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')."
Yeah. Without a court ruling one way or the other, we have no indication whether Microsoft's strategy Free/Open Source software using patents (see the Halloween Documents) [wikipedia.org] will be upheld by the courts. That sword is still dangling over Linux and other F/OSS developers.
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.
Nonsense. A single file is all it takes to boot Linux. (Or to boot virtually anything for that matter.) Since "bzImage" is a valid 8.3 filename, as is "kernel", "boot.img", or hundreds of other possible filenames for the kernel, I'm not sure what the issue is.
(note: FAT in this post reffers to FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32 which all handle filenames in the same way, exFAT is completely different afaict)
"8.3 filenames" are the type of filename that FAT natively uses.
The character encoding is either ascii or the "OEM" character set of the machine (I don't remember which) all filenames are uppercased. Only one . is allowed (which isn't actually stored on the disk so "FILENAME" and "FILNAME." are equivilent) with up to 8 characters before and 3 characters afterwards.
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.
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.
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.
The reason they don't is that the only format which works out-of-the-box almost ubiquitously on desktop computers is FAT. That's why FAT is the de-facto standard flash memory filesystem.
Microsoft Windows only supports FAT and NTFS for reliable read-write access. That's about 90% of all desktop computers. Most other popular operating systems support FAT well, but few support NTFS well. Hence FAT.
It's entirely Microsoft's doing. If you wanted some other filesystem to replace FAT, it could only be another filesystem fully supported by Microsoft Windows, otherwise it wouldn't be out-of-the-box compatible with over 90% of desktop computers and thus would be trounced by anything that was.
Going forward you should be able to use UDF across all platforms since Vista, Linux, BSD, Solaris, and OS/2 all have read/write drivers for it, but it might be a bit of time before it's universally accepted since XP can't write to it or read version 2.5+ volumes.
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.
especially since from all reports I've seen the TomTom devices themselves don't expose the filenames they are working with.
Which reports would these be.. the ones from people who have never used a TomTom?
All a tomtom basically is to a PC is an external drive (actually two, for the models with internal and addon flash separate) - then the TomTom software reads and writes files to it. This includes the OS (linux) and boot files, so LFN is pretty much required, unless TomTom have a version of Linux that can b
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 [wikipedia.org] by Microsoft and Universal Disk Format [wikipedia.org] 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.
[[ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
No it couldn't be ext2/3/4 because of the GPL. It just couldn't so give that idea up.
Absolutely wrong. It couldn't be the *Linux implementation* of ext2/3/4, because of the GPL. But there's nothing to stop someone else from creating a new extN implementation under an arbitrary, non-GPL license: in fact, it's already been done [fs-driver.org].
No it couldn't be ext2/3/4 because of the GPL. It just couldn't so give that idea up.
Just what does the GPL do to restrict data formats?
The answer, of course, is it doesn't do anything. The GPL is about distributing copies of code, not data structures.
There would be absolutely nothing stopping a company from coming up with an alternate implementation of ext2fs code and giving it a proprietary license, or even just an LGPL license, suitable for use by any closed-source implementation.
Hell, didn't Tso fund part of his work by selling ext2fs code to one of those proprietary partition resizers l
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.
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.
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 $50 million to fight the lawsuit, msft wins as soon as they file the suit.
Wrong. It doesn't set a legal precedent. Microsoft can still go to other device managers and say 'look at this settlement; TomTom agreed that our patents on FAT LFN were valid. It would be cheaper for you to just pay up, or switch to Wince for your embedded device, than to fight us in court.'
Microsoft has previously stated that this lawsuit represents an isolated issue and that the company does not intend to broadly sue Linux users.
I remember when the news of the dispute first became known, it was widely speculated that TomTom threatened Microsoft with some possible patent infringements made by Microsoft Streets, and Microsoft threaten to defend itself by making enforcing a patent claim on FAT.
In other words, TomTom tried to get a better deal, Microsoft called their bluff, and TomTom folded their hand.
