12 Mar
2006
12 Mar
'06
11:01 a.m.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:31:39 +0100
nitro2k01 <nitro2k01(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not talking about invalidating the patent as
of today, to favor eg
ROS, but I'm rather asking how they got could file the patent? Didn't
IBM react? And moreover, was it legal for them at that point of time
to file a patent regarding something that already existed. (Namely a
file system capable of storing a long and a short file name for the
same file)
/nitro2k01
On 3/12/06, Oliver Schneider <Borbarad(a)gmxpro.net> wrote:
> > Reminds me... didn't OS/2 have the capability to store both short and
> > long file names on a FAT16 partiton? How does that go with MS'
> > patents? Where MS really allowed to file a patent on something that
> > already existed?
> I think the actual question is how you want to invalidate the patent. As far
> as I remember it costs even money if you want to attack a patent that you
> think is prior-art. How does that go with the work of volunteers...? I am
> involved in other FOSS projects and I would not want to sue someone else on
> behalf of a project or to be sued instead of the project. At last it is a
> volunteer's work ...
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
> Oliver
It seems that the consensus was that a vfat mode that stores only
long filenames would sidestep the patent.
--
Discordant is the murmur at such treading down of lovely things while
god's most lordly gift to man is decency of mind. Call that man only
blest who has in sweet tranquility brought his life to close.
If only I could act as such, my hope is good.
-- Aeschylus' Agamemnon (translated by H. W. Smyth)