Slashdot Mirror
TomTom Settles With Microsoft
Surrounded writes "It appears TomTom bowed to the pressure and settled with Microsoft over the recent patent infringement claims from the Redmond software giant. In the agreement, TomTom will pay Microsoft for coverage under the eight car navigation and file management systems patents in the Microsoft case. Also as part of the agreement, Microsoft receives coverage under the four patents included in the TomTom counter-suit. TomTom also has to remove functionality related to two file management system patents (the 'FAT LFN patents')."
...weak sauce.
I wish TomTom had fought this; the FAT patents are utter nonsense. But patent fights are notoriously expensive, so I understand why TomTom did this instead. In the long term, I hope that software patents get eliminated, but that will have to wait for another day.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Um lol?
Anyway, there wasn't any details on the removed functionality, or any side effects. I don't want to download a minor update to my device and suddenly lose something.
It's time to put OSS freeloaders/thieves to the sword! Go Microsoft!!!
True, a settlement out of court says nothing about the patents' validity or other merits of the case. But it does say something about the conditions under which a patent holder is willing to license a patent.
I don't like the precedence this sets at all - removing functionality related to the file management systems. Everyone should be extremely bothered by the implications of that.
ha, fail.
anyways, it's not really that interesting of an article. there was no way that they could stand up to MS in court, settlement was their best way to get over it and move on.
Remember kids, if you're going to build a Linux-based device and distribute it in the USA, remove the FAT driver and include an ext2fs IFS driver on your install CD.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
FAT is so... 1980's. Although it's a pity TomTom had to settle, FAT support seems like a feature unlikely to be missed.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Kudos to everyone who predicted just this. Microsoft doesn't get any money for driving a potential customer away (i.e. tomtom is now a customer of microsoft's patent portfolio), they also get to play with tomtom's patents to better their products. Why does anybody get alarmed when there's a patent suit between two PRODUCTIVE companies? Microsoft is not a pure patent troll, they make more money through using patents than licensing fees. It seems like that cross-licensing agreements rarely start out with a nice sitdown, but are negotiated in court nowadays :/
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
I believe they needed to settle, because of maps. There are only two companies owning global map data, one is owned by TomTom and another by Nokia. Nokia is already competitor, so there was no way for MS to alienate TomTom for a long time. Without maps MSN would collapse under the weight of Google more then it already does.
839*929
Shouldn't that be TomTom settles with MicrosoftMicrosoft???
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
So that essentially says that Microsoft won, and TomTom got their butts kicked. Removing functionality does not sound like cross licensing, it sounds like knuckling under and making a show of trading patent licensing on some other meaningless issues to save face.
Does this also mean that Long File Names may be infringing in Samba?
Does this mean that TOMTOM is in trouble with FOSS, since they can't pass on these cross licensed features free and clear?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I wish TomTom had fought this; the FAT patents are utter nonsense. But patent fights are notoriously expensive, so I understand why TomTom did this instead. In the long term, I hope that software patents get eliminated [dwheeler.com], but that will have to wait for another day.
What really need to happen is something similar to what happened to the GIF file format. In that case it was decided to develop a new image file format called PNG. There is room for doing the same thing with the file system. Although FAT is common, if everyone could agree an open alternative, and then encourage hardware manufacturers to provide the necessary drivers to Windows users, then we could finally move forward.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The US govt does not have enough money to fight MS how do you expect TomTom to do it.
Got Code?
Well, when you are a gnat that's about to be squished by a Sherman Tank, you have two choices: capitulate or get driven into the pavement. Tom Tom lives to ifght another day...
FAT legacy support is so .. 1990s. And that's why such archaic crap is still in the patent window.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
in fact so many that the choice itself could be the problem. Manufacturers can't see a single other format they could settle on that everyone else will agree to so they choose the lowest common denominator - FAT.
It is time for Microsoft to decide what it wants more. Collect a few cents here and there and spread some FUD or keep all memory cards shipping as FAT.