Of course they won't sue Linux users, that would be bad PR. Fortunately for them, the GPL means that they don't have to. All they have to do is find some proxy with code in the Linux kernel (or in Samba) who has standing to sue anyone distributing their code for violating clause 7 of the GPL by distributing their code linked against code which requires a patent license. Microsoft can then stand there and say 'we're not suing anyone, look what a legal minefield that nasty Linux thing is'. As a bonus, thi
Samba doesn't implement vFAT, it implements SMB. So Samba has nothing to do with this.
However, F/OSS could have a huge fight on its hands. The fact is, that everything uses vFAT. Nobody really supports anything else. The Linux Kernel has a vFAT module in it. Microsoft could say the vFAT Module has to be removed from the Kernel. If M$ Does, then, the entire Linux population is infringing. (Face it, we all HAVE to have FAT.)
Note that they never sere alleging violation of FAT32 patents, merely long name support.
When you say "Nobody supports anything else" I presume you mean in small devices, cameras, phones, thumb drives, etc.
But use of other file systems on such devices would be no worse than distributing drivers (like was done for Win98) and using EXT2/3/4.
A high quality windows driver released free and clear for that pretty much flips the coin on Microsoft. There are several of these out there: ( http://www.fs-driver.org/ [fs-driver.org]
Because it seems in the end TomTom has to remove FAT LFN support after all. I also note that in cases where one of the offending parties has less or less notable patents than the other there is usually a cash offset. I hope this drives to the home that FAT is *not* suitable has a standard filesystem for interoperability and people start using ISO9660, or whatever.
let me be the first to say.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What a settlement does settle (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand why TomTom settled, but (IANAL) I'd give odds that the FAT LFN patents are invalid under Bilski.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:let me be the first to say.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. A single file is all it takes to boot Linux. (Or to boot virtually anything for that matter.) Since "bzImage" is a valid 8.3 filename, as is "kernel", "boot.img", or hundreds of other possible filenames for the kernel, I'm not sure what the issue is.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(note: FAT in this post reffers to FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32 which all handle filenames in the same way, exFAT is completely different afaict)
"8.3 filenames" are the type of filename that FAT natively uses.
The character encoding is either ascii or the "OEM" character set of the machine (I don't remember which) all filenames are uppercased. Only one . is allowed (which isn't actually stored on the disk so "FILENAME" and "FILNAME." are equivilent) with up to 8 characters before and 3 characters afterwards.
MS add
I wish they'd fought; I understand why they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wish they'd fought; I understand why they did (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
There are plenty of file formats to choose from (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:There are plenty of file formats to choose from (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they don't is that the only format which works out-of-the-box almost ubiquitously on desktop computers is FAT. That's why FAT is the de-facto standard flash memory filesystem.
Microsoft Windows only supports FAT and NTFS for reliable read-write access. That's about 90% of all desktop computers. Most other popular operating systems support FAT well, but few support NTFS well. Hence FAT.
It's entirely Microsoft's doing. If you wanted some other filesystem to replace FAT, it could only be another filesystem fully supported by Microsoft Windows, otherwise it wouldn't be out-of-the-box compatible with over 90% of desktop computers and thus would be trounced by anything that was.
Parent
Re:There are plenty of file formats to choose from (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Only writing LFNs is patent covered. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
especially since from all reports I've seen the TomTom devices themselves don't expose the filenames they are working with.
Which reports would these be.. the ones from people who have never used a TomTom?
All a tomtom basically is to a PC is an external drive (actually two, for the models with internal and addon flash separate) - then the TomTom software reads and writes files to it. This includes the OS (linux) and boot files, so LFN is pretty much required, unless TomTom have a version of Linux that can b
UDF (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] by Microsoft and Universal Disk Format [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
with UDF you can have only one partition on that device
What USB drive or SD card comes preformatted with more than one partition?
Re:I wish they'd fought; I understand why they did (Score:5, Insightful)
[[ 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'.
