>In message <tci2a4597fn7ove99fcjr6s9gk2v5sr6at@4ax.com>, Frank-Christian 
>Kruegel <dontmailme@news.invalid> writes
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:26:39 -0700 (PDT), s0lstice
>><wp.marple@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The following 
>>>>documenthttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.
>>>>mspxdetails
>>>> FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the license
on this
>>>> page then see if you are any the wiser.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is clear that none of us here speak the language that the license
>>>above is written in (or care to learn). It looks like I have to decide
>>>whether to risk the wrath of MS, or pay someone to read it for me. (Is
>>>it possible to download the source for a lawyer ;-> )
>>
>>As your NNTP Posting Host Header Entry points to the UK
>>please note that the
>>software patents behind this documentation are unenforcable in Europe
>>anyways.
>
>This is true. However should you ever want to travel to the US, sell 
>your goods in the US,  have an office in the US etc....
>
>Though as I said the chances of MS wanting to enforce it are negligible 
>to zero unless you piss them off or have something they want. It which 
>case they could make things a bit awkward.
>
>Though from the Wiki page cited above it seems that even in the US there

>have been appeals and reversals so it is not a done deal even in the US.
>
>IANAL but I would be not that worried about using long file names.
>
>
>
>Appeal
>As there was widespread call for these patents to be re-examined, the 
>Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) submitted evidence to the US Patent 
>and Trade Office (USPTO) disputing the validity of these patents, 
>including prior art references from Xerox and IBM. The USPTO 
>acknowledged that the evidence raised "substantial new question[s] of 
>patentability," and opened an investigation into the validity of 
>Microsoft's FAT patents.[33]
>
>On 2004-09-30 the USPTO rejected all claims of U.S. Patent 5,579,517 , 
>based primarily on evidence provided by PUBPAT. Dan Ravicher, the 
>foundation's executive director, said, "The Patent Office has simply 
>confirmed what we already knew for some time now, Microsoft's FAT patent

>is bogus."
>
>According to the PUBPAT press release, "Microsoft still has the 
>opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection. Typically, 
>third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, 
>are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or 
>completely revoked roughly 70% of the time."
>
>On 2005-10-05 the Patent Office announced that, following the 
>re-examination process, it had again rejected all claims of patent 
>5,579,517, and it additionally found U.S. Patent 5,758,352  invalid on 
>the grounds that the patent had incorrect assignees.
>
>Finally, on 2006-01-10 the Patent Office ruled that features of 
>Microsoft's implementation of the FAT system were "novel and 
>non-obvious", reversing both earlier non-final decisions.[34]
>
>
>[edit] See also
>
>-- 
>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
>
>


Hi Everyone,

I've been investigating this, because I need to find an implementation of
FAT driver with LFN's for Embedded Systems.

It's always important to check what Microsoft states about such patents!
See:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspx

Essentially, they will not bring any lawsuit against anyone implementing
fat, with or without LFN's as long as the specification isn't changed or
altered. I.e. Conform to their spec, and you're ok. No royalties need to be
paid.

The reason why they hold such a patent, is so that another company can't
claim a patent on this portion of the FAT filesystem, and then make a claim
against Microsoft for using it in Windows. They're covering their bottom
lines, and it makes sense really.

Anyway, I'm looking at DosFS over the next few weeks, and i'm either going
to implement long file names into it, or I will write my own FAT driver
with all the features DosFS provides, with LFN's in a threadsafe way, thats
fast and efficient, with optional caching.

For my current system I need a really really fast FAT16/32 driver for the
BlackFin family.

Please email me james at worm dot me dot uk for more information. I'll
publish the FS Library on my website when complete on worm.me.uk

James

In message <tci2a4597fn7ove99fcjr6s9gk2v5sr6at@4ax.com>, Frank-Christian 
Kruegel <dontmailme@news.invalid> writes
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:26:39 -0700 (PDT), s0lstice
><wp.marple@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The following 
>>>documenthttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.
>>>mspxdetails
>>> FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the license on this
>>> page then see if you are any the wiser.
>>>
>>
>>It is clear that none of us here speak the language that the license
>>above is written in (or care to learn). It looks like I have to decide
>>whether to risk the wrath of MS, or pay someone to read it for me. (Is
>>it possible to download the source for a lawyer ;-> )
>
>As your NNTP Posting Host Header Entry points to the UK
>please note that the
>software patents behind this documentation are unenforcable in Europe
>anyways.

This is true. However should you ever want to travel to the US, sell 
your goods in the US,  have an office in the US etc....

Though as I said the chances of MS wanting to enforce it are negligible 
to zero unless you piss them off or have something they want. It which 
case they could make things a bit awkward.

Though from the Wiki page cited above it seems that even in the US there 
have been appeals and reversals so it is not a done deal even in the US.

