Linux community codes around Microsoft's FAT patents
Ever since Microsoft dropped its bombshell on Linux, claiming that the open-source operating system violates 235 of its patents, the Linux community has responded with a cogent counterargument: "If we're, in fact, infringing, point out the infringements and we'll simply code around your patents."
With Microsoft's lawsuit against GPS device manufacturer TomTom, Microsoft gave the community what it wanted, which has now resulted in the Linux community coding around Microsoft's two FAT file-system patent claims against Linux.
Two down, 233 more to go?
In 2008, Microsoft filed suit against TomTom for patent infringement related to GPS technology and its FAT file-system patents, allegedly infringed by TomTom's use of Linux. The two parties eventually settled, but Microsoft gave enough of a clue as to its patent claims that the Red Hat-sponsored Open Invention Network and others set off to sift through the merits of Microsoft's patents and, if possible, code around them.
As Andrew Tridgell recently explained to the Linux kernel mailing list, it would appear that the Linux community has accomplished exactly that, providing a workaround to Microsoft's patent claims.
The reasons are somewhat technical, but the approach seems to pass muster, as Ars Technica reports:
The Linux Foundation arranged for the patch to undergo extensive review by patent lawyers. They are confident that the patch will effectively evade the common namespace method described by Microsoft's patents. It will also function properly in virtually all cases. The only situation in which it will be problematic is when the data on the filesystem is accessed from old versions of DOS or Windows that still require the 8.3 filenames. Tridgell believes that such a scenario is rare enough that it will not impact a significant number of users. Those who require compatibility with those older versions of DOS or Windows can use the Linux "msdos" filesystem, which enforces 8.3 names and doesn't use Microsoft's patented dual-naming convention.
In early 2009, open-source luminary Larry Augustin urged the Linux community to "get the FAT out." While Tridgell's approach doesn't quite do this, it does appear to obviate Microsoft's patent claims.
This should make Linux users happy. Whether it will make Microsoft happy to see how trivial it is to code around its patent claims remains to be seen. That's the problem with launching nuclear marketing attacks against the legal integrity of open-source code: given enough eyeballs, all patent claims are shallow.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Then there's the basic window system stolen from the Mac OS but where everything is reversed or moved to opposite corners...
Uh....I think you mean there's the GUI Apple and Microsoft both borrowed (stole) from Xerox (google up "PARC").
"Apple just found out how to restore files from the trash"
It was in the old Mac OS a long time ago. It got dropped in OS X and now with Snow Leopard it is being put back in. I don't know who started doing it first, but it is not a recent feature for Apple either, just the return of an old favorite.
Even if they did, if MS implemented it in a different method, it could easily work around the patent by designing it differently. Most patents are very specific.
And I'm glad someone stomped the kid who claimed Mac was the first windowed OS. :)
@man_w_balls Learn your compu-history.
As for Palm, they came after the Newton. I challenge anyone to point to anything that Palm created 1st that Apple subsequently copied.
Proves definitively that the Linux community is very proactive about respecting IP (and if Ballmer would 'fess up this alleged --and IMHO mostly mythical-- list that he kept spewing FUD about, I'm willing to wager that by the end of the year, there'd be nothing for him to whine about).
There is no such thing as a valid patent.
Semantics aside, I do see your point. But there is still an slight difference to note here -- the proactive thing to do is to generally check for patents you might be infringing on before you release your product. This 'discovery' phase is a burden 'closed' source companies have to undertake (usually done by the legal folks though) -- but there's no reason other than lack of resources why FOSS products can't take that approach as well.
Please show me exactly when and where Microsoft had officially served The Linux Foundation, or Linus Torvalds, or Theodore T'so (who is the man for filesystems in Linux) notice of any patent violation concerning the FAT format.
Oh, that's right - you can't.
Thanks for playing!
I already pointed out what *proactive* measures would look like. If you deliberately fail to see the point, well, I guess that's what trolling is all about.
@ odubtaig
1. You should just get off the internet.. Being on the opposing side of an argument is no excuse for behaving like an impudent child.
2. I am not familiar with MS's processes -- but since you claim to have knowledge, be sure to post some links backing up your claims
3. I mentioned 'closed source' products -- that doesn't automatically translate to 'Microsoft'. I can see how that translation is automatic in your head, considering the crusade you're on. You assume that I have some anti-linux agenda purely because I'm not towing your line.
4. In the closed source products/companies I've worked in, the directive has usually been that the developers/designers shouldn't be doing discovery (to avoid tainting). That's why I specifically stated that this discovery phase is usually done by the legal folks.
5. The discovery phase is extremely important because failure to do so can result in serious liabilities, delayed product launches, recalled products, forced updates, and in extreme cases a ban on sales of your product. This is serious business.
6. I make no claim that "this is how it is, and this is how everyone should do it". I don't deal in absolutes like that. To each their own. You need to learn some tolerance my friend. This has merely been my experience in the industry. I can't understand why you find it so distasteful. By all means, feel free to post your (presumably) contrasting experiences as a counter-example. But control your rage man.
"What needs to happen is the EFF and a few other organizations need to band together and get all of MS's patents invalidated, and then move on to other patent trolls."
I know right how dare someone attempt to protect there property and make money.
Dhavleak.
Being on the internet is no excuse for typing utter bollocks but it's not stopping you.
