dumb Microsoft systems that needed this translation for backwards compatibility. There is no need for such backward compatibility these days surely, long filenames are used these days???
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Is there an equal position for Microsoft and OpenSource community in the court? - Definitely not! OpenSource community should ask in the court to review Microsoft's initial position which is not fair ! OpenSource has their source open to the entire world, so even Microsoft can sneak for possible "patent breaks", but Microsoft has CLOSED source code, so nobody knows - are there any patent breaks or not. Is this equal position: if one player play with open cards, but another has rights to play with closed cards and asks judge to look closer only that player with open cards? At least at the court both parties should be equal and should come up with source code just because of there is no other options.
...and calls it essentially a paper tiger
It's really simple to fight then. They need a scissor lizard!
Thank you Bruce Perens, legal scholar. Now turn off your Cylon projection and get back to spreading socialism and using communist techniques to pollute the minds of every American under 30 into giving away the world to people who want to kill them.
Either:
a)your sarcasm skills need some work; or
b)you have a reputation for being loud, sweaty and throwing chairs; or
c)you are one sick piece of crap; or
d)the ghost of Joseph McCarthy now trolls Slashdot
Sorry for the obvious overlap in some of the choices.
I know this wasn't what you were getting at, but he didn't say Linux has nothing to worry about (did you read the article?). Even if there isn't much substance behind the patent claims themselves, the article points out there is still plenty to worry about with these kinds of cases.
I'd formed an opinion on this particular case, and now I discover I'm agreeing with Bruce Perens.
Which means I likely overlooked something and got it wrong, better take another look.
Actually, even as a non-attorney, Bruce Perens does have quite a bit of legal background. You can read all about it in Bruce Perens' online resume
My blog
Patents in this field were controversial enough, actually by Gates' own admission, even before Bilski.
Then again, lawmakers should never have allowed such ambiguity to persist for litigants in costly court cases to figure out the validity of countless doubtful patents where none should have been granted in the first place.
This case of david versus goliath sounds worthy of the EFF's attention...or soemthing.
Tomtom needs help, not because he's right, but because he's an ally.
MS is up to no good here, as usual.
1) If MS wins, FAT implementations will get smacked down quickly due to the effect of a cascading precedent. This includes linux mounting a floppy disk OR a flash drive OR a camera OR... need I go on?
2) If MS forces a favorable settlement, the chill factor will freeze out competitors
3) If MS settles out, we get nothing
4) If MS loses the case, we have victory.
Anyone who can call MS out as bullshit and back it up, get in touch with TomTom AND his lawyers post haste.
I didn't say that, and you didn't read the article, so kindly go do so and say something more clueful next time.
Bruce Perens.
is supporters of Microsoft through paying for Microsoft products. I, for one, deny our old Microsoft overlords!
If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
MS has the pattents, Linux/TomTom infringes uppon them. Let M$ win (sorry TomTom).
When they do win they open themselves to another monopoly charge. Why would anyone want a FAT file system today if not for the prevalence of Windowns?
Hell yeah. My personal favourites:
* Program a new minesweeper
* Have a wank
* Focus on gloss, not on debugging
* Focus on more gloss, not on documenting
* Copy, don't innovate
* Ignore feedback
* Steer clear from real apps and anything which resembles a workflow
If every Linux user just did one of these, image the dog kennel we would end up with
So, it's not the technology. Microsoft's market force as an effective monopoly in desktop computing made FAT ubiquitous, and Microsoft is able to muscle other businesses into paying a patent royalty for FAT despite its lack of innovation, only because FAT is what Microsoft chose to put in its own systems.
It's hard to argue with this, even for MS apologists. When everybody is almost forced to use a system that you invented just because you invented it first, they shouldn't be able to use the legal system to strongarm you with it.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
Hi Bruce,
You are going to have to change your name to Boltar before this is all over!
I didn't say that
Agreed.
the technologies claimed in the 8 patents involved are so old and obvious that it's fair to say they have a high "Duh!" factor.
Given our legal system, isn't that something we should be worried about? In other words, someone (MS in this case) can hold entire market segment(s) hostage, if it prevails, even via an out-of-court settlement.
isn't "inventing it first" what innovation is?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
So? If he was a lawyer, would that change his opinions? Or if it didn't change his opinions, would it make the same points more correct somehow?