IANAL but I would be not that worried about using long file names.

Appeal
As there was widespread call for these patents to be re-examined, the 
Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) submitted evidence to the US Patent 
and Trade Office (USPTO) disputing the validity of these patents, 
including prior art references from Xerox and IBM. The USPTO 
acknowledged that the evidence raised "substantial new question[s] of 
patentability," and opened an investigation into the validity of 
Microsoft's FAT patents.[33]

On 2004-09-30 the USPTO rejected all claims of U.S. Patent 5,579,517 , 
based primarily on evidence provided by PUBPAT. Dan Ravicher, the 
foundation's executive director, said, "The Patent Office has simply 
confirmed what we already knew for some time now, Microsoft's FAT patent 
is bogus."

According to the PUBPAT press release, "Microsoft still has the 
opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection. Typically, 
third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, 
are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or 
completely revoked roughly 70% of the time."

On 2005-10-05 the Patent Office announced that, following the 
re-examination process, it had again rejected all claims of patent 
5,579,517, and it additionally found U.S. Patent 5,758,352  invalid on 
the grounds that the patent had incorrect assignees.

Finally, on 2006-01-10 the Patent Office ruled that features of 
Microsoft's implementation of the FAT system were "novel and 
non-obvious", reversing both earlier non-final decisions.[34]

[edit] See also

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:26:39 -0700 (PDT), s0lstice
<wp.marple@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> The following documenthttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspxdetails
>> FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the license on this
>> page then see if you are any the wiser.
>>
>
>It is clear that none of us here speak the language that the license
>above is written in (or care to learn). It looks like I have to decide
>whether to risk the wrath of MS, or pay someone to read it for me. (Is
>it possible to download the source for a lawyer ;-> )

As your NNTP Posting Host Header Entry points to the UK please note that the
software patents behind this documentation are unenforcable in Europe
anyways.

Mit freundlichen Gr&#4294967295;&#4294967295;en

Frank-Christian Kr&#4294967295;gel

In message 
<992e7a34-80b2-4086-9cd6-47bbc391da17@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, 
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes
>On Aug 11, 3:26 am, s0lstice <wp.mar...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Aug, 18:37, "FreeRTOS.org" <noem...@given.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "s0lstice" <wp.mar...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:56026857-8014-46d1-a016-3c906e70c1a3@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > Is it true, as I understand from wikipedia, that only the
>> > > implementation of long filename support is commercially restricted
>> > > when using FAT16?
>>
>> > Well the answer is definiately YES, or definately NO depending on who you
>> > ask.  I have asked lots of people.
>>
>> > The following 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >>>>documenthttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspxdet...
>> > FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the 
>> >license on this
>> > page then see if you are any the wiser.
>>
>> It is clear that none of us here speak the language that the license
>> above is written in (or care to learn). It looks like I have to decide
>> whether to risk the wrath of MS, or pay someone to read it for me. (Is
>> it possible to download the source for a lawyer ;-> )
>
>The question is will MS even notice you?  First, the currently valid
>patents seem to be only on the long file name extensions.  You don't
>need to read the MS licensing stuff, you just need to read the
>patents.  So if you aren't using long filenames, I don't think you
>have to worry.  Second, if your widget is going to be attached in
>*any* way to a PC running a MS OS (even if that "attachment" is
>through an SD card) I think MS won't care.
>
>Has anyone heard of MS suing over these patents?

Yes.

AFAIK, IANAL etc    The patents are only over long file names. Not the 
8.3 which was in use on several systems prior to MS.   MS only patented 
the LFN (Long file names) and at one time there was a license 
application from on the MS web site. I can no longer find it.   I needed 
it for s couple of customers (we are a tool distributor)  who bought a 
file system with LFN

You can buy a file system with LFN but it is up to you to license it 
yourself.

As I said I can't find the license form that was there and MS could not 
point me to the new one.

As for suing AFAIK MS only sued 2 companies (large ones) for roughly the 
cost of the legal fees and the licenses.  This was to set the precedent 
for the patent. I think you have to show that you not only hold it but 
defend it. IANAL

That said thousands of companies are producing things (MPS players? ) 
with a file system and I doubt most of them are licensed. However as I 
said it is only the Long file names not the 8.3 Fat 16 compatible system

SO IMHO,  IANAL,  the chances of MS suing are minimal to non-existent 
unless you piss them off or have something they want.

