SD Card FAT support issues (dosfs, fatfs,fatlib)

Clifford Heath wrote:
> Isaac Bosompem wrote:
>> This kind of stuff is a bit concerning you know. Patenting an algorithm
>> of some sort?
> 
> Where have you been for the last decade or so?

Perhaps he has been living in a country that still makes some attempt at 
keeping patent laws rational, such as everywhere except the USA?  Of 
course, certain forces within the EU (i.e., big corporations) keep 
trying to pervert the patent system here too.

"Isaac Bosompem" <x86asm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158028096.034566.75900@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> larwe wrote:
> > Peter Dickerson wrote:
> >
> > > > > First problem. None of the three FAT modules above support long
> > > > > file names. So, the first question is how easy might this be to
> > > >
> > > > Nor will they.  There are patent problems involved.
> > >
> > > I understand that there are patent problems although it I thought that
this
> > > was still an open question. If this is now resolved in MS's favour
then I
> > > won't go down that route.
> >
> > I'm not aware that there has ever been any litigation about this. I'm
> > not even sure if MS actively enforce it. However it isn't a gray area:
> > the way LFNs are implemented on FAT volumes is patented - and hence I'm
> > not going to implement them (never mind that I have no use for them
> > either).
> >
> This kind of stuff is a bit concerning you know. Patenting an algorithm
> of some sort?

I don't think that you can patent an algorithm, only its use. Clearly in
this case there its hard to separate the two though. The text of the first
patent talks about a computer system. Does that mean its OK if I'm not using
one? It may be difficult to convince a judge that my analytical instrument
is not a computer system. What if I never format the media? Here, the patent
relates to directory records and could apply to any 8.3 file system so the
formatting is probably a red herring. What if I never write the media,
perhaps I only want to read existing files? What if I want to open existing
files for write? I don't have to update the directory info at all unless I
change the length of the file or its starting cluster, and even if I do I
only need to update the original 8.3 FAT entry where the length is kept.

In fact, in my case, reading LFN but only writing 8.3 would get me most of
the way.

Murky stuff these patents.

Peter

"Peter Dickerson" <first{dot}surname@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:W2vNg.19722$7D6.5515@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Isaac Bosompem" <x86asm@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158028096.034566.75900@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > larwe wrote:
> > > Peter Dickerson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > First problem. None of the three FAT modules above support long
> > > > > > file names. So, the first question is how easy might this be to
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor will they.  There are patent problems involved.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that there are patent problems although it I thought
that
> this
> > > > was still an open question. If this is now resolved in MS's favour
> then I
> > > > won't go down that route.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware that there has ever been any litigation about this. I'm
> > > not even sure if MS actively enforce it. However it isn't a gray area:
> > > the way LFNs are implemented on FAT volumes is patented - and hence
I'm
> > > not going to implement them (never mind that I have no use for them
> > > either).
> > >
> > This kind of stuff is a bit concerning you know. Patenting an algorithm
> > of some sort?
>
> I don't think that you can patent an algorithm, only its use. Clearly in
> this case there its hard to separate the two though. The text of the first
> patent talks about a computer system. Does that mean its OK if I'm not
using
> one? It may be difficult to convince a judge that my analytical instrument
> is not a computer system. What if I never format the media? Here, the
patent
> relates to directory records and could apply to any 8.3 file system so the
> formatting is probably a red herring. What if I never write the media,
> perhaps I only want to read existing files? What if I want to open
existing
> files for write? I don't have to update the directory info at all unless I
> change the length of the file or its starting cluster, and even if I do I
> only need to update the original 8.3 FAT entry where the length is kept.
>
> In fact, in my case, reading LFN but only writing 8.3 would get me most of
> the way.
>
> Murky stuff these patents.

Sorry to follow up on my own post but it appears that the legal problems of
LFN and FAT can be avoided by paying MS 25 cents a pop. For my situation,
where the numbers are small and the unit cost quite high its probably worth
it. Many, including me, may resent having to do that but I also resent
starving or being sued.

I have also had my attention directed towards commercial FAT support code
that has support for LFN. I'm still investigating that. I'm fairly sure it
can do what I want but I'm not clear whether there is more work integrating
with my other requirements than adding LFN to open/free/public code.

Peter

Peter Dickerson wrote:

> I don't think that you can patent an algorithm, only its use. Clearly in

In the United States you can patent an algorithm.

larwe wrote:
> In the United States you can patent an algorithm.

The way it's done is by describing the algorithm in terms of
the operation of a physical device with a descriptive title.
For example, you might refer to a computer as a "processing
unit" or somesuch, with a "computer" being a proffered example
of what a "processing unit" might be. The patent office accepts
the patent because it's described in terms of a physical
implementation, and the patent lawyers can then argue that an
offending implementation fits the descriptive titles. I'm not 
really sure how other countries go about denying such claims...

Clifford Heath wrote:

> > In the United States you can patent an algorithm.
>
> The way it's done is by describing the algorithm in terms of
> the operation of a physical device with a descriptive title.

Mmm, I just finished writing an article about similar issues. Basically
my summary was:

a) IP issues are the biggest barrier to entry into the embedded
engineering market, and

b) The EU doesn't "do" software patents - bully for them - but the
definitions are so vague that the lawyers are kicking up their heels in
joy.

"larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158105301.023708.313780@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter Dickerson wrote:
>
> > I don't think that you can patent an algorithm, only its use. Clearly in
>
> In the United States you can patent an algorithm.

I see a significant difference between 'software' and 'algorithm'.
Ultimately I'm more interested in solving my problem than figuring out the
niceties of the patent system.

Peter

In article <TiCNg.12798$Mh2.9757@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Peter Dickerson 
<first{dot}surname@tesco.net> writes
>I have also had my attention directed towards commercial FAT support code
>that has support for LFN. I'm still investigating that. I'm fairly sure it
>can do what I want but I'm not clear whether there is more work integrating
>with my other requirements than adding LFN to open/free/public code.

The problem is that you may have a conflict as you could not release the 
source code with the commercial stuff in it. The Open source may require 
you to release the modified code...

This is always the problem when using open source. One licence wants all 
the adapted code to be released and the other says you can't....

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <1158111536.747511.157950@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, larwe 
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> writes
>
>Clifford Heath wrote:
>
>> > In the United States you can patent an algorithm.
>>
>> The way it's done is by describing the algorithm in terms of
>> the operation of a physical device with a descriptive title.
>
>Mmm, I just finished writing an article about similar issues. Basically
>my summary was:
>
>a) IP issues are the biggest barrier to entry into the embedded
>engineering market, and

How so?
There are VERY many patents in the electronic and embedded world... CD 
and DVD's for a start... hasn't stifled them.

>b) The EU doesn't "do" software patents - bully for them - but the
>definitions are so vague that the lawyers are kicking up their heels in
>joy.

The EU couldn't do SW patents because there is a reciprocal agreement 
with the US on patents.  As soon as the EU had them all the US ones 
would apply in the EU......  Not a good idea.

For example an  EU company could show that it invented the system years 
before a US company took the patent....  The EU company probably would 
not have known about the later US patent . What then?




-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:+clV7kBK37BFFABl@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In article <TiCNg.12798$Mh2.9757@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Peter Dickerson
> <first{dot}surname@tesco.net> writes
> >I have also had my attention directed towards commercial FAT support code
> >that has support for LFN. I'm still investigating that. I'm fairly sure
it
> >can do what I want but I'm not clear whether there is more work
integrating
> >with my other requirements than adding LFN to open/free/public code.
>
> The problem is that you may have a conflict as you could not release the
> source code with the commercial stuff in it. The Open source may require
> you to release the modified code...
>
> This is always the problem when using open source. One licence wants all
> the adapted code to be released and the other says you can't....

Actually, in the case of FatFS the terms are "You can use, modify and
republish it for non-profit or profit use without any limitation under your
responsibility". Not that I necessarily want to do that. I think that if I
do make use of such code I should at least give something back in return.
That might only be providing help and assistance to others who go that
route, or it might mean releasing some code. In any case the company I'm
working for have their own views, such as wanting there to be someone to
blame when things don't work. Buying in a solution means there is someone
other than me available for that role, and there is someone who can provide
support when I'm hit by a truck. A file full of source code is only a small
part of the story.

It seems DosFS has a similar, though more wordy, license.

Peter