You might've noticed that there are wide differences in opinion between lawyers anyway (that's probably why there are so many court cases). Are Bruce's opinions going to fall outside that range? If he is saying something that some percentage of lawyers would agree with, does it still matter that he isn't one?
Being that 50% of legal teams end up losing their arguments and what they say mostly depends on who they work for, how much weight would you put on any one lawyers opinion anyway?
I don't quite get the Slashdots communities fixation on constantly pointing out that someone (including themselves) isn't a lawyer. It is obvious, redundant and pointless.
If we aren't involved in the court case ourselves, does it really matter to us that Bruce's opinion on the case is not official legal advice? How many of us would really march into some other future court case armed only with an article Bruce once wrote on a website? Hell nobody would do that even if a lawyer wrote the article.
Inventing something is innovative, but actually using an invention for a practical purpose is even more innovative.
Patents, however, basically say that you are not allowed to do what you want with your own hands, simply because someone else came up with the idea first. Even if you both invented the same thing on opposite sides of the country, but one of you filed first, you can be screwed.
Yes. I've been trying to get other people to think about this for 10 years or more.
Bruce Perens.
well done yet again. it's not about linux at all, it's about tomtom's use of fat32.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
all i heard was blah blah blah.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
IANAL but IMHO, TomTom's lawyers should:
1) request to deposition all the individual inventors named in the patents;
2) inform the inventors that they should have independent legal representation, since submitting false claims to the USPTO is perjury, a federal crime in the USA;
3) at the deposition really closely grill each inventor over each patent's prior art and obviousness;
4) then ask the inventors what advice Microsoft's patent department and lawyers gave to the inventors regarding each patent's prior art and obviousness ( Lawyer client confidentiality is not necessarily a two way street );
5) start building a case for the disbarment of any of Microsoft's lawyers who gave any advice or prodding to the inventors to ignore existing prior art and obviousness;
6) re-write many Microsoft's patent claims in technical English ( removing legal patent jargon ) and publish the result;
7) put out a call to the technical community for written and signed statements regarding the obvious nature of the patent claims;
8) fully publicise the outcomes of steps 1-7.
You are trying to manipulate Slashdot stocks by trolling? Sad
You must be new he.... wait...
all i heard was blah blah blah.
I'd consider getting new text to speech software then.
My pics.
I think there are many of us out there who would toss a couple of hundred to TomTom for a device specifically designed and stated where the profits would go to fund the fight to put Microsoft in its place.
If they settle then this is exactly how I and many others said would be the way Microsoft attacks GNU/Linux with their fake patent threats.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I don't think Microsoft really cares if they win or lose this lawsuit. The message has been sent to new upstarts, either you pay microsoft their tax or face death by lawyers.
IANAL, but i'll play dirty (as if I was a lawyer) and walk you through why that wouldn't work.
...Profit?
1. Microsoft, as a corporate entity would only need to supply a witness with sufficient relevant knowledge and/or duties relating to the patents. I.e. if the inventors are no longer inventing, they could bring in an intern who's maintaining the file system (or other tech grunt/manager), even if the inventor is currently a VP of file systems or some such title.
2. Scare tactic, unless you're bringing charges (costly and veeeeery hard to prove) against the inventor, it doesn't fall under the umbrella of the case at hand.
3. Bob the fat32 intern wouldn't know about prior art or the obviousness and would state the ever so annoying "I don't know".
4. Client attorney privilege is pretty much regarded as sacred, however, on the rare chance that they are forced to turn over this privilaged and confidential work product (another buzz word meaning 'you'll never get to see it, ever'), it might be gone forever unless its on paper or in email (and paper or email from 10-15 years ago is legally allowed to be purged in accordance with policy, Microsoft is not a bank) a simple "I can't recall" or "I'm sure I would not have {given advice to break the law}" would suffice to disarm the question.
5. See above.
6. Ok, done, so now what?
7. There, finally you're on to something, but I suppose you got this from a prior article on slashdot where a company put out a call to the technical community?
8.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
According to the assistant director of the patent office, they haven't prosecuted a perjury case since 1974. They shut down their enforcement department. So, if you lie, all you can lose is your patent. And someone else might have to spend millions, and kill his own company, to make that happen.
It seems that every part of the system is engineered to reward the person with bad intentions.
Bruce Perens.
Per TFS, TomTom may be forced to settle. Given that if they do, it means MS can go after others using linux (Motorola, Nokia and others). Wouldn't it make sense for companies who rely on linux for their business to somehow help out TomTom to prevent MS getting a precedent they can use in the future?
IANAL so I dont know how these things usually work.
Quit trolling Slashdot for dates.
"Analyzing Microsoft's FAT Lawsuit"
Sorry Linux, Microsoft just isn't that into you.
At TWO CENTS per share, it's more likely he is pointing out the company "won't be around long" since you can't exactly manipulate something that has crashed that badly!
than the EFF.
But TomTom has gone much farther than trying to use the ideas.. they are implementing the file system verbatim for obvious (its a standard, be compatible) reasons, and thats much worse than simply working off the ideas.
..certainly cannot blame Microsoft for trying to defend a patent that was granted to them, especialy if the abuser is in direct competition in a marketplace. If this was NTFS the situation would be a little more clear, but because its "the standard" FAT32, some people cannot see the similarity.
We can argue all day long that anything FAT32 shouldn't be patented from a moral standpoint, but at the end of the day there are numerous patents related to FAT32 that are still on the books, unexpired.
TomTom chose FAT32 for economic reasons.. they should have to pay the costs of that choice.
"His name was James Damore."
TomTom is the only major non-Windows GPS. All the other big names are WinCE based.
Message to all vendors of small systems, use WinCE or face the consequences.
Hell hath no fury like a microsoft spurned.
haha, lack of mod points hurts :(
I've always thought patent reform won't happen until some company DOES hold a significant chunk of the economy hostage. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet given the wild abandon with which the USPTO hands out patents for things that are obvious to even a technical newbie.
I am a little surprised it's Microsoft that's trying to do it, patents was one of the few things they haven't used to bully people (they've threatened it a lot). I guess the more desperate they get, the more sleazy tactics they'll stoop to... and they're only about 2 steps from hiring hitmen as it is.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
1. Microsoft, as a corporate entity would only need to supply a witness with sufficient relevant knowledge and/or duties relating to the patents....
No. If you name an individual for deposition, then the Judge is not going to look to kindly to Microsoft sending substitute, especially if that substitute did not have anything to do with the patent at the time of filing.
2. Scare tactic, unless you're bringing charges
That statement is pretty rich, given the lack of quality of Microsoft's patents is using against TomTom. However, this scare is not against Microsoft the corporation but the individual's being depositioned. Also your assuming that current administration will not change the USPTO perjury prosecution policy. US SEC prosecutions have laps over the last decade, but many more prosecutions for fraud are now proceeding.
Honestly, I'm not all that interested in seeing small fry Microsoft employees being prosecuted for a federal crime, but a few cases against so called "inventors" of obvious patent would do a lot to start cleaning up the massive multi billion dollar fraud perpetuated against the USPTO.
Ideally we need the USPTO to offer up an amnesty against the named inventors. IF any named inventor has been made aware of or "discovered" that there was existing prior art at the time of patent filing or a named invention was obvious ( Including multiple independent implementations before the patent was full disclosed ) THEN any of the inventors named in the patent should be able contact the USPTO and rescind the patent OR risk possible prosecution.
3. Bob the fat32 intern ...
See answer to #1 above.
4. Client attorney privilege is pretty much regarded as sacred,
Only to the lawyer, not to the client. And the lawyers in question represent Microsoft not the individual client being depositioned. The client is not under any legal obligation not to disclose what Microsoft's lawyers said to him, or any correspondence including any written memos or emails. Microsoft's lawyer's apparently love memos.
Yes, via Publicity increasing TomTom's public profile leading to more sales.
I'd think that a proper start on reform would be to enforce THAT particular aspect of the law. There should be appropriate punishments meted out for the people gaming the system like this.
in the wake of the tomtom case, canonical is rumored looking seriously into pulling mono from the next ubuntu base. it'll be in multiverse, but not in main. they aren't going to take the risk of releasing it in the base.
