Rickey Moore wrote:
"STYMA, ROBERT E (ROBERT)" <stymar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Robert P. J. Day:
i'm not sure i agree. as a previous poster mentioned, a patent on
the long names featurs of FAT has the potential to impact a lot of
handheld/digital/personal devices -- PDAs, digital cameras, etc.
Microsoft hoping to rake in more revenue from appliances using *their*
technology, more than trying to prevent people using it...
Wouldn't such devices be better off with something like UDF, instead
though?
This raises the question as to exactly what would have to be licensed.
Since the format of a FAT file system has long been documented would
you need a license to read at FAT file system, write a FAT file system,
create a FAT file system, or just have the file system on a device?
Whatever happened to Caldera's Canopy Group's lawsuit against MS after
> they acquired the rights to Digital's DrDOS? There was alot of
restraint of
trade issues raised... CP/M used 8.3 file names too... way before DOS.
<cackles> I remember, I used CP/M, I'm that old and crusty.
<cackles> Ric
I suggest that you read the patents. They don't patent FAT, they
patent a means for storing LFNs in a manner "compatible" with
FAT. And 8.3 certainly is not what the patents cover.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