All the SD trade group would need to do is put together a new spec. It would call for a tiny FAT12 partition on each card sold with an IFS driver for a new file system. No it couldn't be ext2/3/4 because of the GPL. It just couldn't so give that idea up. But there ARE a lot of other proven file systems that support long file names and large filesystems. Getting a Windows IFS written would be cheaper than what the industry is paying Microsoft in one year and it would eliminate the FUD attacks. Writing one would probably be cheaper than what Tom Tom just paid their lawyers. So pick a BSD licensed file system that is available (or could easily be) for OS X, Linux and BSD. Supply the driver for Windows on every piece of media along with a README file explaining to customers why all this is going on.
That readme could say something like:
"The SD industry has previously used Microsoft's FAT filesystem due to it's uniquity. Microsoft has decided to reward us for helping drive their monopoly by suing us. So we have adopted one of the many other competing file systems for (whatever cute name of new standard). All other popular operating systems support this format out of the box. We offered a driver to Microsoft for inclusion in Windows 7 and they refused to include it. So you will need to click (here) to install the copy we include on each drive/memory card if you have not previously done so."
Now take this proposed new standard to Microsoft and offer them a choice. Then let them choose their future. A royalty free perpetual license for vFAT for any implementation that supports removable flash based media or see FAT gone within a couple of years.
Democrat delenda est
They didn't "fight" it, they try to pressure Microsoft into a better licensing deal, Microsoft called their bluff, they got served. There was no way TomTom was going to carry this one under current IP law, and this was never about Linux (although that didn't stop the armchair advocates and their sisters from screaming it was).
Want to stop this? Lobby your representative to fix the patent system. Then you can stop the big boys (MS, IBM, Apple, Toshiba, etc) and the patent trolls from leaving a trail of shafted and bloodied small companies behind them. Until then, you better be ready to cough up some cash to license the technology you want to use.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
[[ What really need to happen is something similar to what happened to the GIF file format.]]
Given that the GIF format is still more used than the PNG format, I wouldn't use this as a basis for what 'need to happen' more of an example of the *success* of 'submarine patents' (let something patented be used for free for a long time then make users pay): even when there is a better technical solution, it most probably won't be used due to the 'network effect'.
Unfortunately, open alternatives are only feasible for a limited time: once the proprietary lock-in "standard" gets too common, open alternatives are pretty much condemned to also-ran status.
Consider PNG. It's a great format, and I prefer it over GIF whenever possible, but the fact remains that by the time real PNG support got widespread enough matter, the GIF patents had expired and so the original point of PNG was moot.
FAT, sad as it is, seems to be in the same position as GIF was. It's so widespread that by the time any open alternative could possibly take hold, it won't matter anymore because the invalid patents on FAT will be dead anyway.
What really need to happen is something similar to what happened to the GIF file format. In that case it was decided to develop a new image file format called PNG. There is room for doing the same thing with the file system. Although FAT is common, if everyone could agree an open alternative, and then encourage hardware manufacturers to provide the necessary drivers to Windows users, then we could finally move forward.
You mean like? http://www.fs-driver.org/ Now just go and convince everyone to use it. :)
if this is really about FAT32 doing long and short filenames, what about that HP NewWave product from the late 80s? And didn't OS/2 provide long & short filenames for DOS programs?
And since the HP product goes back to the late 80s and it is 2009, hasn't that patent expired since its public usage is over 17 years?
I would also think that this could be worked around anyways since it is not like the old DOS days where applications were more of the OS than DOS was. Todays products have a real OS and so can't a different lookup mechanism be implemented around the patent? People have used short words for references to longer ones for hundreds of years, this should not hold up in court and should be challenged.
Glad to see TomTom is planning on working around the issue but on the outside, it looks like a win for MSFT.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Repeat after me.
America. Land of opportunity.
DEEPEST POCKETS WINS!
TomTom may be a great, profitable-as-fuck company. But litigation of this sort is STUPIDLY expensive. And Microsoft could drop the actual value TomTom (debt and all) on the litigation several times over and never miss it. TomTom, OTOH, has to be more circumspect (since they don't have access to the next best thing to God's pocketbook). They can burn all the money on the suit OR they can settle and get on with business, using aforementioned money to build the business more.
While it's not as fun as seeing Microsoft bitch-smacked by "some plucky young upstart", it's not MY investment (see MONEY) they're playing with.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Today's settlement between Microsoft and TomTom ends one phase of the community's response to Microsoft patent aggression, and begins another. On the basis of the information we have, we have no reason to believe that TomTom's settlement agreement with Microsoft violates the license on the kernel, Linux, or any other free software used in its products. The settlement neither implies that Microsoft patents are valid nor that TomTom's products were or are infringing.
The FAT filesystem patents on which Microsoft sued are now and have always been invalid patents in our professional opinion. SFLC remains committed to protecting the interests of our clients and the community. We will act forcefully to protect all users and developers of free software against further intimidation or interference from these patents.
SFLC, working with the Open Invention Network and the Linux Foundation, is pleased to participate in a coordinated, carefully graduated response on behalf of all the community's members to ongoing anti-competitive Microsoft conduct. We believe in strength through unity, and we think our community's unity in the face of these threats has helped to bring about Microsoft's quick settlement on all issues with TomTom.
The SD industry has previously used Microsoft's FAT filesystem due to it's uniquity.
While uniquity may be a word (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uniquity) I think you may have meant ubiquity (b and n are next to each other on the keyboard). It's slightly humorous in your version though.
I wonder why no one has gone and done a prior art challenge to the MS FAT patents? ISTR that there were several operating systems that used what is essentially a file allocation table prior to ms-dos...
the 100K question is, if it can be found that the MS FAT base patent is invalid, does that also negate the child patents like FAT-LFN?
True, but this is where someone has to find something that offers something equivalent and easily implementable.
I believe it's called Live File System by Microsoft and Universal Disk Format by everyone else. Any OS with DVD-ROM support can read UDF. Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows Vista can write UDF, and so can Windows 5 (2000 and XP) with common CD-RW software.
Of course, the sad reality is that waiting for the patent to expire might just be the easiest solution - BTW does anyone know when the patents expire?
They were filed during the development of Windows 95; add twenty years.
by the time real PNG support got widespread enough matter, the GIF patents had expired and so the original point of PNG was moot.
Not necessarily. Servers that allow members of the public to upload images can block distracting animations by blocking GIF. The use of more than 256 colors is also a lot cleaner in PNG; GIF requires multiple layers, each adding 255 more colors to the image.
NTFS
Do you think NTFS isn't patented even more thoroughly than the long file name extensions to FAT?
Microsoft is the next victim of the recession. Microsoft is also a patent troll that has used there wealth to crush competition, instead of being better the competition.
There is a simple word over this type of behavior. Corporation bulling.
A new file system won't help with the existing systems out there. It would only help new systems. FAT is the defacto standard for interchange precisely because older systems use it. So you create a new file systems that everyone uses, but you still end up required to support FAT to save traces from oscilloscopes, to get files off of your digital camera's CompactFlash, to print photos on some printers, to print files at the local copy shop, to update firmware in countless hardware devices, etc.
Notice how well PNG has not taken over the web. I see GIF files all over the place. Declaring a new standard does not solve any problems.
Didn't UMSDOS predate VFAT by 2 or more years?
But use of other file systems on such devices would be no worse than distributing drivers (like was done for Win98)
On what media, formatted in what file system, would you distribute drivers? One solution under Windows 98 was to distribute them on a floppy, which doesn't work on newer PCs that lack a floppy drive, and besides, floppies are formatted FAT. Another solution is to distribute the drivers over the Internet, but then you need to carry an EDGE dongle and its drivers if you want to use a PC away from a hotspot. CDs formatted in ISO 9660 might work, but a problem remains: How would you use a non-FAT non-NTFS USB drive on a PC running Windows whose owner says she "don't want you installing shit"?
There are several of these out there: (two sourceforge.net links) but its not clear that they are robust enough for device vendors to ship millions of units with.
How would you use one on 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, which have a system policy against loading kernel modules developed by hobbyists without throwing the whole system into "Test Mode"?
Is it legal for a commercial company to write and distribute an alternative file system driver for Windows?
