Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT

[Casper Hornstrup]

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp

[Vizzini]

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
>   http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
sigh...

Looks pretty bad, actually.  We're going to have to think about this. 
This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operating
system unless the fundamental terms are changed.  

CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if we
don't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all those
patents are expired now).  

Things could get really sticky with digital cameras, mp3 players, etc...

I'd be curious to see how RMS would respond to this.  Steven, would you
care to run this by him?

Also, I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  MS also has a
royalty deal on the website for ClearType, and I guarantee they have
thousands of patents that cover all of the obvious things.  I guess
we'll just have to deal with them as they come up.

A quick US patent database search shows 2,884 patents assigned to MS
since 1976.  On further review, it appears that every single one has
issued since 1986, meaning that every one of them is valid and
enforcable.

Joy.

 -Vizzini

[Richard Campbell]

M$ appears to only be going after hardware manufacturers, ROS need not 
worry for now, if microsoft decides to target operating systems, you can 
bet your bottom dollar they'll have it out with linux first, and there 
will be a hellacious court battle before things get past that.

On a somewhat unrelated topic, the tech industry is slowly being torn to 
shreds with stupid ass laws.  When will the madness end?

Vizzini wrote:

>  On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
>   
>
> >  http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
> >     
> >  
> sigh...
>
> Looks pretty bad, actually.  We're going to have to think about this. 
> This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operating
> system unless the fundamental terms are changed.  
>
> CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if we
> don't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all those
> patents are expired now).  
>
> Things could get really sticky with digital cameras, mp3 players, etc...
>
> I'd be curious to see how RMS would respond to this.  Steven, would you
> care to run this by him?
>
> Also, I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  MS also has a
> royalty deal on the website for ClearType, and I guarantee they have
> thousands of patents that cover all of the obvious things.  I guess
> we'll just have to deal with them as they come up.
>
> A quick US patent database search shows 2,884 patents assigned to MS
> since 1976.  On further review, it appears that every single one has
> issued since 1986, meaning that every one of them is valid and
> enforcable.
>
> Joy.
>
>  -Vizzini
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>   
>

[Vizzini]

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 17:07, Richard Campbell wrote:
>   M$ appears to only be going after hardware
> manufacturers, ROS need not 
>  worry for now 
I think there's an alternative analysis that should be thought about
here:  MS is allowing hardware manufacturers an easy license, but is
implicitly preventing any competitive OS vendor from using FAT.  In
other words, they're saying to Apple, and in particular, Linux, that
they no longer have a right to use FAT.  We would, of course, fall into
category #2.

As to whether they hit Linux or us first, that is immaterial.  They'll
get to us eventually, and the value of the infringement will just have
had time to grow with time value...

 -Vizzini

[Sami Petteri Niemi]

Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

I still think we should aim to get one of the Linux file systems working
under ReactOS pretty soon-ish. Then if the worst does happen at least it
won't be such a major blow.

OK, so the bad thing is, we'd lose FAT and maybe eventually NTFS support
too. The good thing is... What's there to stop users from just copying over
the relevant system files from Windows NT/2000/XP when the ReactOS kernel is
strong enough to support them? Sure, if we're running on a Linux file system
it won't be a straightforward file copy operation, but it shouldn't be too
hard to make a program that can shift a couple of files from Windows into
the ReactOS partition, using the ReactOS ext2/3/ReiserFS driver?

This would swing in favour of Linux too, since people like me who dual-boot
would no longer have to choose between no security/file system compatibility
(using FAT for data), and high security/no file system compatibility
(ext2/3/ReiserFS and NTFS.)

And again, we could have a Linux swap partition driver (I use one for my
Win2k installation at the moment) and allow the user to select that as a
pagefile location.

The end result would be that users might be less willing to install ReactOS
for fear of losing FS compatibility with Windows. However, if ROS can be
booted from a CD, maybe it can have an option to run a "demo" environment
where it loads everything from CD?

Even better - why not just make the installer start up the GUI from the CD
with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen, and then from there let the user select
if they want to install or have a play around with ReactOS first. I mean,
once it's loaded, it's loaded, right? So you could jump into a useable OS
and be able to do almost anything you can do with Windows. Maybe even allow
network installation somehow?

Just a few crazy ideas ;)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sami Petteri Niemi" <j82144(a)uwasa.fi>
To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT


>   Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum:
>  http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>

[Richard Campbell]

see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be a working ext2 driver 
available...someone just needs to modify ROS/freeloader to boot from an 
ext2 partition

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:

>  I still think we should aim to get one of the Linux
> file systems working
> under ReactOS pretty soon-ish. Then if the worst does happen at least it
> won't be such a major blow.
>
> OK, so the bad thing is, we'd lose FAT and maybe eventually NTFS support
> too. The good thing is... What's there to stop users from just copying over
> the relevant system files from Windows NT/2000/XP when the ReactOS kernel is
> strong enough to support them? Sure, if we're running on a Linux file system
> it won't be a straightforward file copy operation, but it shouldn't be too
> hard to make a program that can shift a couple of files from Windows into
> the ReactOS partition, using the ReactOS ext2/3/ReiserFS driver?
>
> This would swing in favour of Linux too, since people like me who dual-boot
> would no longer have to choose between no security/file system compatibility
> (using FAT for data), and high security/no file system compatibility
> (ext2/3/ReiserFS and NTFS.)
>
> And again, we could have a Linux swap partition driver (I use one for my
> Win2k installation at the moment) and allow the user to select that as a
> pagefile location.
>
> The end result would be that users might be less willing to install ReactOS
> for fear of losing FS compatibility with Windows. However, if ROS can be
> booted from a CD, maybe it can have an option to run a "demo" environment
> where it loads everything from CD?
>
> Even better - why not just make the installer start up the GUI from the CD
> with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen, and then from there let the user select
> if they want to install or have a play around with ReactOS first. I mean,
> once it's loaded, it's loaded, right? So you could jump into a useable OS
> and be able to do almost anything you can do with Windows. Maybe even allow
> network installation somehow?
>
> Just a few crazy ideas ;)
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sami Petteri Niemi" <j82144(a)uwasa.fi>
> To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
>
>
>   
>
> >  Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum:
> > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > ros-general(a)reactos.com
> > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >
> >
> >     
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>   
>

[Brian Palmer]

FreeLoader has been able to be installed and booted from an EXT2 file
system for quite some time now.

