Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Christopher Friesen wrote:

> The question still holds in modified form...will we need to remove this 
> functionality, or is it currently implemented in a way that does not 
> infringe on the patent?

I would not be surprised if the UMSDOS filesystem predated
VFAT by a few years - but this was all quite a while ago,
and I'm not sure the patents cover something that UMSDOS
could have prior art on...

-- 
All Rights Reversed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?
    • From: Alistair John Strachan <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: FAT and Microsoft patent?
    • From: "Roger Heflin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?
    • From: "Christopher Friesen" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: why no -mm git tree?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH ] VMSPLIT config options (with default config fixed)
• Previous by thread: Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?
• Next by thread: Re: FAT and Microsoft patent?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]