| Author |
Message |
|
|
 Posted: Feb 25, 2012 - 08:54 AM |
|
Joined: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 62928
Location: (using avr-gcc in) Finchingfield, Essex, England
|
|
|
Quote:
(from FAT on wikipedia) lists the patents in the complaint. For this thread's topic looks like just LFN.
Yes but read the Microsoft site - they seem to be suggesting that they may retroactively chase for more than just LFN |
_________________
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Feb 27, 2012 - 12:31 PM |
|
Joined: Dec 08, 2004
Posts: 4719
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
Cliff: It's interesting that FAT12/FAT16 are described in the standard ISO/IEC 9293, and the ISO/IEC's patent declaration databases don't contain any entries fron any companies claiming to hold any essential patents covering that standard.
Microsoft is a member of the ISO/IEC, and they have registered essential patent declarations for several other ISO/IEC standards, so you certainly couldn't claim that they aren't aware of that organization's patent declaration process. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Feb 28, 2012 - 05:01 PM |
|
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
Posts: 558
|
|
|
Jesper and SDA wrote:
Citera:
Thank you for contacting the SD Association. We appreciate your interest in SD technologies. We will attempt to answer your questions below.
Citera:
* Do we need to be members/licensee to use SD-cards in SPI mode?
Yes.
Citera:
* Do we need to be members/licensee to use SD-cards in 1-bit SD/MMC mode?
Yes.
Citera:
* Do we need to be members/licensee to use SD-cards in 4-bit SD/MMC mode?
Yes.
Citera:
* Are the licensing required regardless of quantity or sales volume?
Yes.
This made me LOL. Just like the bogus music rights companies they claim to own everything and anything. No matter what you do, you must own them money, obviously.
BTW, if your engineers use oxygen in any capacity, even breathing, you have to pay Jean Michelle Jarre royalties. Really. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Feb 29, 2012 - 10:22 AM |
|
Joined: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 62928
Location: (using avr-gcc in) Finchingfield, Essex, England
|
|
|
Quote:
Just like the bogus music rights companies they claim to own everything and anything. No matter what you do, you must own them money, obviously.
If someone owns IPR and decides to sell it is there something wrong with that then? A vocal artist owns the copyright of the songs they sing and an SD card association own the copyright of the hardware interface and software protocol they designed. Or is it the case that if you cannot actually see and pick something up it has no inherent value? This explains $bn's of music, video and software theft I guess. (which is a shame for anyone who writes software for a living!). |
_________________
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mar 01, 2012 - 10:31 AM |
|
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
Posts: 558
|
|
|
clawson wrote:
If someone owns IPR and decides to sell it is there something wrong with that then? A vocal artist owns the copyright of the songs they sing and an SD card association own the copyright of the hardware interface and software protocol they designed. Or is it the case that if you cannot actually see and pick something up it has no inherent value? This explains $bn's of music, video and software theft I guess. (which is a shame for anyone who writes software for a living!).
I'm not saying intellectual property has no value. I don't know where you got that idea from because I certainly didn't write it.
My point was that trolling companies like to claim they own everything when in fact they don't. Music rights agencies and record labels are some of the worst. There was a story recently about one label claiming copyright over birdsong in the background of a YouTube video, and Belgian TV did an expose on the Belgian music rights group who were trying to collect royalties on made-up artists.
Similarly MS is trying to claim that everyone who implements FAT owes them money, but that doesn't make it true. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mar 01, 2012 - 10:26 PM |
|
Joined: Mar 28, 2001
Posts: 20630
Location: Sydney, Australia (Gum trees, Koalas and Kangaroos, No Edelweiss)
|
|
|
Quote:
MS is trying to claim that everyone who implements FAT owes them money, but that doesn't make it true.
So are you ready to do battle in court if M$ (or anyone) sues you? |
_________________
John Samperi
Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.
www.ampertronics.com.au
* Electronic Design * Custom Products * Contract Assembly
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mar 04, 2012 - 05:54 PM |
|
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
Posts: 558
|
|
What choice do you have? Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason no matter how stupid. In this specific case I'd probably ask the EFF or another interested party for help. The EFF loves busting ridiculous claims like this.
Note that MS has only ever gone after TomTom and only on very specific points. They have never gone after anyone for merely using FAT16 or FAT32. Even LFN seems to be safe as long as you don't use their MICROS~1 algorithm for generating 8.3 names. Have a read of the TomTom case for the specifics. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mar 04, 2012 - 11:10 PM |
|
Joined: Jan 09, 2007
Posts: 1919
Location: Arlington, Texas, U.S.A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mar 08, 2012 - 01:32 PM |
|
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
Posts: 558
|
|
Linux implements a work-around for the patent. Specifically it covers a method of creating an 8.3 file name from a long file name, so on Linux you have a choice of either 8.3 names or long names, but not both. Well, you can read both, but if you make a new file it will only have one name generated for it.
If you feel this is insufficient... well, I patented a method for programmers inhaling air to acquire oxygen for conversion to lines of program code via an analogue "brain" device and you owe me royalties. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Maximize
RSS