Parent
Funny you should mention PNG... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:I wish they'd fought; I understand why they did (Score:4, Insightful)
The US govt does not have enough money to fight MS how do you expect TomTom to do it.
Parent
Sue users (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Good! (Score:2, Funny)
It's time to put OSS freeloaders/thieves to the sword! Go Microsoft!!!
So, Microsoft wins? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Who wants to use FAT anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but (Score:3, Informative)
FAT legacy support is so .. 1990s. And that's why such archaic crap is still in the patent window.
Re:Who wants to use FAT anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
ext2. fsck -U /dev/MS ;-)
Parent
NTFS? Screw me harder. (Score:3, Informative)
NTFS
Do you think NTFS isn't patented even more thoroughly than the long file name extensions to FAT?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft needs TomTom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't believe you. I can name more than that off the top of my head.
Mapdata Sciences
Navteq
Digital Globe
USGS
They may not all have complete sets of road data, but I'm sure there are more than two.
Microsoft Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be TomTom settles with MicrosoftMicrosoft???
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Industry could solve this in an hour (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it couldn't be ext2/3/4 because of the GPL. It just couldn't so give that idea up.
Absolutely wrong. It couldn't be the *Linux implementation* of ext2/3/4, because of the GPL. But there's nothing to stop someone else from creating a new extN implementation under an arbitrary, non-GPL license: in fact, it's already been done [fs-driver.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it couldn't be ext2/3/4 because of the GPL. It just couldn't so give that idea up.
Just what does the GPL do to restrict data formats?
The answer, of course, is it doesn't do anything.
The GPL is about distributing copies of code, not data structures.
There would be absolutely nothing stopping a company from coming up with an alternate implementation of ext2fs code and giving it a proprietary license, or even just an LGPL license, suitable for use by any closed-source implementation.
Hell, didn't Tso fund part of his work by selling ext2fs code to one of those proprietary partition resizers l
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> It wouldn't affect the average home user, but think about the implications for I.T. Staff.
Said Staff would be rejoicing because proprietary company documents would stop walking out the door on every disgruntled employee's thumb drive.
I'm sure that corporate IT is not by far the largest thumb drive consumer, let alone cameras, SD cards, Cell phones, etc.
You can always format the thumb drive again with what ever file system you want.
Besides, you make a mountain out of a mole hill. Microsoft would distr
For those griping about the settlement. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
SFLC says: Settled, But Not Over Yet (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Microsoft's message: use Linux, get sued (Score:4, Informative)
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 $50 million to fight the lawsuit, msft wins as soon as they file the suit.
Proof that MS uses patents offensively (Score:3, Interesting)
Still want to use Mono?
Re:this is fail (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:this is fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:this is fail (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Remove FAT Long File Names? (Score:5, Informative)
The article states:
I remember when the news of the dispute first became known, it was widely speculated that TomTom threatened Microsoft with some possible patent infringements made by Microsoft Streets, and Microsoft threaten to defend itself by making enforcing a patent claim on FAT.
In other words, TomTom tried to get a better deal, Microsoft called their bluff, and TomTom folded their hand.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Samba doesn't implement vFAT, it implements SMB. So Samba has nothing to do with this.
However, F/OSS could have a huge fight on its hands. The fact is, that everything uses vFAT. Nobody really supports anything else. The Linux Kernel has a vFAT module in it. Microsoft could say the vFAT Module has to be removed from the Kernel. If M$ Does, then, the entire Linux population is infringing. (Face it, we all HAVE to have FAT.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that they never sere alleging violation of FAT32 patents, merely long name support.
When you say "Nobody supports anything else" I presume you mean in small devices, cameras, phones, thumb drives, etc.
But use of other file systems on such devices would be no worse than distributing drivers (like was done for Win98) and using EXT2/3/4.
A high quality windows driver released free and clear for that pretty much flips the coin on Microsoft. There are several of these out there: ( http://www.fs-driver.org/ [fs-driver.org]
Re:And so it goes in the licensing world (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent