 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Microsoft FAT patents 'could be re-opened' | |
|
||
| Time: 13:56 EST/18:56 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
If Microsoft decides to mine its patent portfolio for cash, it's likely to face a few unexpected consequences. A new patent body that's vowing to defend the free software community against Microsoft's new patents-for-cash revenue strategy says it will ask the US Patent Office to go back to square one, and systematically examine the validity of the patents in question. This is an unusual tactic that promises to bring the overworked USPTO's approval of questionable patents right into the spotlight. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 4 of 4 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at Wednesday, December 10, 2003 02:35:59 PM |
|
I'm all for patents; I'm all for patents that expire or pass into the public domain; I'm all for defending innovation and patents.
But this is the FAT file system. It's old, need of retirement, and all but worthless. Why MS would defend this is beyond me other than to possibly force adoptation of WinFS when it comes out and to close legacy problems. And why is it that only the socialist OSS people are the ones who get paranoid? Nobody else seems to care. |
| #2 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Wednesday, December 10, 2003 03:01:41 PM |
|
#1 - But this is the FAT file system. It's old, need of retirement, and all but worthless
Considering basically all removable media aside from CDR's use FAT or FAT32, I wouldn't exactly call it worthless. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft invented the technology. Why should they not be able to cash in on tons of other people who are making money of their technology, regardless of how old it is. Patents typically expire either every 7 years, or every 14 years, depending on the patent category. Microsoft is well within their rights, and the fact that the free software community is bitching and moaning is quite ironic, since they seem to value "giving credit" above all else. I say, put your money where your mouth is. You want to take advantage of other people's code, you should follow their rules just like you expect them to follow yours. |
| #3 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at Wednesday, December 10, 2003 04:16:34 PM |
|
I think their main complaint is that interoperability wil be lost if FAT is taken from them.
I see that as a chance for them to prove that their software can truly compete in the open market. If they fail this test they're doomed. |
| #4 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at Wednesday, December 10, 2003 05:54:49 PM |
|
They could always ask the commercial distros (RedHat, etc.) to license the format.
I don't think MS is interested in making all non-MS FAT implementations extinct. I think the angle they're coming from is that if you want to be sure of compatability with the original standard and not have to worry about possible quirks in other implementations, and have support, then you should license the format(s) from MS. If MS just wanted to kill all non-MS implementations of MS technologies covered or partially covered by patents, they could've endeavored to do so long ago with many technologies other than FAT. With the efforts to implement almost everything MS releases, the "free software" folks are bound to repeat these same moves. Like RMD siad, if they want the tech, they need to play by the rules. Stop expecting everyone to give you a free ride. Choosing a non-commercial model (and especially the GPL) comes with consequenses and sacrifices. If those sacrifices are too costly, choose something else. |
