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
Licensing on FAT16
Started by ●August 6, 2008
Reply by ●August 11, 20082008-08-11
Reply by ●August 12, 20082008-08-12
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 /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●August 12, 20082008-08-12
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��en Frank-Christian Kr�gel
Reply by ●August 12, 20082008-08-12
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 /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●November 7, 20082008-11-07
>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 licenseon 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
Reply by ●November 7, 20082008-11-07
james.walmsley wrote:> For my current system I need a really really fast FAT16/32 driver for the > BlackFin family.We developed the compatible FAT16/32 filesystem for BlackFin with POSIX (SUSV3) interface and RTOS abstraction layer. It is optimized for speed. It is a commertical product.> 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.ukOur filesystem is NOT opensource or GPL. My contact is at the web site. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