The whole point of a device supporting USB storage is that there is no install! If you want a support nightmare, that would work, but otherwise it's not a solution at all. No-one wants to go back to the days of supporting drivers for every device that ships...
I despise FAT but there's simply no realistic alternative if you are building a commercial device. I sure hope something can displace it someday but the possibility is not even on the horizon.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Getting a Windows IFS written would be cheaper than what the industry is paying Microsoft in one year
The Windows Vista 64-bit code-signing issue that plagues hobbyist efforts like Ext2 IFS wouldn't affect this too much because the SD Card Association could easily afford the $400 per year to maintain an Authenticode certificate. But another problem remains: Windows has a group called Administrators, which corresponds to wheel of *BSD. As I understand it, only users in the Administrators group can install file system drivers. So how are people going to convince the administrators of the PCs they use to let them install the read/write driver for UDF or whatever other file system the SD Card Association decides on?
Spoken like a man with a ten-inch netbook.
> It appears TomTom bowed to the pressure and settled with Microsoft
I don't believe this to be a true account of what happened.
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php
Have a look at the OIN website and feel their strength. IBM is one of the members, they're standing up 100% for Linux and Microsoft simply does not have a chance.
There is another way, but its not much better.
If USB devices were to show up as 'network adapters' with some kinda minimal IP stack, then it could be a network storage device and the vendor's software can talk to whatever the back end device's native file system is, by even as something as crazy as WebDAV.
The benefit is that you have totally abstracted the device from the host OS, and the benefit is platform neutrality.
FAT is more than common.
When the talk turns to pocketable media, it is all but universal - and close on to thirty years old.
The HP on your desktop has a 15 in 1 card reader.
2 cartridge slots for HP's USB media drives. 4-6 USB ports "out back" and maybe a Firewire port or two.
So much for getting the hardware manufactures to agree on anything. But what is your compelling argument to move away from FAT?
FAT is a file system for the temporary storage of a keychain drive, digital camera or camcorder.
It needs to be compatible with the PC and the Mac - 99% of your potential market.
But it doesn't have to be particularly sophisticated or robust.
Licensing is capped at $250K - and the patent will, in time, expire.
There are no show-stoppers.
There's already a standard for file-based accesses to USB devices. It's called PTP and it's what many cameras use. It shouldn't be too hard to adapt for more general FS access.
I believe msft is being very successful with that message.
That message is what the entire scox-scam is about. Think about it, why sue IBM? IBM is not even a Linux distributor. But, IBM had just made a big contribution to linux, and msft wants the world to know: that sort of action does not go unpunished.
The tomtom suit is another slam-dunk msft victory. Msft gets free access to tomtom's patents, msft gets money from tomtom, and tomtom has to stop using fat. Most importantly of all, the message is broadcast: use Linux, get sued.
It doesn't matter whether or not the lawsuit has merit. Unless you have about $50 million to fight the lawsuit, msft wins as soon as they file the suit.
(And if "she don't want you installing shit" walk away. Its not your machine).
I was imagining the following hypothetical use case: I live where the only affordable home Internet access is dial-up. (For various definitions of "affordable", this could be rural North America, or even North America in general.) I have traveled to an Internet cafe to download some large files using its high-speed Internet connection to a USB drive. As you point out, I do not own this machine, yet I have paid to rent its use as a "Limited user" for an hour. The drive is larger than 2 GB and therefore can't be formatted in FAT16 with no LFNs. What file system should I use on this drive?
This is not to do with having long filename support; TomTom could store short filenames with a textfile containing short to long filename mapping, but then those long filenames wouldn't be consistent on your desktop if you renamed them etc. The patent is for the particular method of supporting long filenames (which IIRC uses volume label entries in the directory structure to contain the extra filename info). Patents aren't what you accomplish, they're how you accomplish it.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
TomTom's problem wasn't FAT, the 8.3 filename version, but LFN aka VFAT, and AFAIK, reading them isn't covered, only writing. The MS patents are specifically on the long file name stuff, apparently only on writing, and any patents on the original 8.3 format will have expired by now. Since with USB it's the host that controls the writing, TomTom's window of patent vulnerability on that particular patent is quite small anyway, and it's entirely possible to avoid infringement, especially since from all reports I've seen the TomTom devices themselves don't expose the filenames they are working with.
It's actually quite possible that TomTom wasn't actually using the LFN code anyway, but was simply shipping it as it was configured in their default Linux kernel load. As such, it should be fairly trivial to simply avoid turning on that option, and if necessary, rewriting any other code that they had internally that expected the LFN so it works with the 8.3 name.
Thus, the case never really was about the FAT LFN patents in the first place. It was simply one more arrow in the legal quiver that MS unloaded on TomTom. It was the other patents, including the broad mobile computer mounted in a car patent and a couple of the navigation patents, at issue.
That's why it's possible for TomTom to take the easy way out of this one. The GPL "live free or die" clause need not be invoked since they can simply toggle off the VFAT functionality (and if necessary entirely patch the code out of what they ship) in their shipping kernels, and they can license the other patents without triggering the "live free or die" clause since their userspace code didn't need covered under the GPL.
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
JerryLeeCooper, is that you?
[ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
Why use VFAT when ISO 9660 (the CD image format) is freely available, seems more flexible, and is used in at least as many devices as VFAT?
What really need to happen is something similar to what happened to the GIF file format. In that case it was decided to develop a new image file format called PNG. There is room for doing the same thing with the file system.
How about something using the NetBSD implementation of ext2 as its reference implementation?
I realize the Linux implementation is more popular, but it's GPL-proprietary (i.e. not free in the sense that you can't take it and add it to your product without GPL'ing and releasing source for the lot), so I can see why device manufacturers wouldn't want to use the Linux implementation.
We have some very good filesystems, why not use what's been invented already?
Another thought would be the HFS+ filesystem in Darwin.
I'm sure a reduced subset of either filesystem could perform quite well.
No need for features like journaling, etc.
Why don't TomTom lose the FAT support and make it a network interface ? FTP can read & write to whatever file system it needs to. UPnP ?
Still want to use Mono?
The problem is, while you may avoid using a patented filesystem -- you require a number of patented technologies to implement that, and the whole thing may be patented, so you could just be best off licensing FAT...
Did they choose FAT as the file system?
As usual, Groklaw has the full dope.
Sig this!
So let Windows put the files on there and let Windows create the mapping TomTom uses on the device so they don't need to look at those special places in the FAT filesystem they got a patent for. What about that AutoRun stuff. Can't TomTom have the users put a TomTom AutoRun util on the memory device so that Windows does all the special remapping using Microsoft's own driver to give out the long and short names? Are there any kinds of drop operations which can trigger this same remapping?
Let's hope TomTom comes up with a really elegant way around this issue and the whole memory stick market moves off of VFAT and onto TFAT or whatever they call it. If this is an example of what Microsoft has for patented software, VFAT, they are skating on thin ice with all these patent/IP extortion games they've been playing. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Absolutely! Windows is specifically designed so that you can do that sort of thing. They're called Installable Filesystem Drivers (IFS in the 9x series - though they can be done for NT as well).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
PTP is for pictures. MTP is for movies and music. You're not meant to use MTP or PTP for anything other than what they're designed for.
Though really, the question is "what's the base standard for PTP and MTP?"
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Any company that is considering threatening Microsoft with patent infringement suits will be re-evaluating that threat. TomTom clearly are run by idiots, otherwise TomTom would not have threatened Microsoft in the first place. So the question for other companies that plan to threaten Microsoft is whether fighting Microsoft in court will cost them more than simply not threatening Microsoft in the first place.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
As you can see, "legally allowed" and "morally right" are two very different things.
What really need to happen is something similar to what happened to the GIF file format. In that case it was decided to develop a new image file format called PNG. There is room for doing the same thing with the file system. Although FAT is common, if everyone could agree an open alternative, and then encourage hardware manufacturers to provide the necessary drivers to Windows users, then we could finally move forward.
There's a big, big problem with that idea. Yes, it would be technically possible to implement something like this (trivial, even: just strip all multiuser functionality from ext2, and you'd already be mostly done.
The problem is that all current and past MS systems treat non-MS filesystems as "empty". Yes, there is a 3rd party ext2 driver for Windows. But that does not allow products not using MS 'technology' to enter the market. Maybe there's a way to put the driver on a small 1-2Mb partition, and have it get automatically installed on said system if it's not there already, but I don't see that happening to any useful degree: people will just format them, if possible, to MS formats (or simply not be able to access them).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Or you could do something along the lines of what the Rio Karma did and have a dock with an ethernet port, a minimal web server, and a java applet for transferring stuff over, except not quite as buggy/slow.
Fixed it.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
The MS patents are specifically on the long file name stuff, apparently only on writing, and any patents on the original 8.3 format will have expired by now.
Since the 8.3 filename dates back to DEC's RSX-11, which was copied by CP/M, which was then copied by QDOS/86-DOS on FAT-12, it's not bloody likely that MS would have a patent on that. The idea of using FAT for QDOS/86-DOS was borrowed from MS's Disk BASIC, but I don't recall Gates or Allen patenting the FAT concept. If you're wondering what the heck is QDOS/86-DOS, it was bought by MS in 1981 and renamed MS-DOS.
if this is really about FAT32 doing long and short filenames, what about that HP NewWave product from the late 80s? And didn't OS/2 provide long & short filenames for DOS programs?
Neither supported long _file_ names. The long program names were stored by the shell and not the file system.
NewWave probably used standard Windows PIF files, but I can't recall.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I wish TomTom had fought this; the FAT patents are utter nonsense. But patent fights are notoriously expensive, so I understand why TomTom did this instead. In the long term, I hope that software patents get eliminated, but that will have to wait for another day.
Could not agree more, however the only way to get arround this would be to use a file-system like ext2 or ext3 which is very easy to do from a Linux machine onto an SD, MS, XD, MMC or any USB storage device. The problem here is not using ext2 or ext3 it is the ability of the Microsoft OS to actually read the device since Microsoft won't support this file-system preferring to dictate what file-systems they support with their OS. Coupled with this is the fact that many devices (eg. cameras) that take cards or even USB storage devices also cannot read ext2/3 file-systems.
To get a file-system like say ext2/3 supported would require a courageous effort on the part of manufacturers to demand this type of support and I personally don't think that will happen any time soon.
What is bizarre is the fact that it is very easy to create a FAT32 file-system on just about any Linux platform yet you actually have to download software to a MS Windows (Win2000 on) machine to do this. This reinforces my impression that Microsoft expects everyone to do as they dictate and they don't even care about FAT32 except as a means of using it as a bargaining chip.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Why not use Ext2? It's usable under Windows (there are 2 different drivers for Windows, that enable use of this filesystem), it's usable under Linux. It can easily be realized under other operating systems, if any of them happen to lack support. A nice gadget can have its firmware reloaded to use another filesystem instead of FAT. So, what's the problem?
Dont' hold your breath on that. This case just demonstrated that if you are a gorilla corporation like MS software patents are an easy way to make money in a recessed economy.
I don't see in any imaginable future a government composed of puppets controlled by corporations, which means any government, eliminating software patents.
After IBM and Microsoft had their falling out, IBM separately developed PC DOS 6.1 in 1993, and since Microsoft failed to file against IBM, my guess is that any operating system similar to PC DOS 6.1 developed up to and including 1993 would successfully weaken any Microsoft claim if not out right invalidate it. That fact in addition to plenty of prior art (see some examples below, there are many others as other posters here have mentioned...) should be more than enough for any person and or company to tell Microsoft to stuff their misplaced Legal FUD!
TomTom was stupid and blew it big time, they should have called Microsoft's bluff and said go ahead and file your court case, while the lawsuit was working through the court system any potential issues with long filenames, still questionable in my opinion could have been removed from the platform, that way by the time the issue would have worked its way through the court system TomTom would NOT have been in jeopardy any longer....they should have stood their ground and called Microsoft's bluff. (The last thing Microsoft wants is for any of these BS patent claims to go to court and be legally invalidated.)
Bear in mind that this was how Microsoft reacted to Stac Electronics lawsuit over the disk compression in MS DOS, thus Microsoft released MS-DOS 6.21 in 1994 in response to that lawsuit.
MS-DOS 6.0 and 6.20 were released in 1993, both including the Microsoft DoubleSpace disk compression utility program. Stac successfully sued Microsoft for patent infringement regarding the compression algorithm used in DoubleSpace. This resulted in the 1994 release of MS-DOS 6.21, which had disk-compression removed. Shortly afterwards came version 6.22, with a new version of the disk compression system, DriveSpace, which had a different compression algorithm to avoid the infringing code.
Examples of prior art:
CP/M was developed in 1973-74;
TRS Model 80 Model I was released in 1977.
MS-DOS was copyrighted by Microsoft in 1979, with MS-DOS 1.0 being released in 1981.
TRS 80 Model III was released in 1981.
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
In that case you can just rename your .gif files to .png files, and upload them anyways.
And then the server gives an error for any uploaded file that starts with "GIF8" and not "\x89PNG".
Relying on the fact that IE (at least certain versions), will figure out the file type by examining the data
If IE can sniff signatures, so can your server.
The Microsoft statement on the settlement is actually quite hopeful: "The agreement includes patent coverage for Microsoftâ(TM)s three file management systems patents provided in a manner that is fully compliant with TomTomâ(TM)s obligations under the General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2)."
That is to say that any Linux distribution can replace their Linux FAT code with TomToms. TomTom's code is source- and binary identical, but it comes with permission from Microsoft. A small trick, the replacement of code by identical code, and only required because the relevant GPL clause works downstream only.
Too bad for TomTom, I really wish someone would take M$ to the cleaners, and win for once, wihtout
bowing down to those overlords.....maybe Google?
We're talking about storage devices, right?
Put a small FAT partition on the device, put Windows driver installer on that partition, and setup an autoplay file, so that when a user sticks the device into the drive, it checks to see if the drivers are installed, and if not, displays a message to the user explaining that the device needs to install a driver to fully function. Would you like to install this driver now? [YES] [NO]
I don't see why that's such a problem? Ok, on 'locked down' systems, users won't be able to use the devices, unless the admin has already installed the driver, so it's not perfect. I suppose there is also a risk that in the future, Microsoft would add a driver as a Windows Update, or as part of a new version of Windows, which could result in a situation where a compatible driver is already installed, but because it's not the driver which the installer on the FAT partition is checking for, you end up installing two conflicting drivers for the filesystem.
But, it still seems like a way to help ease the transition.
As i read this page, and all the whining about MS, as I the HUGE MS SQL banner add on this page.
You have better be carefull, or MS will take away their support of slashdot and take you off the payroll.
If i were MS i would.
I also like seeing how quickly this was filed in teh slashdot's backwater on news.
Seems like this is yet another FOSS "dirty little secret".
That would be a ext3 loop device on top FAT or NTFS, which would probably be OK I guess. The other obvious way would be UMSDOS, but that was dropped after 2.6.11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMSDOS
But you can't guarentee it. What if someone uses the usb stick somewhere without autorun, or a non windows machine? Effectively having a tool you have to use instead of the operating systems filesystem support to read/write to the memory stick defeats the whole point of it using a ubiquitous filesystem in the first place. All it would take is a rename on a system where tomtom's own short to long filemapping doesn't get updated, and filenames become orphaned or worst still, start pointing to the wrong data on stick. Your choices are simple. Either update the LFN and SFN directory entries at the same time, use the drive ONLY in readonly, or completely exclude LFN support on the media (which may not be an option). You can't have one dataset being treated differently by different pieces of software and rely on it. This is why we have protocols for doing things.
The lesson here is don't try and sue Microsoft for patent infringement, because they can play that game too, and they can play it well. Let sleeping beasts lie.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
NewWave supported long file names and not just long program names. I think you're right on the OS/2 front since I remember seeing short names in the DOS box but long names elsewhere. But, who cares what it was stored in, it was stored on the disk and there was a mapping scheme. Microsoft did not invent mapping 8.3 names to long names and even if they did, it shouldn't be a valid patent since these kinds of things have been done forever.
If they were given a patent because they stored the mappings in the FAT data structures should that be allowed after they've been convicted of anti-trust violations regarding protecting their operating system monopoly?
Maybe the time is right for vendors to start installing file system drivers and be done with that antiquated FAT system and Microsoft's use of this to force vendors into licensing deals they otherwise would not sign. Have you noticed Microsoft is not signing licenses for VFAT and instead is using extortion to force these companies to sign licenses which cover many other things?
Time to drop VFAT and use modern filesystems on these removable media and leave Microsoft to find another way to pound vendors into being their partner. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
but there are open filesystems which OEM's can preload on all PCs shipped. Thinking that it is a good idea to let Microsoft dictate what your product is going to support is asking for trouble and limiting. We know they don't want vendors using VFAT or they would easily license it and only it. They won't or don't so it is time to take them to task and deal with what it takes to move to an open filesystem everyone can use.
I'd heard that TomTom sued Microsoft first but that just doesn't sound like the way to do business with them. Could TomTom have been that stupid? I doubt it and figure that there was some backroom discussions going on where Microsoft was trying to beat TomTom up and TomTom was pushed over the edge and bit back. The result is a short term deal where TomTom moves off of the VFAT system and some cross licensing but what the real issue of contention was/is must be part of this.
Like many many other court cases with Microsoft, they don't want to get to court and will go to extremes to stay out of court. Some of the extremes used is what SCO did and that is to drag out the battle and ring up huge bills. Little guys like TomTom can't play that game and they knew it. I'll have to go over to Groklaw and see if they are covering this. They do a better job than the press at explaining what is really going on.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The license for FAT was capped at $250K in 2003.
Of course there are filesystems that OEM's could stick on machines which would then leave out everyone who buys an operating system to install themselves... and everyone who's already got a load of other devices (camera, mp3 player...) that they don't want to have to repurchase just to use a different filesystem. It's cheaper for them to pay any royalties on the next device they buy for it to support the same thing too. Then you also have to get manufacturers to agree on a single filesystem that they're gonna put effort into to make it the next big vfat, and good luck with that... you know Sony won't play ball for a start, they'll just have to come up with their own format like they do with everything. Manufacturers aren't choosing vfat, vfat's choosing them. If everyone now decides that everything released from now is going to have support for a new filesystem, it's still going to be 10 years before vfat's ditchable, because of the inertia to overcome, and by that time, the patents will have expired anyway.
The best way forward as I said is for companies to not try getting into patent wars with microsoft, because microsoft have a rather healthy patent portfolio that they use defensively.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
ya, it would be a mess with getting new filesystem based memory devices used with old cameras and the like. But 10 years for this patent to expire is a long time and they way Microsoft is playing it now, they are using this patent to force vendors into more than just this one IP license.
I still wonder if TomTom really did slap Microsoft and cause this or did Microsoft play hardball and force TomTom into this fight with a few jabs of their own behind the closed negotiation room doors? Microsoft sees Linux as a threat so their IP claims are considered a defensive and just shipping a commercial product with Linux is a threat and that is what Microsoft wants companies to think. It's the FUD tactic all over again but using patents instead of vaporware.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Given the number of security bugs in IE image handling, the "PNG" file could be formed to utilize one of the arbitrary code execution bugs, and actually contain code to display an animated GIF in all its full glory.
Which is why the script that batch-moves images from the inbox to the live site uses stricter checking. Any repeated funny business, and the uploader's privileges get revoked.
No, going after someone who's a threat to your business isn't considered defensive use of patents... that's just normal use. Defensive use it to fend off litigation attacks, like what redhat et al wanna build up defensive patent portfolios for. It's not in microsoft's interest to stop people wanting to use vfat, after all, then they'd have to add support for the filesystem everyone else is using (and possibly pay royalties on it) or get left behind everyone else. And I think someone mentioned 2013 for the patent to expire... so it's either wait 4 years til you can use vfat and still be able to sue MS for using your IP if they don't license it from you (if you're into using something without giving in return) or spend even longer trying to switch.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia