>From: fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx >[mailto:fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Wendel >Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:18 AM >To: For users of Fedora Core releases >Subject: Re: Ouch! > > >Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Les Mikesell wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 09:58, Roger Heflin wrote: >>> >>>>>>It is not a patent for FAT in general. >>>>> >>>>>um ... so the concept of supporting longer filenames qualifies >>>>>as "novel and non-obvious?" really? >>>> >>>> >>>>Apparently the screwball way they did it, yes, they had to come up >>>>with the method to put things into the already existing >>>>structures, and I believe it is rather a odd hack, since the >>>>pre-existing structures only have space for 8+3, how they are >>>>doing it is a lot different than the way one does it for a >>>>filesystem designed from the ground up to accept long filenames. >>> >>>So the way to protect something is to do it badly the first time and >>>then add a quirky work-around to fix some of the problems? I don't >>>think that qualifies as "novel" for Microsoft, though. >> >> >> i'm still confused by this. so ... the basic 8.3 FAT filesystem is >> not patented. and the concept of long filenames ... well, no problem >> there either. i imagine a filesystem structure that was originally >> designed to handle long filenames wouldn't be particularly novel. >> >> in that case, the patent seems to apply to (as the respondent above >> suggests) little more than the ugly hack that added long filenames to >> FAT 8.3. >> >> but if that's the case, and it can be shown that the hack was the >> obvious way to do it, wouldn't that lose the novelty argument? >> >> rday >> > >You're thinking like a rational being. Forget it, this is something >from the world of lawyers, rational thought does not apply. > >Regards, > >John > People and Companies try to build their egos, reputations and/or clout on creating patents. Some companies secure patents as a means to build credulity in order to secure investments from their investors. Others do this to secure or protect their stakes against those that might try to claim ownership on the "invention" or idea or to prevent those from encroaching on their financial pie, the later being the main reason. So think of patents as an government sanctioned ego trip, power trip, money trip, or politics. Funny thing about patents is that the government can deny patent submissions for any reason whatsoever. Lawyers get involved because it is money in their pockets. My guess is that this particular patent is just to increase the # of patents that M$ currently holds - and that is all that is needed. Opinons are obviously my own. Dan -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006
