|
|
| Open Invention Network Is Looking For Prior Art -- 2 Ways To Help Out |
 |
|
Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 08:00 PM EDT
|
Open Invention Network has announced it has decided to look for prior art on three of the Microsoft patents that were used in the TomTom litigation: Open Invention NetworkSM (OIN), a collaborative enterprise that enables innovation in open source and an increasingly vibrant ecosystem around Linux, today announced that U.S. patents 5579517, 5758352 and 6256642 have been placed for prior art review on the Post-Issue Peer-to-Patent website associated with the Linux Defenders portal. These patents were recently cited in litigation that targeted TomTom NV.
OIN's mission includes encouraging the Linux community to review patents-of-interest that may be of suspect quality or riddled by questions regarding prior art. Accordingly, the patents used in the recent TomTom patent action have been posted by OIN for review and submission of prior art by the Linux community. Submissions may be made by visiting http://www.post-issue.org, clicking on the appropriate patent and selecting "Submit Prior Art".
I guess we are not alone in wanting to find a way to pin the tail on that donkey.
I smiled when I read this quotation from OIN's Keith Bergelt in the press release:
"I encourage active participation from the entire Linux community so that other companies seeking to advance Linux strategies can be better informed about the quality of these patents." Heh heh. Or the lack thereof.
LinuxDevices has more details for you.
Red Hat has already issued a statement, too, strongly endorsing this effort: Red Hat is pleased to endorse the growing movement within the free and open source community of gathering prior art to undermine invalid software patents. We’re particularly pleased that Open Invention Network’s Linux Defenders has now invited scrutiny of the three patents that Microsoft used in the TomTom case to attack open source, as numerous public reports suggest weaknesses in these patents. Groklaw members have experience in looking successfully for prior art, so that means us too. If you would like the world to know the exact worth of those FAT patents -- or the lack thereof, more likely -- can you please help? I'll show you a couple of ways you can, if you want to. I think it is important for everyone to understand not only what these patents are worth, but that while proprietary vendors may have money, FOSS is top-heavy with brains and a willingness to work cooperatively to protect our software and our development model. I view this as an extension of the trail we on Groklaw blazed, taking advantage of what the Internet makes possible to work together, no matter where we happen to live. We can't create prior art, but if it's out there, who better to find it? It'll be fun.
Even if you don't personally know of any prior art, you can help by looking through the comments on this Groklaw article, and this one (which also has all the attached patents that were alleged to have been infringed) and make sure that each and every comment that included prior art is submitted here?
Once you are there, you will click on the appropriate patent, which at the moment are the top three on the list. Feel free to add prior art to any on the list, but the special call is for the Microsoft patents.
If you know you commented on another article with information on prior art on those patents, please take the initiative to submit it yourself.
The 3 Patents
Here's 6,256,642's page, titled
'Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory', where you submit prior art; 5,758,352 (b) 'Common name space for long and short filenames'; and 5,579,517 (a) is 'Common name space for long and short filenames' -- so you are set even if others are added to the list later. They are seeking all forms of prior art on all three, but the priority dates that tell us how old the prior art must be varies, so let's break it down. Exactly what do they want us to find?
Prior Art - What Do They Need?
6,256,642 -- Priority Date January 29, 1991: Including: (a) Publications Published Prior to January 29, 1992 [Publications can include any form of printed or electronic publication that discusses one or more elements of the claim of the patent.]; (b) Products on Sale, Offered for Sale, or Publicly Used Prior to January 29, 1992; (c) Information That This Claimed Invention Was Public Knowledge Prior to January 29, 1992 [Such prior art may include processes embodying the invention that were in the public domain or publicly used by the patent holder, an inventor, or any third party prior to January 29, 1992.]; (d) Patents and Published Patent Applications filed in the U.S. Prior to January 29, 1992; or (e) Knowledgeable Persons [Persons with knowledge of this patent or with knowledge pertaining to any of the other cited prior art].
5,758,352 -- Priority Date April 1, 1993:
Including: (a) Publications Published Prior to April 1, 1993 [Publications can include any form of printed or electronic publication that discusses one or more elements of the claim of the patent.]; (b) Products on Sale, Offered for Sale, or Publicly Used Prior to April 1, 1993; (c) Information That This Claimed Invention Was Public Knowledge Prior to April 1, 1993 [Such prior art may include processes embodying the invention that were in the public domain or publicly used by the patent holder, an inventor, or any third party prior to April 1, 1993.]; (d) Patents and Published Patent Applications filed in the U.S. Prior to April 1, 1993; or (e) Knowledgeable Persons [Persons with knowledge of this patent or with knowledge pertaining to any of the other cited prior art].
5,579,517 -- Priority Date April 1, 1993:
Including: (a) Publications Published Prior to April 1, 1993 [Publications can include any form of printed or electronic publication that discusses one or more elements of the claim of the patent.]; (b) Products on Sale, Offered for Sale, or Publicly Used Prior to April 1, 1993; (c) Information That This Claimed Invention Was Public Knowledge Prior to April 1, 1993 [Such prior art may include processes embodying the invention that were in the public domain or publicly used by the patent holder, an inventor, or any third party prior to April 1, 1993.]; (d) Patents and Published Patent Applications filed in the U.S. Prior to April 1, 1993; or (e) Knowledgeable Persons [Persons with knowledge of this patent or with knowledge pertaining to any of the other cited prior art]. So that's one way to help. But there is a second way.
While you are visiting over there, please read this section about
defensive publication. It's something we can definitely participate in even if we don't know one thing about FAT patents and it doesn't cost a dime. What is required is brains, not money.
Defensive Publications What is a defensive publication and how does it help? That page tells us:
Defensive publications, which are endorsed by the USPTO as an IP rights management tool, are documents that provide descriptions and artwork of a product, device or method so that it enters the public domain and becomes prior art. This powerful preemptive disclosure prevents other parties from obtaining a patent on the product, device or method. It enables the original inventor to ensure that they have access to their invention by preventing others from later making patent claims on it. It also means that they do not have to shoulder the cost of patent applications.
The Defensive Publications program, a component of Linux Defenders, enables non-attorneys to use a set of Web-based forms to generate defensive publications. It relies on substantial participation from the open source community as it relates to disclosures. Defensive publication drafts will be reviewed and edited as needed and at no charge by OIN’s attorneys. The completed defensive publication will be added by OIN to the IP.com database, which is in turn used by IP attorneys and the patent and trademark office to search for prior art when examining patent applications. You can find the forms here, and if you fill one out appropriately, you can prevent others from patenting that invention by creating prior art. They have attorneys at InnovationQ who can help you make sure it's done right:In the event you have an invention that you would like to have prepared as a defensive publication, please submit your invention here. Upon registration, you will be provided support in structuring your invention so it can be effective as prior art and placed in the public domain. If during the process you wish to have your invention prepared as a patent instead of a defensive publication, we will work with you to facilitate the preparation of a patent disclosure which will be prosecuted and licensed as part of Open Invention Network's patent estate to the broader community on a royalty free and fully paid up basis. The choice is yours. Our interest is in ensuring that the Linux community has an outlet to invent that limits poor quality patents and ensures freedom of action/freedom to operate across the entire ecosystem. Before you fill anything out, be aware that doing a defensive publication is instead of filing for a patent; by that I mean, after some period of time you can lose the ability to patent your invention, if you were so inclined. I know. Looking for someone on Groklaw who is itching to file for a software patent is like searching for an honest man in a corrupt world. But even if you are not so inclined, I don't want to mislead anyone who is dreaming of a second home or something, just in case. We have many kinds of readers, as opposed to members, and maybe some of our new OOXML readers will want to patent something, and they'll sue me if I mislead them. Kidding, folks. Just kidding.
But seriously, the idea is to very specifically detail whatever your innovation is, and place it into the public domain, as the FAQ explains, so as to "decrease patent litigation in open source by reducing the white space available for companies to obtain new patents and by making the innovations available for others in the community to build from." So if you are dreaming of a software patent, please talk to your lawyer. IANAL. Here's the FAQ which explains how defensive publication works. One tidbit: 4. How can enabling publications be used to help open source?
We are hopeful that the open source community will publish key innovative concepts that you don’t want anyone to patent, and this includes innovative concepts before you physically make them work in areas that you or others think you may eventually want to go. Get that? It doesn't have to be a working invention to be useful for a defensive publication. So, all you brainiacs out there, if you want to help prevent future attacks on FOSS, start thinking.
: D
Please do. You have two ways now to help, by submitting prior art on the 3 Microsoft patents and/or by filing a defensive publication.
The first has priority in the short term, but they are both very useful.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: HavingPun on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
I have a couple of thoughts on this, there was a tcp ip stack for VMS that was
called Walengon (phonetic spelling) that did some mapping, i used that in 1985 -
1987. Also, didn't Kermit do some file name mapping?
---
Have Pun, will travel.
My spelling is not a strong suit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
Back in the early 90s we used a product from Sun called PC NFS that mapped Unix
filenames to DOS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:03 PM EDT |
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
Besides the corrections to M$' "patent", I mean.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Warner Music claims Larry Lessig is a pirate, has his presentation taken off YouTube - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Quality.. - Authored by: Peter Baker on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 02:13 AM EDT
- Quality.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 10:45 AM EDT
- EU gets official Microsoft response to IE antitrust charges - Authored by: kh on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 01:28 AM EDT
- One for the News Picks? - Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 03:19 AM EDT
- Charadenfreude - I love Ubuntu - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Public Booted from DVD Copying Trial Over ‘Secret’ CSS Code - Authored by: kh on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 09:29 AM EDT
- Free Windows 7 - Just say 'NO' - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Free Windows 7 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- Chrysler - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Chrysler - Authored by: kjs on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- Chrysler - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 10:35 PM EDT
- Chrysler - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 08:45 AM EDT
- Why Obama's Flickr Photos Aren't in the Public Domain - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 10:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
| Like they say, given enough eyeballs, all invalid patent claims are shallow. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
I don't know the detail but Macintosh already has long filename support in
around 1984 - 1985
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 01:46 AM EDT |
Can we just take a moment to consider the flip-side of the OINs work here?
Let's suppose that after the OIN's due diligence, one or more of Microsoft's FAT
patents are deemed invalid and withdrawn. It wouldn't be the first time this has
happened with a patent. What does this tell us?
1. That Microsoft, with all their billions of dollars of R&D money and all
their thousands of specialists 'skilled in the art' of the software for which
these claims are being filed, have not been able to identify prior art.
The question then becomes: is that failure down to either Microsoft's
unwillingness to perform due diligence, in which case it casts into doubt the
validity of every single patent application they file; or is it down to
fundamental flaws in the process of trying to file software patents in the first
place? Either way, every single over-turned or withdrawn patent application
needs to be seen as proof positive that software patents just aren't
appropriate.
2. That the USPTO, by making the change that permitted software vendors to file
software patents on the grounds that they represented business methods [ a
tenuous link indeed ] is incapable, even with their overall view of all existing
patents and prior art research, unable to spot and challenge weak or baseless
patent claims.
If that's the case, surely it throws into question the entire US Patent
application process? What confidence can we have in an organisation that can't
execute it's primary function properly?
I hope that a few really good examples of non-obvious patent claims [software or
otherwise] being overturned by review will come to the attention of lawmakers
and that this idiocy will end.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but the combination of relaxed rules, or
reduced scrutiny, along with the massive broadening of scope that the USPTO
brought about when they allowed software patents, has surely resulted in a
massive increase in the income that this organisation earns the US Federal
government. It must surely run into tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
Is that part of the problem? Do you suppose lawmakers will not overturn this
travesty because privately they realise they have created a nice little cash-cow
for the government?
Like I say - just a coincidence, nothing to worry about.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
Whenever Microsoft deploys one of their software patents, the community
immediately strikes back. I'm sure this will be an "educational"
experience for Microsoft.
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Berend on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
UMSDOS allowed Linux filenames, permissions, and links on top of a DOS FS.
Including floppies. Allowed Linux to boot without repartitioning your disk.
1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMSDOS
I can get the old(er) kernel, but that's 1994, and I'm not sure where to find
the original patches.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- UMSDOS - Authored by: Berend on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- UMSDOS - Authored by: Berend on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 06:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:04 AM EDT |
I still have a couple of these in my attic: the forerunner of today's
netbook. More bleeding edge technology from Sir Clive.
It had no hard
drive, but used removable EPROM modules for its file system storage. From the
user's perspective, these behaved much like a hard drive or a PC file system.
It had many other innovations, but they aren't relevant here. In case you
are unfamiliar with this somewhat rare model,
here is a
picture.
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office
$tandard Only For Themselves [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:37 AM EDT |
At http://ftp.math.utah.edu
/pub//tex/dvi/00mail.013 from Thu 1 Oct 1987 14:06:14-MDT we can
read:
This is a public-domain family of TeX DVI
translators. They
all have a common command-line interface, and are based on
a
shared set of source files.
For all except fIdvibitfP, which is
intended for interactive display,
the output file will be given the name of the
fI.dvifP file, but with
suffix fI.dvi-xxxfP, where fIxxxfP is the
three-character mnemonic
for the translator program. If long filenames are
not supported,
then fI.xxxfP is used. For fIdvibitfP, output is on
fIstdoutfP,
which defaults to the terminal; it may be redirected in the usual
Unix
fashion by fI>filenamefP on the command line (e.g. fIdvibit
foo
>foo.outfP).
.SH DEVICES SUPPORTED
As each fI.dvifP
file is processed, a list of errors is printed
on the standard error unit,
fIstderrfP; this list is also saved
in a file with suffix fI.dvi-errfP (or
fI.errfP, if long filenames
are not supported). This file is not created if
there are no errors. As
each page is printed, the physical page number and the
TeX page
number(s) are printed without a following character return; after
the
last page, the string "[OK]" is printed, followed by a newline. This
gives a
convenient progress report to the terminal. If it is not wanted,
then the error
output can be redirected into a file (possibly the null
device) (e.g. fIdvixxx
foo &foo.errfP), or the fB-qfP (quiet)
option can be given to suppress
it.
As judged by the underlined text, the concept of
long file names was known in 1987, and, from the wording it can also be
concluded that long filenames were supported at
times.
---
______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
From
http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/library/CONTROVERSY/LAWSUITS/SEA/archives.txt:
What follows is a thread trace of the Magpie ARCHIVERS
sub-board. The
programmers behind PKARC, DWC and ZOO talked shop with some of
the beta-
testers and users of these file compression/archival utilities. The
text
was captured on June 30th, 1987.
Here is a message from
1986:
Wed Jan 1, 1986 10:47pm (0:11)
Zoo works on
UNIX!
Rogol, I have just uploaded to this BBS the source code in
portable C for Zoo.
It is known to compile and run under 4.3BSD, Microport UNIX,
System V, and
Xenix, on several different machines. My goal is to have a
SINGLE
distribution that will compile on EVERY machine. Any improvements
in
compression technique will be immediately available on every machine.
Plus,
the next major release will allow for 255-character filenames and
directory
names and much other stuff. It is all described in the
documentation
accompanying the source.
It would be interesting to
see that documentation
accompanying the source.
Among many other
aspects, they also discuss the dilemma of the limit of MS-DOS 12-char filename
limitation.
I realize how
limiting this can be for a system that
will allow very long filename but, at
the same time, it's just a limitation. A
text file, FILENAME.EXT, compressed
into READTHIS.ARC would still uncompress on
either an MS-DOS machine or Very
Long Filename machine.
and
The extended directory structure currently
being debugged contains fields for
long filename and directory name. Under
MSDOS, the long filename field is
just ignord by the unarchiving program.
Under other systems permitting the
long filename, the long filename field
will be used if present, otherwise the
standard 11-character filename will be
used during extraction. In other
words, all Zoo archives contain the
11-character filenames. In addition the
long filename is added if the archiver
supports it. Downward compatibility is
maintained by keeping the first so many
bytes of the directory of each
archived file constant and that's all that Zoo
version 1.00 looks at. A type
field in the directory identifies its extended
structure to higher versions of
Zoo.
There also discuss the Zoo
directory format.
The Zoo directory format has numerous
advantages: (a) Detailed comments may
be added. (b) Zoo can tell the user
precisely which version is needed to
fully manipulate an archive. (c) When
adding a file, the user can opt to save
any replaced file, or pack the archive
and recover the space. (d) Unlimited
expansion of the archive format is
possible without making old versions of Zoo
obsolete. (e) Redundant information
makes repair utilities possible. (f) Long
filenames and pathnames are
possible.
So, even long pathnames were possbile. I
wonder what those "Very Long Filename machine"
were.
---
______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
One obvious one would be the Rock Ridge extensions to the ISO-9660 filesystem
(the one used on data CDs). ISO-9660 was approved in 1986, and probably
published in drafts much earlier, and Rock Ridge dates to around that same
timeframe (it was published as an addendum to the ISO-9660 standard). It
provided a way to map from Unix mixed-case long filenames to the 8.3
uppercase-only filenames used in ISO-9660 level 1, and to map deep Unix
directory paths to the limited-depth paths allowed by ISO-9660. The Microsoft
Joliet spec even mentions Rock Ridge, so MS definitely knew about it at the time
their patent was filed.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
PSION HC-120 - 1991
HP 95LX - 1991
Both had flash drives formatted to store files.
The HP 95LX actually ran MS-DOS and needed custom drivers and an on board format
utility:
-rw-r--r-- 1 1001 1989-11-30 01:02 ASK.COM
-rw-r--r-- 1 162 1994-11-22 14:54 CHKLIST.MS
-rw-r--r-- 1 6130 1992-11-04 18:34 DIPSSDP.SYS
-rw-r--r-- 1 6212 1992-10-28 16:16 HP95SDP.SYS
-rw-r--r-- 1 2645 1992-10-29 11:11 SDISK.EXE
-rw-r--r-- 1 9083 1992-10-28 12:46 SFORMAT.EXE
-rw-r--r-- 1 5238 1992-12-15 14:31 SINSTALL.BAT
-rw-r--r-- 1 1272 1992-11-16 19:05 UPDATE.SYS
Excerpt from sinstall.bat:
echo º INSTALL PROGRAM FOR THE PICO º
echo º SILICON DISK SOFTWARE º
echo º º
echo º The PICO Silicon Disk needs a º
echo º special software driver to enable º
echo º it to work on your computer. º
echo º º
echo º This INSTALL program copies the º
echo º relevent files to the internal disk º
echo º or memory of your computer and sets º
echo º up the configuration files. º
see:
http://www.daniel-hertrich.de/95lx/
http://www.daniel-hertrich.de/95lx/#storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_95LX
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only
'logically' infeasible.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
The place where the resulting documents are posted, IP.com's Prior Art Database,
charges **$40** to view each document! Why exactly do we want to be donating
free labor to IP.com, again? OIN claims they have a database, too, but it's not
visible where one might search it. This seems a significant problem.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
These talk about a wafer scale memory device that was block structured for so
that defective blocks could be mapped out.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=48272&isnumb
er=1808
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer-scale_integration
http://www.solvalou.com/speccy_clive2.php[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sdm on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
| Hello Everyone:
Continuing my search of CP/M directory structures, I have
found that CP/M
Plus aka CP/M 3.0 supported the ability to store time stamps,
disk labels and
passwords in directory entries. I think this is significant
because it
demonstrates the use of the entries for something other than their
original
purpose. It also demonstrates the use of a 'status byte' to determine
the
actual purpose of any particular entry.
link
Using a directory
entry for other than its' original purpose and using a control
byte to
determine the function of such an entry are both fundamental
requirements to
the FAT LFN method.
Steve [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
| Sun386i 1988 with the
pcfs
command
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-022/6m6nmlt14?a=view
Conventions
Files and directories created through pcfs
must comply with either the DOS short file name convention or the long file name
convention introduced with Windows 95. The DOS short file name convention is of
the form filename[.ext], where filename generally consists of from one to eight
upper-case characters, while the optional ext consists of from one to three
upper-case characters.
The long file name convention is much closer to
Solaris file names. A long file name can consist of any characters valid in a
short file name, lowercase letters, non-leading spaces, the characters +,;=[],
any number of periods, and can be up to 255 characters long. Long file names
have an associated short file name for systems that do not support long file
names (including earlier releases of Solaris). The short file name is not
visible if the system recognizes long file names. pcfs generates a unique short
name automatically when creating a long file name.
Given a long file
name such as This is a really long filename.TXT, the short file name will
generally be of the form THISIS~N.TXT, where N is a number. The long file name
will probably get the short name THISIS~1.TXT, or THISIS~2.TXT if THISIS~1.TXT
already exits (or THISIS~3.TXT if both exist, and so forth). If you use pcfs
file systems on systems that do not support long file names, you may want to
continue following the short file name conventions. See EXAMPLES.
When
creating a file name, pcfs creates a short file name if it fits the DOS short
file name format, otherwise it creates a long file name. This is because long
file names take more directory space. Because the root directory of a pcfs file
system is fixed size, long file names in the root directory should be avoided if
possible.
When displaying file names, pcfs shows them exactly as they
are on the media. This means that short names are displayed as uppercase and
long file names retain their case. Earlier versions of pcfs folded all names to
lowercase, which can be forced with the PCFS_MNT_FOLDCASE mount option. All file
name searches within pcfs, however, are treated as if they were uppercase, so
readme.txt and ReAdMe.TxT refer to the same file.
To format a diskette
or a PCMCIA pseudo-floppy memory card in DOS format in the SunOS system, use
either the fdformat -d or the DOS FORMAT
command.
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the
wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
on Bilski et al, and whether USPTO is up to snuff.
My local paper runs a pseudo-random selection
from the Dilbert archives. Today's special:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2004-06-09/
I'm sure Scott Adams could provide ample prior art
for anything and everything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Marc Mengel on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
Okay, so the Rock Ridge extensions (for long names, etc. on ISO 9660 CD-Roms)
IEEE P1282 version 1.12 is copyright 1993, 1994...
So the 1.11 version is almost certainly 1992 or very early
1993...
Does anyone here have an IEEE online library account that could check for a pre
1993 version of IEEE P1282? That
would certainly show storing long filenames on an 8.3 filesystem (ISO 9660)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcsteiner on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
GeoWorks Ensemble 1.0, released by the company formerly known as Berkeley
Softworks (and renamed to GeoWorks Corporation), was released as a retail
product on November 1990, and its PC/GEOS environment ran on top of DOS and
supported the use of long filenames on FAT filesystems.
I think it supported 32-character filenames.
---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mosborne on Saturday, May 02 2009 @ 01:04 AM EDT |
OS/2 2.0 was released in April 1992. It supported the use of long file names on
FAT filesystems using extended attributes (EA). A pointer to these EAs was
stored in a portion of the regular FAT directory entry which was normally
unused. A hidden file called "EA DATA. SF" was used to "own"
the EA data so that DOS utilities would not flag them.
This mechanism served exactly the same purpose as the VFAT long filename
mechanism. EA-aware programs could and use the long filenames, while EA-unaware
programs would simply use see the standard 8.3 name. There was only a single
directory entry representing both.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OS/2 2.0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 06 2009 @ 08:07 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: dmomara on Sunday, May 03 2009 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
The invention discloses two operating systems, one of which includes only short
filename APIs, the other of which contains both long and short filename APIs.
A procedure is enabled by which the making of directory entries using the long
filename API of the second operating system generates an set of chained entries
into the previously enabled directory format of the first operating system that
is"hidden" from the first operating system by preexisting procedures.
A short filename is concurrently generated by a simple set of rules and left
un"hidden" from the first operating system.
What is claimed is a single operating system with the ability to make and use
both long and short filenames according to the procedure disclosed, while the
long filename directory entries are stated to be greater than "a maximum
number of characters that is permissible by the operating system". What is
disclosed is two operating systems, one of which supports procedures that read,
write and access only "short" filenames and another that reads, writes
and accesses both long and short filenames by the procedure disclosed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