Some say this has already happened: The ones who held up RIM and threatened to shut down Washington's BlackBerrys. Even THAT case didn't trash the US's fucked-up patent system.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The TomTom I have carries a plain vanilla SD card. Any bets that it came from SanDisk (or wherever) already formatted with FAT32? I think SanDisk was one of the companies strong armed by Microsoft a while ago into buying a FAT32 license. Therefore, shouldn't the license to use said card transfer downstream? Or is it that nobody can write to a FAT32 partition without a further license? Microsoft will have its hands full if it's the latter - when The Planet attacks Microsoft in court like the RIAA.
Most of the stuff on
It's right on Microsoft's website. Looks to me like msft promised not sue because of vfat?
1. LIMITED LICENSE AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE.
(a) Provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement and subject to the limitations in Sections 1(c) - (f) below, Microsoft grants to you the following non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable license under any copyrights owned or licensable by Microsoft without payment of consideration to unaffiliated third parties, to reproduce the Specification solely for the purposes of creating portions of products which comply with the Specification in unmodified form.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspx
But, what do I know.
Msft's patents are bogus, msft just patents obvious ideas, or other people's ideas, in order harass any real competition. If msft can not win through better products, then msft will win through barratry and extrotion. This is no different than the scox scam.
Congratulations on broadcasting your clueless status!
Thanks for playing the "make moronic FUD statements on Slashdot" game! You are a definite winner!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
As much as I would love for that to be true, I think the odds are against it. I remember the flame wars on the ubuntu-devel list a few years ago, over Tomboy of all things.
Logic didn't prevail then. But maybe the combination of this and Miguel calling someone who points out that Microsoft is unfriendly to open source a "freetard" for the millionth time will do the trick. Here's hoping.
What new precedent would be set? That violating a patent can cost you - I think that's pretty well established already.
The problem is that some people are so Linux-centered that they project it on to other people and systems. If MS were to win their case, it wouldn't make it easier to sue any other organization that happens to use linux in their products - only those organizations who violate the patents in question.
Any other organizations that violate those patents would be in exactly the same position even if they didn't use Linux.
It has indeed been tried in court! In Germany. The violator got their arsch handed to them, as you would expect.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Depending on your perspective, most patents can be considered obvious and patenting other people's ideas is standard procedure.
MS isn't any better or worse than most patent holders.
What, you're reading on a Kindle?
Why I hate M$ so much. DDDiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee M$ Diiiiiiieeeeeeee.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Now the true contest begins. SCO = Darth Vader. MS = The Emperor.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
That would make sense if they found any MS patents that could apply only to .Net and nothing else. The fact that mono implements part of the .Net framework doesn't mean it carries a special danger of patent infringement.
Most patents are written to be as broad as possible, MS has enough experience at it to avoid the mistake of limiting its scope to the .Net framework.
I was unaware, and I am of course not surprised at the result ;-)
Do you happen to know the name of the company or have a link to an article, etc?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Second link on "gpl court germany". Harald Welte, of course, kicking D-Link's arse.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I've said it before: this case is probably not about the patents at all. MS have been mapping the Earth in great detail during the past years, and now they want to take over the navigation business. What better way than to first eliminate their competition, either by buying it or, if that doesn't work, by suing it into oblivion?
-- Cheers!
No. You don't need to look at any code to determine that it's mounting an SD card with a VFAT filesystem. Just look at the card.
In principle there's nothing stopping me from designing a Hypothetical File System such that there exists a bit string S which is both a valid FAT file system and a valid HypoFS file system.
If I give different meanings to the same bit strings, I'm not handling the same file system.
So I think that examining the card only works in practice ;-)
Yeah, they're soooo much juicier, don't you know!
I think his point was that Microsoft approaches open source in bad faith. And it's true. Mono exists because of the Novell/Microsoft pact, which was an early step in a long-term strategy to use patents to destroy the GPL ecosystem.
Microsoft paid Novell to add legitimacy to its patent threats. Novell funds mono development. It's perfectly reasonable for GP to conclude that Mono is poisonous.
Most of your post is pointless because this cause isn't/can't/won't be about whether the patent is valid or not. That is for the USPTO to decide.
That said, tomtom could (and would likely) request the case to be delayed pending a review of the patents in question by the USPTO. The patent review(s) could take years, and only then would the original case then continue.
IANAL, but that is how I understand such cases proceed.
Precedent doesn't matter much in this instance. What matters is a challenge with the patent office (this costs an average of 5 million), the chances of the patents being upheld seem pretty small post bilski, at least the FAT ones (the others I don't know enough). But the law prevents judges from tossing a patent out, even when its blatently illegal, so instead of a moderately expensive publicly subsidized court battle (and appeals), patent cases end up being massively expensive for profit exercises mostly run by the patent office, *then* you get to do a round of appeals, depending on the outcome.
Once a patent is tossed out, MS can't use it anymore, but they have 227 others, so this is gonna be a long fight.
On the plus side, Tom Tom is probably going to fight if they aren't run by complete morons, otherwise they would have at least negotiated with MS.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
For some reason this reminds me of this Caddyshack 2 quote
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094824/quotes
[Chandler Young has gotten Hartounian Construction's power turned off]
Peter Blunt: [on phone] That's hard to say, huh? Well, when can we get the power turned back on? That's hard to say, huh? Well, tell me something. Is it as hard to say as "Oh, my god! Somebody help me! There's a man in my office with a *flamethrower*"?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The free software foundation sent out this email to their subscribers on the 28th of February
Looking at Microsoft's FAT patents through Bilski glasses
http://endsoftpatents.org/looking-at-microsoft-s-fat-patents-through-bilski-glasses/
Yesterday, Microsoft attacked free software and GNU/Linux users with
software patent claims against the TomTom Navigator and its
implementation of the FAT file system. But do they have a sword or a wet
rag?
With widespread support for GNU/Linux becoming a reality, are these
patent claims an attempt to chill adoption? If so, then we need to make
sure everyone knows about Bilski. Please read this story and use digg to
help raise awareness:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Looking_at_Microsoft_s_FAT_patents_through_Bilski_glasses_2
Sign-up or ask friends to join our End Software Patents mailing list to
get these alerts:
http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert
Thanks
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
1. It was standard practice on camera flash to do this, so this is bollocks, and certainly not their idea.
2. Even before this, Psions old EEPROM system would write to the next block until the EEPROM was full, then erase it and go back to the start to minimize the number of erases.
It's a bullshit claim.
The Google G1 phone uses a 2gb SanDisk micro SD card. Lets see Microsoft pick on someone its own size.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flamebait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Would the companies behind opensource tech be able to stand against msft if they pooled some cash to help tom tom with the legal cost of sticking up for itself instead of settling?
So either you're being buttfucked or you're wrong.
Pick one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah what kind of crazy system rewards the people who invented something and gives them some control over their invention?
"The patent offices' decision has no preclusive effect on a court, and there are indeed cases where the patent office made a decision in a re-examination supporting a patent and a court later looked at the same exact issue, disagreed with the PTO, and found the patent invalid,"
Dan Ravicher, PUBPATs executive director and founder ( From Groklaw )
I'm reasonably sure that 4DOS88 (1989?) supported long filenames. Is there anyone that can confirm.
Wouldn't any fs with a mechanism for extended metadata be prior art (altough not as specialist).
I'm sure other people did what I did when they had to pass files with "long" filenames through a dreaded 8.3 name fs (or, heaven forbid, a 4 character filename fs, without directories, anyone else remember those?). Simply add the long filename as a single line first in the file in question, give the file a dummy 8.3 filename. Instant LFN support;-). As vague as the patent is, it should be enough as prior art.
I'm sure with the power of the GNU/Linux community they have money to give to the lawyers to defend this.
I'm sure it'll work out as well as it did for Craig Neidorf's lawyers when he got sued by the Feds.
The Google G1 phone uses a 2gb SanDisk micro SD card. Lets see Microsoft pick on someone its own size.
Here's a list of Companies whose products write FAT32:
They could band together now and de-fang this nonsense.
Most of the stuff on
I (...) am no longer convinced that microsoft is a gentle giant
"I am no longer convinced that the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a good idea." -- George W. Bush
"I am no longer convinced that the Titanic is unsinkable." -- Thomas Andrews
"I am no longer convinced that striking explosives with an iron bar is a wise practice." - Phineas P. Gage.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
For years everyone has been whining about the shortcomings of FAT16/32. Now everyone whines that Microsoft wants money for it. I challenge the FOSS community to create/adapt an alternative FS and write drivers for the major OSs, including an IFS driver for Windows*, all licensed in a way acceptable to hardware vendors. Lord knows, we have plenty of existing FSs to pick from...
My .02,
-Ghostis
Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
Nowadays you have to properly structure yourself if you're going to operate any business, and it looks like they didn't. This is why we have corporations, so that those who invest in a corporation are not liable for its expenses.
I note that Microsoft licenses its operating systems through a Nevada subsidiary, which saves it millions it would have to pay to the state of Washington.
But you don't have to do it just for taxes, and it's cheap to do. It costs $50 (it was $25 a couple of years ago, that's when I got one) to set up a new corporation or L.L.C. in, say, Colorado and you can do it over the Internet in 10 minutes with a credit card; all you need is an address there and the corporation can be its own registered agent. It's $10 to renew it the next year; there's no excuse for not registering a new corporation or LLC for every aspect of your business
So now they have to sue the party that created the device which might be incorporated in one state, the marketer in a second, the trademark holder in a third, and so on. There is no one party with deep pockets, and you've got the advantage if you get sued, you just sell the assets to another corporation and maybe go bankrupt or fight for a while and drain the other side with legal bills, then if you want, let them get a judgment or default judgment against the first corporation (which will be a shell corporation with virtually no assets) and have to start the practice all over again playing "whack-a-mole" to try to find the responsible party.
Or my understanding is, using limited partnerships and LLCs, you can use something called a "Charge Order" such that the assets are held by one company, the income by another, and if you sue them, even if you win, first you can't get to the assets, two you can't get to the income, and three, the IRS will impute the income you didn't get to you, so if you get a judgment against them for, say, $50,000,000 that they don't pay because of the charge order the IRS considers it as if you got the $50,000,000 and taxes you on it! As a result you're worse off than if you'd never sued them!
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
its really to bad that groklaw more or less closed up shop some time ago, as this would be perfect...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Now shut the fuck up!
Is there any way to start a donation that can be targeted at users of Linux and Linux software. Like in cases of TomTom there should be away to donate to assist them in their defence. I for one would hate to see them settle. The Linux Defense fund seems to be oriented toward developers. Perhaps we need away to show users, implementers and adopters of Linux that we are willing to back them up as well. Or is there one already? Besides fellow slashdotter's paypal accounts :)
Microsoft's market force as an effective monopoly in desktop computing made FAT ubiquitous, and Microsoft is able to muscle other businesses into paying a patent royalty for FAT despite its lack of innovation, only because FAT is what Microsoft chose to put in its own systems
So, what, if FAT was innovative, it would have been okay? This reads like it's bad because FAT isn't all that great of a filesystem.
Microsoft doesn't muscle people into paying royalties. You want to use FAT, you know FAT is covered by patents. You're going top have to pay them to use their tech. You're obviously not willing to get a license from Microsoft, you're going to get sued it's simple.
This whole the patents "are so old and obvious" thing is a tad ridiculous. The older a patent gets, the more obvious it becomes, especially if the patented tech takes off. Hindsight is great like that. The patents probably weren't all that obvious when they were applied for. This constant bid to invalidate any patent just reads as a means "muscle" the patent holders into letting everyone under the sun use their tech. It's absurd.
Then there's this whole bitchfest about innovation. About how patents cripple innovation, etc. Ever notice that it's the people who're caught trying to use somebody else's patented tech with neither permission, nor a license who complain about a lack of "innovation"? If anything, patents _encourage_ innovation by leaving a developer with the choice: you either bite the bullet and pay a license fee, or you're forced to do the R&D and conceive a new way of doing something. There's a word for that, what was it? Oh, right, innovation!
It's not antitrust, it's not abusing a monopoly that Microsoft no longer has (though one could easily argue that at best, all they had was a pseudo-monopoly). It's an issue of using the patent system as it was intended. A patent allows for the holder to decide who can and cannot use the patented tech, for whatever reason, or even for no reason other than just because they don't like you.
The fun part about the patent system that the people who wine about it don't get, is that you can easily and legally take a patented tech, innovate on it, and bar the holder of the original patent from using the new tech. But nobody does that anymore. Innovation is hard, after all.
This whole thing can easily be averted by TomTom developing, say, an ext2 driver for Windows, and packaging that with ext2 formatted storage. Sure, it's inconvenent for the user, and requires an extra step, but hey, you didn't want to license Microsoft's tech, after all.
The part about "abusing market dominance" to get FAT where it is, well, you'll have to find a judge who'll agree that a filesystem isn't an integral part of the OS, and that there exists a market for filesystems that aren't FAT or NTFS on Windows and then pat yourself on the back for setting an utterly stupid precedent. What's next? Are we going to force an antitrust ruling over Verdana and Times New Roman because Microsoft "abused Windows' market dominance" to achieve ubiquity for their core web fonts? Are we going to force another antitrust ruling over explorer because those IE-only sites out there are a result of Microsoft "abusing the market dominance of Windows"? Are we going to do it over WMV? .NET?
The fact that FAT has become the defacto standard for removable media shouldn't result in forcing the patents on it to be invalidated, and should not result in supporting people who decide they're too high and mighty to play by the rules and get a license from Microsoft to use their tech. No, it should result in one of two options. Either bite the bullet and get permission from Microsoft to use their tech, or innovate a newer, better standard.
Here's a perfect example of a bull shit patent and they're using in this lawsuit:
-------------
Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture
A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.) and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word processing, etc.). The applications may be supplied by the vehicle manufacturer and/or by the vehicle user.
-------------
This is filed on: Sep 10, 1999... as I read that, the only thing I could think of was: are you fucking serious? They think nobody had the idea of sticking a laptop into a car before this? Didn't police cars in the 90's come with computers mounted in the center console? I had a computer in my car before.
What's next? Somebody is going to patent wearing pants on your legs? How about a patent for heating up food on a curved metal object? How about a patent for producing light and heat by rapid exothermic oxidation. These assholes have turned patent system into bull shitting system. I for one will not stand up for bull shit. I hope the judge takes one look at this and revokes the said patents. I doubt that's going to happen though.
Yeah what kind of crazy system rewards the people who invented something and gives them some control over their invention?
Hah!... however, Microsoft allowed and encouraged adoption of FAT32 for a very long time, without consequence to anyone who did so. Because of their behavior, some smart lawyer could probably make a case that FAT32 is now public domain.
Most of the stuff on
OF course Microsoft is defending FAT32 - I mean it's one of the new supported features of Windows 7!
"Mono exists because of the Novell/Microsoft pact, which was an early step in a long-term strategy to use patents to destroy the GPL ecosystem."
No. First of all, Mono was around for years before Novell purchased Ximian, so the agreement between Novell and Microsoft wasn't a factor. Besides, anyone can make their own .Net clone, it's an ECMA standard, and it doesn't require any permission from Microsoft to implement.
This is exactly the kind of thing where Barack Obama should be spending his change money. It not only is putting MS in its place the right thing to do this promotes the computer technology he has promised us.
Interesting... You're suggesting arguing that there is an implied-in-fact patent license. I could certainly see how that could be the case.
Actually patents aren't to give you control at all, but to give you revenue for others using your idea.
If you wanted control, you'd make it a trade secret and never share your idea (like the Coke formula).
Patents require registration and proof of functionality (or are supposed to) specifically so that others can use your ideas in the future.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
If this was NTFS the situation would be a little more clear, but because its "the standard" FAT32, some people cannot see the similarity.
The difference is that NTFS is not patented. (Nobody besides Microsoft knows the journal file format though.)
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
Except chances are most of them have licenses or permission from Microsoft to write FAT32.
See, the thing with patents isn't that they bar everyone else from using your patented product. They give you the power to decide who isn't allowed to use your product.
9) Implement UDF on the device. Life without VFAT isn't hard.
I'm in the market for a GPS, and hadn't taken notice of the TomTom until now; I was even less aware that it runs Linux. I'd like to extend a big thank you - Microsoft's antics (and subsequent coverage here on Slashdot) have made the TomTom the top item in my list of choices.
Somehow, I don't think Microsoft would appreciate the thanks. :-)
Whatever you do, do not play this game [bthomson.com]. I'm serious.
I won't, since the game's author apparently can't write working JS.
See subject: I suspect you did that after you admit you use multiple registered accounts here to mod yourself up & make it appear that you have the backing of others here in your postings, and you are now trying to hide that evidence by making your history of posts here not publicly visible. Evidence of that? Read here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793 [slashdot.org] because that makes you a total loser The End of Days, rotflmao, and now everyone here knows it and should know it.