 From what I recall the cost was something silly like  5cents per unit

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Aug 11, 3:26 am, s0lstice <wp.mar...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 8 Aug, 18:37, "FreeRTOS.org" <noem...@given.com> wrote:
>
> > "s0lstice" <wp.mar...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:56026857-8014-46d1-a016-3c906e70c1a3@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Is it true, as I understand from wikipedia, that only the
> > > implementation of long filename support is commercially restricted
> > > when using FAT16?
>
> > Well the answer is definiately YES, or definately NO depending on who you
> > ask.  I have asked lots of people.
>
> > The following documenthttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspxdet...
> > FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the license on this
> > page then see if you are any the wiser.
>
> It is clear that none of us here speak the language that the license
> above is written in (or care to learn). It looks like I have to decide
> whether to risk the wrath of MS, or pay someone to read it for me. (Is
> it possible to download the source for a lawyer ;-> )

The question is will MS even notice you?  First, the currently valid
patents seem to be only on the long file name extensions.  You don't
need to read the MS licensing stuff, you just need to read the
patents.  So if you aren't using long filenames, I don't think you
have to worry.  Second, if your widget is going to be attached in
*any* way to a PC running a MS OS (even if that "attachment" is
through an SD card) I think MS won't care.

Has anyone heard of MS suing over these patents?

Rick

On 8 Aug, 18:37, "FreeRTOS.org" <noem...@given.com> wrote:
> "s0lstice" <wp.mar...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:56026857-8014-46d1-a016-3c906e70c1a3@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Is it true, as I understand from wikipedia, that only the
> > implementation of long filename support is commercially restricted
> > when using FAT16?
>
> Well the answer is definiately YES, or definately NO depending on who you
> ask. =A0I have asked lots of people.
>
> The following documenthttp://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmw=
are/fatgen.mspxdetails
> FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the license on t=
his
> page then see if you are any the wiser.
>

It is clear that none of us here speak the language that the license
above is written in (or care to learn). It looks like I have to decide
whether to risk the wrath of MS, or pay someone to read it for me. (Is
it possible to download the source for a lawyer ;-> )

Un bel giorno John Devereux digit&#4294967295;:

>>> you can use FAT16 with short file name support.
>>
>> Are you implying that every open source VFAT implementation with long
>> filenames (Linux, *BSD, and so on) violate some license?
> 
> They appear to violate some patents
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT_licensing>

Wow. I won't never stop to be surprised on how stupid a patent can be. And
patent offices accept them, and sometimes courts of law enforce them!
Amazing.

-- 
emboliaschizoide.splinder.com

"s0lstice" <wp.marple@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:56026857-8014-46d1-a016-3c906e70c1a3@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Is it true, as I understand from wikipedia, that only the
> implementation of long filename support is commercially restricted
> when using FAT16?

Well the answer is definiately YES, or definately NO depending on who you 
ask.  I have asked lots of people.

The following document 
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspx details 
FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the license on this 
page then see if you are any the wiser.

-- 
Regards,
Richard.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org & http://www.FreeRTOS.org/shop
17 official architecture ports, more than 6000 downloads per month.

+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by T&#4294967295;V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.

Stefan Carter wrote:
> "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> schrieb im 
> Newsbeitrag news:f5GdnVMInb3qCgbVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@lyse.net...
> [....]
>> And even if there *were* an infringement, MS would have a very hard time 
>> suing anyone over it.  Linux developers and supporting companies have 
>> repeatedly asked the for details of any know patent infringements so that 
>> the issues can be sorted out.  There is no court anywhere that would 
>> believe MS if they "suddenly" found out that Linux infringed their FAT 
>> patents.  Patents don't "expire" like trademarks if you don't defend them, 
>> but it would certainly count badly against them in court.  Add to that the 
>> likelihood that these patents, and many others that MS licenses to 
>> commercial third parties, would quickly be ruled invalid, and the risks 
>> involved in starting a patent war, and you can be very sure MS will not 
>> take action against Linux over these patents.
> 
> Let's not forget about the little footnotes commonly found in many of 
> Microsoft's patents, stating that they claim a patent to avoid being sued by 
> somebody who DOES try to collect cash for this matter.
> In case of industry majors like Sun or Microsoft, it oftentimes pays to read 
> their statements regarding the patent; in no small number of cases, they 
> explicily grant the right to use that stuff free of charge to anybody 
> interested - while still maintaining the right to the patent (simply 
> covering their own a**).
> 
> I did not check on this one specifically, but if patent infringement fears 
> are of concern in the project in question, it probably would ease things to 
> simply read Microsoft's take on it.
> 
> After all - Microsoft's patent on passing an implicit 'this' pointer to a 
> subroutine otherwise would have wreaked havoc on the software industry at 
> large (this is kind of the base object oriented software is sitting on).
> 

While some patents (perhaps even the majority of software patents) are 
purely defensive, MS sell licenses to use their FAT32-related patents. 
I don't know the wording of these licenses, but it looks like MS uses 
these patents actively.

Someone who is genuinely concerned about patent infringement should, of 
course, talk to a lawyer rather than relying on advice in a newsgroup!