Brian

>   -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-general-bounces(a)reactos.com 
>  [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Richard Campbell
>  Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:53 AM
>  To: ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
>  
>  
>  see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be a working 
>  ext2 driver 
>  available...someone just needs to modify ROS/freeloader to 
>  boot from an 
>  ext2 partition
>  
>  Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>  
> >  I still think we should aim to get one of the
> > Linux file systems 
> > working under ReactOS pretty soon-ish. Then if the worst  
>  does happen at 
> >  least it won't be such a major blow.
> >
> > OK, so the bad thing is, we'd lose FAT and maybe eventually NTFS 
> > support too. The good thing is... What's there to stop users  
>  from just 
> >  copying over the relevant system files from
> > Windows  
>  NT/2000/XP when the 
> >  ReactOS kernel is strong enough to support them?
> > Sure, if  
>  we're running 
> >  on a Linux file system it won't be a
> > straightforward file copy 
> > operation, but it shouldn't be too hard to make a program that can 
> > shift a couple of files from Windows into the ReactOS  
>  partition, using 
> >  the ReactOS ext2/3/ReiserFS driver?
> >
> > This would swing in favour of Linux too, since people like me who 
> > dual-boot would no longer have to choose between no security/file 
> > system compatibility (using FAT for data), and high security/no file 
> > system compatibility (ext2/3/ReiserFS and NTFS.)
> >
> > And again, we could have a Linux swap partition driver (I  
>  use one for 
> >  my Win2k installation at the moment) and allow the
> > user to  
>  select that 
> >  as a pagefile location.
> >
> > The end result would be that users might be less willing to install 
> > ReactOS for fear of losing FS compatibility with Windows.  
>  However, if 
> >  ROS can be booted from a CD, maybe it can have an
> > option to run a 
> > "demo" environment where it loads everything from CD?
> >
> > Even better - why not just make the installer start up the  
>  GUI from the 
> >  CD with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen,
> > and then from there  
>  let the user 
> >  select if they want to install or have a play
> > around with ReactOS 
> > first. I mean, once it's loaded, it's loaded, right? So you  
>  could jump 
> >  into a useable OS and be able to do almost
> > anything you can do with 
> > Windows. Maybe even allow network installation somehow?
> >
> > Just a few crazy ideas ;)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sami Petteri Niemi" <j82144(a)uwasa.fi>
> > To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
> > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
> >
> >
> >   
> >
> > >  Discussion in Gentoo linux Forum: 
> > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=112001
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ros-general mailing list
> > > ros-general(a)reactos.com 
> > > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> > >
> > >
> > >     
> > >  
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > ros-general(a)reactos.com  
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-> general
> >  
> >   
> >  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com 
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-> general
>

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 15.52 05/12/2003, you wrote:
>  see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be a
> working ext2 driver 
> available...someone just needs to modify ROS/freeloader to boot from an 
> ext2 partition 
mark my words: using Ext3 unomodified as the main filesystem *will* mean 
trouble

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

Agreed; the security model is one issue.  For an NT clone, you really
need a filesystem capable of supporting ACLs, among other things.  Does
ext3 support extended attributes?  If so, then this could be
implemented over top of that; as it could be over BFS (the BeOS file
system, which is EXTREMELY fast due to its indexing of these
attributes, etc.), or over XFS (SGI's filesystem for IRIX); either of
these filesystems is industrial-strength, 64-bit, journaling, and worth
considering.  

SGI has released XFS source code as pseudo-open-source for use in
Linux, and I think they allow use in other open-source systems, as well
(not completely sure of the license any more).  BFS is being rewritten
by the OpenBeOS project (www.openbeos.org).

Something new and unique is also possible, of course.

--- "KJK::Hyperion" <noog(a)libero.it> wrote:
>   At 15.52 05/12/2003, you wrote:
> >  see the earlier link i posted, there appears to be
> > a working ext2 
>  driver 
> >  available...someone just needs to modify
> > ROS/freeloader to boot from 
>  an 
> >  ext2 partition 
>  
>  mark my words: using Ext3 unomodified as the main filesystem *will*
>  mean 
>  trouble 
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general 
=====
=======
Frank D. Engel, Jr.

Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the
reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 18.41 06/12/2003, you wrote:
>  Agreed; the security model is one issue.  For an NT
> clone, you really need 
> a filesystem capable of supporting ACLs, among other things.  Does ext3 
> support extended attributes?  If so, then this could be implemented over 
> top of that; 
it could - *if* we want a sloppy and inefficient implementation. ACLs have 
arbitrary length and are in the vast majority of cases inherited from the 
parent directory: NTFS, in fact, collapses identical ACLs. And that's just 
an example. Just speaking feature-wise, NTFS has DOS attributes and DOS 
short filenames, OS/2 extended attributes, sparse files, compression, 
encryption, named streams, per-file object ids, reparse points and god 
knows how many minor ones I've left out. But that's just overlooking the by 
far biggest issue: what about user ids? Windows NT has globally unique user 
ids of arbitrary length, vs the fixed-length, locally unique user ids 
normally found elsewhere. Before you ask: yes, files need to be indexed by 
SID. Quota management requires it. Good luck implementing all of that with 
extended attributes

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

Well, it was just a suggestion, so granted there are some minuses,
but...

>   it could - *if* we want a sloppy and inefficient
> implementation. ACLs
>  have 
>  arbitrary length and are in the vast majority of cases inherited from
>  the 
>  parent directory: NTFS, in fact, collapses identical ACLs. And  
And the collapsed binary version couldn't be stored in a binary
attribute?  Attributes of parent nodes couldn't be checked for
inheritance?

>   that's
>  just 
>  an example. Just speaking feature-wise, NTFS has DOS attributes and
>  DOS 
>  short filenames, OS/2 extended attributes, sparse files, compression, 
various filenames and OS/2 attributes could be stored in extended
attributes (easily), and even indexed (BFS) for efficient searching
capabilities.  As for compression, you can still compress the data and
use an attribute to store the compression status; same with encryption.
 Named streams could either be dropped, or supported by storing in
multiple files.  object IDs could be stored in attributes.

