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

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