Once again someone's too damn lazy to do their own homework, which explains everything you've posted here. Why bother with facts when you've got assumptions, right? See, I'm polite enough when I believe someone isn't a waste of space.
"I mentioned 'closed source' products -- that doesn't automatically translate to 'Microsoft'. I can see how that translation is automatic in your head, considering the crusade you're on. You assume that I have some anti-linux agenda purely because I'm not towing your line."
So, let me get this straight, I've got a quote from a software company which is massively successful, has been sued over patents several times, has a sharp-as legal team and I can quote a reasonably high-level employee's reproduction of company policy from his own MSDN blog but because it so happens to be Microsoft I'm on a 'crusade'? You're a retard.
Eric Brechner, Engineering Excellence manager at Microsoft, writes "Hard Code" which quotes:
Eric Aside
When using existing libraries, services, tools,
and methods from outside Microsoft, we
must be respectful of licenses, copyrights,
and patents. Generally, you want to carefully
research licenses and copyrights (your
contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can
help), and never search, view, or speculate
about patents. I was confused by this
guidance till I wrote and reviewed one of my
own patents. The legal claims section?the
only section that counts?was
indecipherable by anyone but a patent
attorney. Ignorance is bliss and strongly
recommended when it comes to patents.
http://blogs.msdn.com/eric_brechner/archive/2008/11/01/nihilism-and-other-innovation-poison.aspx
"You need to learn some tolerance"
If I ever become tolerant of people spouting completely uninformed ******** without doing even the most basic research I have arrangement to have me put to sleep in a humane fashion.
Since when is "Microsoft's legal people say this and they know what they're talking about" an attack on Microsoft? I'm relying here on their reputation for extreme competence to back up my argument. I think you're the one with something funny going on i his head to turn a massive compliment into a 'crusade'.
I mean, MS Legal Dept., Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman agree on something and the weather in hell is still toasty.
The only thing I can think is that it kills your argument dead.
Your link proves my point.
I'll repeat. Your link proves my point.
Quote from your link:
"When using existing libraries, services, tools, and methods from outside Microsoft, we must be respectful of licenses, copyrights, and patents. Generally, you want to carefully research licenses and copyrights (your contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can help), and never search, view, or speculate about patents."
Repeat:
1) When using existing libraries, services, tools, and methods from outside Microsoft, we must be respectful of licenses, copyrights, and patents. >>> this is in line with what I said about close source development
2) Generally, you want to carefully research licenses and copyrights (your contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can help) >>> this is exactly what I said. Legal does the discovery phase. Developers are not encouraged to do discovery.
3) and never search, view, or speculate about patents. >>> Developers must avoid getting tainted.
Repeat after me -- *your* link proves *my* point.
This further example of your twisting pretty much anything to fit your agenda is precisely why you earn nothing but contempt.
Open source bloggers (my paraphrase):
Ok No! THAT EVIL MICROSOFT IS AT IT AGAIN! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OF OUR FREE SOFTWARE.
You will notice that they haven't sued any camera makers, or MP3 player makers, or ... Even though every flash memory device ever made uses FAT.
Personally I think it's criminal that we have called over and over to be given details about which patents Linux is violating so we can in good faith work around infringement, and we have been denied that information, and you claim WE are the source of the FUD? Really now, let's be reasonable.
Anyone who followed the Tom Tom case knows that Tom Tom were only the first to question the validity of the patents in court out of a long line of companies MS coerced into NDA protected licensing agreements.
So, MS will not disclose the patents it says Linux infringes but it will make a company sign NDAs and license agreements which are only necessary if the patent can't be coded around which is only true if those patents are unknown.
When did Steve Ballmer metamorphose into Don Corleone?
" A new Linux kernel patch that was published last week offers a workaround that might make it possible to continue including FAT in Linux"
I think the keyword there is "might"......
however, it is the 6th paragraph that caught my eye: " When the filename exceeds that length, it will only generate a long name and will populate the short name value with 11 invalid characters so that it is ignored by the operating system."
this seems like a good workaround, but are they sure they are not intruding on other MSFT patent by doing this? they might have taken two down, but they might just have added 3 more. that's why the keyword is "might".
I was an avid Linux user and evangelist, but that has changed....still, I wish them all the best.
FAT is nothing but a few concepts from CS books written in the 60's.
FAT is a few concepts from CS books written in the 60's WRAPPED UP IN A PATENT!
Well played. Well played. Too bad the requiring of 8.3 filenames is a bit more common than you want to give it credit for. GNU/Linux is used extensively by folks who want to run a free OS for their old MS-DOS applications.
- by dsterry July 2, 2009 3:29 PM PDT
- The problem here is software patents in themselves. In the fuzzy world of software patent law it seems nearly anything is possible if you have enough money to pay the lawyers. Our only way out is to end software patents. Ciaran O'Riordan at the FSF has headed up a great effort on educating the public and providing resources to software patents opponents at http://swpat.org
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by RavingEniac July 6, 2009 1:44 PM PDT
- Generally speaking, every piece of code since the 1950s has built on ideas from earlier software. Programming techniques, math methods used in graphics, etc should not be patentable. By the way, has the patent on the wheel expired yet? I can envision doing something useful with a toroid made of air-inflated rubber.
-
-
(36 Comments)