|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
I think that the FAT patents are licensed comparatively "cheap", so
they are likely under the FRAND umbrella.
That patent fees are to be paid at all for compatibility with a technically
inferior bolt-on of UNIX file system features on top of a CP/M-based file
system, seems rather absurd. This is more a fee for unprecedented tastelessness
rather than unprecedented engineering.
But the fees itself are not prohibitive, just ubiquitous.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
I'd lay odds that FAT would be prior arted into oblivion by most DEC file
systems down the years. Even Gates himself spent many an hour looking
at DEC 10 assembly code at Uni.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, July 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT |
How much longer can these patents have?
If I understand correctly the basic FAT with 8.3 file names should already be
patent free. I beleive the patents currently being asserted cover VFAT, which
was introduced with Windows 95 that was 17 years ago and the actual technology
is older than that. I would imagine any such FAT patents are about to expire.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