>   encryption, named streams, per-file object ids,
> reparse points and
>  god 
>  knows how many minor ones I've left out. But that's just overlooking
>  the by 
>  far biggest issue: what about user ids? Windows NT has globally
>  unique user 
>  ids of arbitrary length, vs the fixed-length, locally unique user ids 
SIDs could be stored in attributes, and the attributes could be indexed
for efficiency -- this is all supported quite nicely by BFS.

>   
>  normally found elsewhere. Before you ask: yes, files need to be
>  indexed by 
>  SID. Quota management requires it. Good luck implementing all of that
>  with 
>  extended attributes  
Compression and encryption are separate issues.  BTW, the suggestion
was to support a filesystem OTHER THAN existing ones, so expect
different advantages AND disadvantages...

All of those features of NTFS imply added storage overhead, too, which
makes it impractical for use on smaller volumes (floppy/zip disks, for
example).  Of course, this is true of many modern filesystems, which is
probably the REAL reason that FAT is still so commonly used on those devices.

=====
=======
Frank D. Engel, Jr.

Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the
reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 21.28 06/12/2003, you wrote:

>  Named streams could either be dropped, 
unlikely. Some programs are already using them

>  or supported by storing in multiple files. 
streams aren't files. Opening different streams opens the same file - i.e. 
the same node. What are you going to do, maintain a second table of nodes 
in a hidden file?

>  object IDs could be stored in attributes. 
nope, they can't. They aren't attributes, they are identifiers: you can 
open files by their object id. What now, another hidden file to index 
object ids?

>  SIDs could be stored in attributes, 
and this will waste any existing mechanism for access control and file 
ownership. What I'm saying is that you can use Ext3 as the ReactOS's 
official filesystem, just don't expect you'll be able to call the result 
"Ext3" anymore, or actually share partitions with Linux without a special 
driver. You can overload the meaning of "extended attributes" so many times 
before you have created a new filesystem

>  and the attributes could be indexed for efficiency --
> this is all 
> supported quite nicely by BFS. 
Does BFS exist? I mean, an implementation we can use?

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

> >  Named streams
> > could either be dropped, 
>  
>  unlikely. Some programs are already using them
>  
> >  or supported by storing in multiple files. 
>
>  streams aren't files. Opening different streams opens the same file -
>  i.e. 
>  the same node. What are you going to do, maintain a second table of
>  nodes 
>  in a hidden file? 
That would be very similar to the way Apple, under MacOS < X, stored
forked files (similar to multiple streams; but only two of them under
MacOS - data and resource forks) on FAT volumes, to support
cross-platform capabilities.  So yes, that is not completely
unreasonable. (they used a [hidden?] folder on the FAT disk to contain
the resource 'fork', which was given the same name as the main file, in
turn containing the 'data fork'.)

> >  object IDs
> > could be stored in attributes. 
>  
>  nope, they can't. They aren't attributes, they are identifiers: you
>  can 
>  open files by their object id. What now, another hidden file to index
>  
>  object ids? 
Not neccessary under BFS: indexes are integrated into the filesystem. 
Just turn it on for that attribute.  Searches are lightning fast with
BFS.
 
> >  SIDs could be
> > stored in attributes, 
>  
>  and this will waste any existing mechanism for access control and
>  file 
>  ownership. What I'm saying is that you can use Ext3 as the ReactOS's 
>  official filesystem, just don't expect you'll be able to call the
>  result 
>  "Ext3" anymore, or actually share partitions with Linux without a
>  special 
>  driver. You can overload the meaning of "extended attributes" so many
>  times 
>  before you have created a new filesystem 
Yes, and I don't wish to discount that.  I was merely offering a
suggestion on one way to avoid reinventing the wheel, if desired.

> >  and the
> > attributes could be indexed for efficiency -- this is all 
> > supported quite nicely by BFS. 
>  
>  Does BFS exist? I mean, an implementation we can use?  
The OpenBeOS project is creating one, designed for their OS of course,
which with some work, might be adaptable for use with another project;
they indicate it as being in late beta (just short of stable; IIRC this
is due primarily to thusfar insufficient testing to suit them), and
according to some of their testers, it is actually faster than the
original BeOS implementation, which was already lightning fast.

So this is a definite maybe; it depends on how easily the code could be
modified for use with ReactOS.


=====
=======
Frank D. Engel, Jr.

Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the
reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

[Rick Parrish]

I'd like to follow Andrew's "crazy ideas" with one of my own.

How about structuring a defensive IP policy?

I'll use a file system as my example but this applies to just about 
anything unique or novel in the React OS implementation. Suppose someone 
comes up with a new improved file system design ... makes it available 
under GPL like terms but also backs it up with a patent. Suppose that 
this new file system becomes very popular. Users, over concerns of their 
data being held captive by a proprietary media format, switch to this 
new FS. Microsoft, following a long history of embrace and extend (the 
kiss of death), decides to incorporate this FS as an "innovative 
feature" in a future
OS release. However, the patent-backed licensing terms include a 
"gotcha" clause that requires any commercial entity to share patent 
portfolios (sounds fair doesn't it?) ...

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:

>  Even better - why not just make the installer start up
> the GUI from the CD with a "welcome to ReactOS" screen, and then from there let
> the user select if they want to install or have a play around with ReactOS first. 
>  
PS. the Menuet OS, by virtue of it fitting on a floppy allows trial by 
just booting straight up to a Menuet desktop session.

-rick

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

A recent discussion with ROS_Guy on IRC prompted me to start toying with the
idea of a completely object-oriented system.

I implemented a few test classes, and it was written in a combination of C
and C++ (the main interface was C.) Basically you'd have objects and
classes, as with OO programming.

However, the difference here is that files would be object instances, and to
use a file you'd just "import" the object. The system would then
automatically load the file handler for that object. By default, a "class"
handler allows special DLLs to be loaded that contain a class definition
(not in the C++ sense - it was a table of action names with addresses). In
effect, a class in this case would've been an instance to begin with (an
instance of the CLASS object.)

Anyway, the basic outcome was to be that you could effectively say "I want
to open this database" and it'd find the database object (say,
database.mdb), and then find the class type based on the extension (and
maybe a few other parameters - like functions within it, as some apps share
extension types, I've noticed.) This class would then be instantiated in a
special way which would effectively subclass it.

This would result in a standard interface to the data within the file, as
you could use the methods presented by the file handling class to manipulate
the file.

To take another example, WAV MP3 OGG etc... All audio formats. All could
have a common interface, so any program could read from and write to these
files seamlessly, and the handler would handle the
compression/decompression.

And to take things even further, a polymorphic file system could be
employed. By that, I mean a file system that could change the file types
"on-the-fly". So if you go to view all WAV files, you'll see WAV versions
of
your MP3s for example.

"Won't this take a lot of time and disk space?" I hear you ask... Well, no.
The files wouldn't actually *be* files... They'd just be records pointing to
the same piece of data on disk (the actual original file), with some
information about the file, such as the original format, and what kind of
file it is (eg: media/audio/wave.) Then, when an application accesses the
file as a different type, it gets converted on-the-fly.

While this isn't really useful for WAV->MP3->WAV situations (eg, opening an
MP3 in a sound editor, from what was originally a WAV file), it is more
useful in the sense you could open an MP3 in Sound Recorder, as a WAV file!

And, with the correct file handlers, you could maybe open a Word document in
Notepad (with a lot of filtering of graphics, etc. obviously) or maybe even
open emails in Notepad.

I experimented with these ideas, and came up with a half-hearted effort that
sort of worked but had a lot of limitations and was quite a kludge. However,
should it be implemented properly (even just as a file system idea and not a
complete OO system), I think it could go far.

A similar idea I had for the OO system was to have a socket handler for
networking, too. So you could write an IM client that uses say, the MSN
Messenger protocol handler, and that handler would have an identical (or
near-identical) interface to the ICQ handler.

Maybe this would be something to look into?

[Martin Fuchs]

Hello Andrew,

>   A recent discussion with ROS_Guy on IRC prompted me to
> start toying with the
>  idea of a completely object-oriented system.
>  
>  I implemented a few test classes, and it was written in a combination of C
>  and C++ (the main interface was C.) Basically you'd have objects and
>  classes, as with OO programming.
>  
>  However, the difference here is that files would be object instances, and to
>  use a file you'd just "import" the object. The system would then
>  automatically load the file handler for that object. By default, a "class"
>  handler allows special DLLs to be loaded that contain a class definition
>  (not in the C++ sense - it was a table of action names with addresses). In
>  effect, a class in this case would've been an instance to begin with (an
>  instance of the CLASS object.) 
Thise ideas are in now way "crazy".  :-)
Did you ever look into BeOS?
They were using a C++ API exposed by the operating system.
The whole system could be seen as an object oriented environment!
I've got the book "Beos developer guide" lying around here. It's all
described there.

Sadly they did not earn enough money, so the project died in the end.

    Martin

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

>   Thise ideas are in now way "crazy".  :-)
>  Did you ever look into BeOS?
>  They were using a C++ API exposed by the operating system.
>  The whole system could be seen as an object oriented environment!
>  I've got the book "Beos developer guide" lying around here. It's all
described there.
>  
>  Sadly they did not earn enough money, so the project died in the end. 
Hmm I used to have BeOS but never really used it - installed it a couple of
times and played around, but that was about all I did with it.

The way I was thinking of doing it would be to have some way to store each
class in a file, and have a file system based around the class hierarchy,
like so:
/fileformats/multimedia/audio/wave

Wave is audio, which is multimedia, and in this case it's a file format.

This would probably have limitations, but I liked the idea that you could
effectively organise a set of classes in this way.

But basically, when the file system is queried for all *.wav files, it'd
look at all audio files in a directory/folder, and present them as *.wav
files. So, even MP3s would appear in the list.

Then, when you open the file, it would appear to be an instance of
/fileformats/multimedia/audio/wave, and you could deal with it in that
manner.

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

This has been done, and to an even greater extreme: check out
www.eros-os.org.  That project represents an operating system radically
different from the ones commonly found now.  There is no file system in
the traditional sense:  the operating system uses the disk as a
persistant object store, with checkpointing areas:  the entire system
state is written to disk from time to time, so that in the event of a
power failure (for example), the system comes back up with the same
programs doing the same things that they were doing at the time of the
last checkpoint; minimal work is lost, and this is done transparently
from the perspective of the programs.

--- "Andrew \"Silver Blade\" Greenwood"
<lists(a)silverblade.co.uk>
wrote:
>   A recent discussion with ROS_Guy on IRC prompted me to
> start toying
>  with the
>  idea of a completely object-oriented system.
>  
>  I implemented a few test classes, and it was written in a combination
>  of C
>  and C++ (the main interface was C.) Basically you'd have objects and
>  classes, as with OO programming.
>  
>  However, the difference here is that files would be object instances,
>  and to
>  use a file you'd just "import" the object. The system would then
>  automatically load the file handler for that object. By default, a
>  "class"
>  handler allows special DLLs to be loaded that contain a class
>  definition
>  (not in the C++ sense - it was a table of action names with
>  addresses). In
>  effect, a class in this case would've been an instance to begin with
>  (an
>  instance of the CLASS object.)
>  
>  Anyway, the basic outcome was to be that you could effectively say "I
>  want
>  to open this database" and it'd find the database object (say,
>  database.mdb), and then find the class type based on the extension
>  (and
>  maybe a few other parameters - like functions within it, as some apps
>  share
>  extension types, I've noticed.) This class would then be instantiated
>  in a
>  special way which would effectively subclass it.
>  
>  This would result in a standard interface to the data within the
>  file, as
>  you could use the methods presented by the file handling class to
>  manipulate
>  the file.
>  
>  To take another example, WAV MP3 OGG etc... All audio formats. All
>  could
>  have a common interface, so any program could read from and write to
>  these
>  files seamlessly, and the handler would handle the
>  compression/decompression.
>  
>  And to take things even further, a polymorphic file system could be
>  employed. By that, I mean a file system that could change the file
>  types
>  "on-the-fly". So if you go to view all WAV files, you'll see WAV
>  versions of
>  your MP3s for example.
>  
>  "Won't this take a lot of time and disk space?" I hear you ask...
>  Well, no.
>  The files wouldn't actually *be* files... They'd just be records
>  pointing to
>  the same piece of data on disk (the actual original file), with some
>  information about the file, such as the original format, and what
>  kind of
>  file it is (eg: media/audio/wave.) Then, when an application accesses
>  the
>  file as a different type, it gets converted on-the-fly.
>  
>  While this isn't really useful for WAV->MP3->WAV situations (eg,
>  opening an
>  MP3 in a sound editor, from what was originally a WAV file), it is
>  more
>  useful in the sense you could open an MP3 in Sound Recorder, as a WAV
>  file!
>  
>  And, with the correct file handlers, you could maybe open a Word
>  document in
>  Notepad (with a lot of filtering of graphics, etc. obviously) or
>  maybe even
>  open emails in Notepad.
>  
>  I experimented with these ideas, and came up with a half-hearted
>  effort that
>  sort of worked but had a lot of limitations and was quite a kludge.
>  However,
>  should it be implemented properly (even just as a file system idea
>  and not a
>  complete OO system), I think it could go far.
>  
>  A similar idea I had for the OO system was to have a socket handler
>  for
>  networking, too. So you could write an IM client that uses say, the
>  MSN
>  Messenger protocol handler, and that handler would have an identical
>  (or
>  near-identical) interface to the ICQ handler.
>  
>  Maybe this would be something to look into?
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general 
=====
=======
Frank D. Engel, Jr.

Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the
reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

[Martin Fuchs]

On 05.12.2003 19:50:28 Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
>   This has been done, and to an even greater extreme:
> check out
>  www.eros-os.org.  That project represents an operating system radically
>  different from the ones commonly found now.  There is no file system in
>  the traditional sense:  the operating system uses the disk as a
>  persistant object store, with checkpointing areas:  the entire system
>  state is written to disk from time to time, so that in the event of a
>  power failure (for example), the system comes back up with the same
>  programs doing the same things that they were doing at the time of the
>  last checkpoint; minimal work is lost, and this is done transparently
>  from the perspective of the programs. 
This description remembers me of Smalltalk:
Completely object oriented environment with persistent objects.

    Martin

[Steven Edwards]

--- Rick Parrish <rfmobile(a)swbell.net> wrote:
>   I'd like to follow Andrew's "crazy
> ideas" with one of my own.
>  
>  How about structuring a defensive IP policy?
>   
We have a IP statement its just not posted yet. Vizzini and I have been
working on it for a few months. We are of course going to need to
update it to cover this possible problem with Fat16/32 support. 

Thanks
Steven

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

[Mark IJbema]

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:57:07AM -0600, Rick Parrish wrote:
>   I'd like to follow Andrew's "crazy
> ideas" with one of my own.
>  
>  How about structuring a defensive IP policy?
>  
>  I'll use a file system as my example but this applies to just about 
>  anything unique or novel in the React OS implementation. Suppose someone 
>  comes up with a new improved file system design ... makes it available 
>  under GPL like terms but also backs it up with a patent. Suppose that 
>  this new file system becomes very popular. Users, over concerns of their 
>  data being held captive by a proprietary media format, switch to this 
>  new FS. Microsoft, following a long history of embrace and extend (the 
>  kiss of death), decides to incorporate this FS as an "innovative 
>  feature" in a future
>  OS release. However, the patent-backed licensing terms include a 
>  "gotcha" clause that requires any commercial entity to share patent 
>  portfolios (sounds fair doesn't it?) ... 
Sounds fair, but is not compatible with the GPL afaik. Which doesn't
have to be a problem, i don't see why we need to use the GPL for
everything anyway (for example, i wouldn't care less if we includeded a
notepad which was released under the BSD licence).

Mark

[Rick Parrish]

Mark IJbema wrote:

>  Sounds fair, but is not compatible with the GPL afaik.
> Which doesn't
> have to be a problem, i don't see why we need to use the GPL for
> everything anyway (for example, i wouldn't care less if we included a
> notepad which was released under the BSD licence).
>  
Yeah, that's why I used the phrase "available under GPL like terms".

-rick

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
>  Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file
> system design ... [...] 
sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a 
way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users *at 
the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect

[Richard Campbell]

ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it wouldn't piss off anyone.

KJK::Hyperion wrote:

>   At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
>
> >   Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file
> > system design ... 
> >  [...] 
>
>  sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. 
>  Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office 
>  and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

I don't see why it would be illegal? Surely continuing to use FAT could
result in more legal problems than to just "roll your own"?

What would be really good is if a new file system was developed, and then
drivers made for Linux and Windows to enable the new file system to be used
with those operating systems. Better yet would be to design a file system
that would be compatible with the attributes and security descriptors these
platforms use (if they are different, which I suspect they are.) How this
could be done, I'm not sure. But it could have a more positive than negative
result.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Campbell" <eek2121(a)comcast.net>
To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT


>   ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it
> wouldn't piss off 
anyone.
>  
>  KJK::Hyperion wrote:
>
> >   At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
> >
> > >   Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file
> > > system design ...
> > >  [...] 
> >
> >  sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
> >  Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office
> >  and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  ros-general mailing list
> >  ros-general(a)reactos.com
> >  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >  
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>

[Waldo Alvarez]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Richard Campbell wrote:

>   ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it
> wouldn't piss off anyone.
>   
I like the idea. Something compatible with NTFS patent free. But it surely 
will piss off some people. I know lot's of people that simply do not use 
NTFS because their old Win9x bootable disks can't read FAT. I have heard 
them say. Sh.. Win2k locked my hard drive, I had to format the drive in 
order to reinstall the system. :)). I think it could be solved if reactos 
give you the choce to create such bootable disks able to recognize such 
new filesystem. Also dual booting will be impossible without creating 
other partitions and that's bad specially in the current stage of ROS 
where people will start to try it. I beleive that the best choice is.

Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free 
filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be 
able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and 
patents with MP3s.

Best Regards
Waldo


>   KJK::Hyperion wrote:
>  
> >   At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
> >
> > >   Suppose someone comes up with a new improved file
> > > system design ... 
> > >  [...] 
> >
> >  sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. 
> >  Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office 
> >  and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  ros-general mailing list
> >  ros-general(a)reactos.com
> >  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >  
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

It's a shame that both Linux and Windows have stuff that is "proprietary"
to
their file system, like the security info, etc. but unfortunately there
doesn't seem to be an easy way around that.

If there was a kind of file system that would allow both Windows and Linux
(and other OSes, possibly?) to store data (including security info) and be
compatible with each other, I'm pretty sure that even as a standalone driver
and not just part of ReactOS, it'd go down well with a lot of people,
especially if it was "marketed" the right way.

Think of it... A universal file system that is also free.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Waldo Alvarez" <wac(a)ghost.matcom.uh.cu>
To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT


>   On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Richard Campbell wrote:
>
>  > ummm...okay, a new filesystem isn't illegal and it wouldn't piss off
anyone.
> >   
>  I like the idea. Something compatible with NTFS patent free. But it surely
>  will piss off some people. I know lot's of people that simply do not use
>  NTFS because their old Win9x bootable disks can't read FAT. I have heard
>  them say. Sh.. Win2k locked my hard drive, I had to format the drive in
>  order to reinstall the system. :)). I think it could be solved if reactos
>  give you the choce to create such bootable disks able to recognize such
>  new filesystem. Also dual booting will be impossible without creating
>  other partitions and that's bad specially in the current stage of ROS
>  where people will start to try it. I beleive that the best choice is.
>
>  Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free
>  filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be
>  able to get them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and
>  patents with MP3s.
>
>  Best Regards
>  Waldo
>
>
>  > KJK::Hyperion wrote:
> >   
>  > > At 15.57 05/12/2003, you wrote:
>  >
> >   
>  > >> Suppose someone comes
> up with a new improved file system design ...
>  > >> [...]
>  >
> >   
>  >
> >   
>  > > sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've ever
> heard.
>  > > Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office
>  > > and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect
>  > > _______________________________________________
>  > > ros-general mailing list
>  > > ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  > > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>  >
> >   
> >   
> >   
>  >
> _______________________________________________
>  > ros-general mailing list
>  > ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >   
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>

[Rick Parrish]

Waldo Alvarez wrote:

>  
> Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free 
> filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get
> them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
>   
>  
Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until 
patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready.

-rick

[Vizzini]

On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:17, Rick Parrish wrote:
>   Waldo Alvarez wrote:
>  
> >  
> > Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free 
> > filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get
> > them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
> >   
> >  
>  Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until 
>  patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready. 
In the United States, liability for patent infringement exists whether
or not you've been notified by the patent holder of such infringement. 
In other words, if you accidentally step on someone else's IP, they will
be able to sue you for royalties whether or not it was your "fault". 
It's a pure liability - no fault is required.

Furthermore, courts have a history of stiffer penalites (i.e. higher
royalty payments) for infringers who *knew* they were infringing. 
That's why you see "patent pending" on lots of manufactured items.

Finally, as I said before, both developers and end users are liable for
patent infringement.

With these points in mind, I think we need an official policy of
avoiding patents as much as we possibly can while retaining Windows
system compatibility.  If this means (for example) defaulting to a
non-FAT, non-NTFS filesystem, that's what we have to do.

 -Vizzini

[Waldo Alvarez]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Vizzini wrote:

>   On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:17, Rick Parrish wrote:
> >   Waldo Alvarez wrote:
> >  
> > >  
> > > Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time design a new patent free 
> > > filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get
> > > them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
> > >   
> > >  
> >  Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until 
> >  patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready. 
>  
>  In the United States, liability for patent infringement exists whether
>  or not you've been notified by the patent holder of such infringement. 
>  In other words, if you accidentally step on someone else's IP, they will
>  be able to sue you for royalties whether or not it was your "fault". 
>  It's a pure liability - no fault is required. 
In any case the law is already broken.

>   Furthermore, courts have a history of stiffer
> penalites (i.e. higher
>  royalty payments) for infringers who *knew* they were infringing. 
>  That's why you see "patent pending" on lots of manufactured items. 
Bad. That means distributing NTFS and FAT in another release is asking for 
more trouble.

>   Finally, as I said before, both developers and end
> users are liable for
>  patent infringement.
>  
>  With these points in mind, I think we need an official policy of
>  avoiding patents as much as we possibly can while retaining Windows
>  system compatibility.  If this means (for example) defaulting to a
>  non-FAT, non-NTFS filesystem, that's what we have to do. 
True. You are totally right!

I was thinking this yesterday. What about using an NTFS a little bit 
modified. In a way you can reuse the code written for the  drivers already 
written  and make the conversion easier. It won't be NTFS. I don't like 
too much this but could be a solution.

The other choice I was thinking. What about finding some company that 
already have the license to use the patents and put them in charge of the 
drivers in exchange for some advising in ROS. They will not have to spend 
a cent for it (except for the lawyer maybe) and will not have to write a 
single line of code. I'm sure many will like the deal, even if there is 
trouble in the future because getting in trouble could give them more money.

I prefer this choice as there will be not need to invent yet another 
filesystem, ReactOS will be more compatible and everything can continue 
the way it is.

The question is, How legal would it be?

Best Regards
Waldo Alvarez 

>    -Vizzini
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>

[Richard Campbell]

If someone argues it's an industry standard and succeeds, the patented 
will be declared null.

Waldo Alvarez wrote:

>  On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Vizzini wrote:
>
>   
>
> >  On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:17, Rick Parrish wrote:
> >     
> >
> > >  Waldo Alvarez wrote:
> > >
> > >       
> > >
> > > >  Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time
> > > > design a new patent free 
> > > > filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away the drivers and ppl will be able to get
> > > > them from previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS and patents with MP3s.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >         
> > > >  
> > > Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s and GIFs until 
> > > patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready.
> > >       
> > >  
> > In the United States, liability for patent infringement exists whether
> > or not you've been notified by the patent holder of such infringement. 
> > In other words, if you accidentally step on someone else's IP, they will
> > be able to sue you for royalties whether or not it was your "fault". 
> > It's a pure liability - no fault is required.
> >     
> >  
> In any case the law is already broken.
>
>   
>
> >  Furthermore, courts have a history of stiffer
> > penalites (i.e. higher
> > royalty payments) for infringers who *knew* they were infringing. 
> > That's why you see "patent pending" on lots of manufactured items.
> >     
> >  
> Bad. That means distributing NTFS and FAT in another release is asking for 
> more trouble.
>
>   
>
> >  Finally, as I said before, both developers and end
> > users are liable for
> > patent infringement.
> >
> > With these points in mind, I think we need an official policy of
> > avoiding patents as much as we possibly can while retaining Windows
> > system compatibility.  If this means (for example) defaulting to a
> > non-FAT, non-NTFS filesystem, that's what we have to do.
> >     
> >  
> True. You are totally right!
>
> I was thinking this yesterday. What about using an NTFS a little bit 
> modified. In a way you can reuse the code written for the  drivers already 
> written  and make the conversion easier. It won't be NTFS. I don't like 
> too much this but could be a solution.
>
> The other choice I was thinking. What about finding some company that 
> already have the license to use the patents and put them in charge of the 
> drivers in exchange for some advising in ROS. They will not have to spend 
> a cent for it (except for the lawyer maybe) and will not have to write a 
> single line of code. I'm sure many will like the deal, even if there is 
> trouble in the future because getting in trouble could give them more money.
>
> I prefer this choice as there will be not need to invent yet another 
> filesystem, ReactOS will be more compatible and everything can continue 
> the way it is.
>
> The question is, How legal would it be?
>
> Best Regards
> Waldo Alvarez 
>
>   
>
> >   -Vizzini
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > ros-general(a)reactos.com
> > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >
> >     
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>   
>

[Steven Edwards]

Hello Richard,

--- Richard Campbell <eek2121(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>   If someone argues it's an industry standard and
> succeeds, the
>  patented 
>  will be declared null. 
Please show me a prior court case where this has happend? 

Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this. Patent law is not a
bad thing. If I develop something at my own cost/time and it is adopted
by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry standard" I am still
due my fair share until the patent runs out.

Thanks
Steven


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

[Rick Parrish]

Steven Edwards wrote:

>  Patent law is not a bad thing. If I develop something
> at my own cost/time and it is adopted by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry
> standard" I am still due my fair share until the patent runs out.
>   
>  
Patent law is not a bad thing but software patents and patents modeling 
social/economic behavior (ie. "business models") are insane.

That's just my not-so-humble opinion.

-rick

[Richard Campbell]

I regret i cannot recall any particular case, but IIRC it HAS happened.  
What we need is a lawyer.

Steven Edwards wrote:

>  Hello Richard,
>
> --- Richard Campbell <eek2121(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>   
>
> >  If someone argues it's an industry standard
> > and succeeds, the
> > patented 
> > will be declared null.
> >     
> >  
> Please show me a prior court case where this has happend? 
>
> Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this. Patent law is not a
> bad thing. If I develop something at my own cost/time and it is adopted
> by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry standard" I am still
> due my fair share until the patent runs out.
>
> Thanks
> Steven
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>   
>

[Yuri Urazov]

I guess it has happened other way around. Example. If
one would try to claim patent on �New means of
human-computer interaction using hierarchical system
of  drawn rectangles� aiming to get royalty fees for
every computer using windowing system, such claim
would be rejected on ground that such system is
considered to be an industry standard.  Real example
is CDMA technology owned by QUALCOMM. It is industry
standard now and QUALCOMM is collecting substantial
royalties.

All the best,

Yuri

--- Richard Campbell <eek2121(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>   I regret i cannot recall any particular case, but
>  IIRC it HAS happened.  
>  What we need is a lawyer.
>  
>  Steven Edwards wrote:
>  
> >  Hello Richard,
> >
> > --- Richard Campbell <eek2121(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >   
> >
> > >If someone argues it's an industry standard and 
>  succeeds, the
> > >  patented 
> > > will be declared null.
> > >     
> > >  
> > Please show me a prior court case where this has 
>  happend? 
> >  
> > Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this. 
>  Patent law is not a
> >  bad thing. If I develop something at my own 
> cost/time and it is adopted
> >  by everyone on the planet and becomes
> > "industry 
>  standard" I am still
> >  due my fair share until the patent runs out.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Steven
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > ros-general(a)reactos.com
> > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >
> >   
> >  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

[Vizzini]

On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 21:33, Richard Campbell wrote:
>   I regret i cannot recall any particular case, but IIRC
> it HAS happened.  
>  What we need is a lawyer. 
Regardless, this is a matter for the courts, which means we have to
spend money fighting about it, which isn't cool.

>   Steven Edwards wrote:
>  
> >  Hello Richard,
> >
> > --- Richard Campbell <eek2121(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >   
> >
> > >  If someone argues it's an industry standard
> > > and succeeds, the
> > > patented 
> > > will be declared null.
> > >     
> > >  
> > Please show me a prior court case where this has happend? 
> >
> > Even if it has I wouldnt want to fight like this. Patent law is not a
> > bad thing. If I develop something at my own cost/time and it is adopted
> > by everyone on the planet and becomes "industry standard" I am still
> > due my fair share until the patent runs out.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Steven
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > ros-general(a)reactos.com
> > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >
> >   
> >  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>

[James Tabor]

Wow!
This may just happen if M$ starts anything new.

Good point!
James

Richard Campbell wrote:

>   If someone argues it's an industry standard and
> succeeds, the patented
>  will be declared null.
>

[Rick Parrish]

KJK::Hyperion wrote:

>   sorry, but this has to be the dumbest idea I've
> ever heard. 
>  Impressive: a way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office 
>  and ReactOS users *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect. 
KJK - your commentary is always direct; I like that. I can see where the 
FSF would not like this as it would require litigation to enforce. In 
fact, it does not fit their licensing model in which case it isn't 
really their concern. As for p*ssing off MS, well this *is* ReactOS, is 
it not?

Instead of walking in a mine field, we lay down some defensive mines. 
Let the big corporations tread lightly for a change.

I don't see how this would upset ReactOS users. I also don't see 
anything illegal. It's a carefully worded Terms of Use or EULA contract.

Food for thought - with a dash of salt.

Regards,
Rick

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 19.30 06/12/2003, you wrote:
> >  sorry, but this
> > has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Impressive: a 
> > way to piss off the FSF, Microsoft, the patent office and ReactOS users 
> > *at the same time*. Illegal too, I suspect. 
> KJK - your commentary is always direct;
> I like that. I can see where the 
> FSF would not like this as it would require litigation to enforce. 
the FSF supports the "we are smart! use our stuff, and slowly accept our 
politics" course of action. Yours is more like "we are smart! we are evil! 
use our stuff, get in legal trouble and bow to us!". I loathe both, but the 
FSF's way at least has some ethical basis. Not to mention the whole "fight 
patents with patents" thing. Let's say it would raise more than one eyebrow

>  I don't see how this would upset ReactOS users.
did I say "users"? I meant "me"

>  I also don't see anything illegal 
in the license you say "you're free to redistribute", to the patent office 
you say "they're really not". I know patent are enforced only if and when 
the holder asks for it, but this is stretching the law pretty thin

[Rick Parrish]

KJK::Hyperion wrote:

> >   I also
> > don't see anything illegal 
>  in the license you say "you're free to redistribute", to the patent 
>  office you say "they're really not". I know patent are enforced only 
>  if and when the holder asks for it, but this is stretching the law 
>  pretty thin  
Let me explain. Handing someone a software license and saying you are 
free to distribute *this* code is not the same as handing them a patent 
license and saying you are free to use this patent.
One operates under copyright law - the other under patent law (no, IANAL).

One possible wording for the software license is a penalty clause where 
the violator must share their patent portfolio.

The patent protects the feature set implemented by the code. Suppose a 
big corporation wants to add this innovative feature (which could be 
anything) to their product but they don't want to be encumbered by some 
open source license - so they reverse engineer it. That avoids the 
copyright but not the patent. You could even license the patent with 
proceeds going to ReactOS, the EFF or similar organization.

This is a very rough idea but I hope I've gotten some people thinking.

On a side note, I should point out - for the record - that I am very 
much against the ideas of software patents. However, sometimes you have 
to fight fire with fire (while wearing asbestos gloves).

-rick

[Mark IJbema]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:54:18PM -0600, Vizzini wrote:
>   On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> >   http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
>  
>  sigh...
>  
>  Looks pretty bad, actually.  We're going to have to think about this. 
>  This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operating
>  system unless the fundamental terms are changed.  
>  
>  CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if we
>  don't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all those
>  patents are expired now).  
>  
>  Things could get really sticky with digital cameras, mp3 players, etc... 
Well, i think we're gonna face lots of these things, since we're
'copying' a OS of MS, which is patented in many more ways. FS is just a
minor one, since it's quite irrelevant to the working of the OS.

Mark

[Rick Parrish]

Vizzini wrote:

>  On further review, it appears that every single one
> has
> issued since 1986, meaning that every one of them is valid and
> enforcable.
>   
>  
Having a patent issued does not mean it is valid or enforcable - but 
finding out can be expensive and time consuming.

-rick

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

Fair enough, they created FAT, they are entitled to file a patent for it.

However I think this is yet again bully-boy tactics by Mr. Gates and his
cronies, attempting to squeeze every last cent (or penny) out of anyone
having anything to do with technology they "invented".

Next thing you know, they'll be patenting the idea of services, processes,
threads, you name it...

I really do wonder how possibly the biggest and most richest company in the
world could need MORE MONEY?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Casper Hornstrup" <chorns(a)users.sourceforge.net>
To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT


>   http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>

[Richard Campbell]

Of course it is.  Microsoft should be restrained.  Bottom line.  But 
they have strong influence with the government, so it's hard to restrain 
them.

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:

>  Fair enough, they created FAT, they are entitled to
> file a patent for it.
>
> However I think this is yet again bully-boy tactics by Mr. Gates and his
> cronies, attempting to squeeze every last cent (or penny) out of anyone
> having anything to do with technology they "invented".
>
> Next thing you know, they'll be patenting the idea of services, processes,
> threads, you name it...
>
> I really do wonder how possibly the biggest and most richest company in the
> world could need MORE MONEY?
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Casper Hornstrup" <chorns(a)users.sourceforge.net>
> To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:03 PM
> Subject: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
>
>
>   
>
> >  http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > ros-general(a)reactos.com
> > http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >
> >
> >     
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>   
>

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 00.56 05/12/2003, you wrote:
>  However I think this is yet again bully-boy tactics by
> Mr. Gates and his 
> cronies, attempting to squeeze every last cent (or penny) out of anyone 
> having anything to do with technology they "invented". 
well, they invented VFAT, as long as I can tell. I can't name any other 
broken filesystem on which long filename support was later shoehorned in a 
backward-compatible way by using multiple linked directory entries (ugh! 
that hurts!) for each file

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 23.03 04/12/2003, you wrote:
>  http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp 
I bet it's not about FAT, but VFAT, i.e. long filenames on FAT. Am I right? 
Well, this is no news. I remember long filename support on DR-DOS was 
unofficial and not entirely legal, exactly because of this patent

[Vizzini]

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
>   http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
I had a discussion with a patent lawyer who confirmed that anyone who
makes, sells, offers to sell, or ***uses*** a patented invention
(device, process, etc) is infringing on that patent.

End users can and do get sued, and developers can get sued too.  You can
find examples of end-users getting sued if you search around a bit.

We need to formulate a policy as it relates to IP, probably pretty
quickly.

 -Vizzini

[Jens Collin]

What if MS descides to patent their drivers-api so that one can't create
anything that can use drivers written for Windows/their api. Then the whole
idea about driver compability is down the drain, right?
Just thought of this as an extension to the FAT patent-problem.

/ Jens

-----Original Message-----
From: ros-general-bounces(a)reactos.com
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Vizzini
Sent: den 5 december 2003 18:11
To: ros-general(a)reactos.com
Subject: Re: [ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT


On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
>   http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
I had a discussion with a patent lawyer who confirmed that anyone who makes,
sells, offers to sell, or ***uses*** a patented invention (device, process,
etc) is infringing on that patent.

End users can and do get sued, and developers can get sued too.  You can
find examples of end-users getting sued if you search around a bit.

We need to formulate a policy as it relates to IP, probably pretty quickly.

 -Vizzini


_______________________________________________
ros-general mailing list
ros-general(a)reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Steven Edwards]

Interfaces are not about to be patented as far as I understand. Only
functionality.......

There are some ways around this FAT problem I think but its going to
take more time and discussion.

1. We need to try and support microsofts FAT/NTFS drivers by getting
all of the Capitve patch merged. Anyone that owns a legal copy of
Windows can still use FAT/NTFS on ReactOS/Linux even if its covered via
a valid patent.

2. We need to get the GPL Ext2/3 Drivers working so we have a fall back
plan.

3....... I'm working on this ;/

Thanks
Steven

--- Jens Collin <jens.collin(a)lakhei.com> wrote:
>   What if MS descides to patent their drivers-api so
> that one can't
>  create
>  anything that can use drivers written for Windows/their api. Then the
>  whole
>  idea about driver compability is down the drain, right?
>  Just thought of this as an extension to the FAT patent-problem.
>  
>  / Jens
>   

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/