[ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT

[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 at reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>