gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..


From: Hadron
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:54:38 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Rex Ballard <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mar 14, 4:06 pm, Doug Mentohl <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 'Microsoft's got a long history of licensing its File Allocation
>> Table/Long File Name (FAT LFN) with companies in the car navigation
>> space and that have specifically been using Linux and open source'
>
> Linux had LFN for FAT back in 1993.   Microsoft didn't introduce it
> until Windows 95.

Wrong. NT had it first.

>
> Even before that was Sun PCNFS, which had it back in 1988-ish.
>
> Pat Volkerding had a fully functional LFN for FAT back in Slackware
> 1.0, allowing Linux users to use FAT file systems for Linux files.
>
> Microsoft seems not to have noticed that there are more than a few
> similarities between how Linux did it in 1993 and how Microsoft
> finally did it in 1995.  Keep in mind that Microsoft's code was
> carefully guarded as trade secret, while the Linux code was published
> in source code format.  The preponderance of the evidence says that it
> was Microsoft that stole from Linux, not the other way around.  The
> patent should be nullified, and the code should be published as Open
> Source.
>
>> 'Microsoft's corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of
>> intellectual property and licensing Horacio Gutierrez said 18 companies
>> had signed up, including Kenwood, Alpine, and Pioneer'
>
> Just because they agreed to be part of Microsoft's "patent umbrella"
> which protects them from patent troll whiplash lawyers, doesn't
> necessarily mean that Microsoft has the right to enforce the patents.
> Quite the opposite, if the patent application was fraudulent, and
> failed to mention the pre-existing GPL code, the patent itself could
> be nullified, or awarded to the prior author.  That's the ugly problem
> with Software Patents.  Just because you were "first to file" doesn't
> mean that you have the right to poach other people's work.
>
> For most of 30 years, Microsoft has depended on trade secrets,
> proprietary code, copyright laws and licenses that strictly forbade
> reverse engineering of code. 

Uh huh.

So Wine is a figment of our imagination eh Rexx "Kingmaker" Ballard?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]