Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 May 2009 19:06:37 +0200 | From | Olivier Galibert <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option |
| |
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:30:20AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > When all of the pieces are public how can having secret veiled reasons > make sense?
Because knowingly violating a patent triples the damages, among other things.
There's a persistent rumor that a valid microsoft US software patent exists that covers the standard method of handling long file names on FAT filesystems. It seems that such a patent is used by microsoft in litigations, the latest being against tomtom. I think all of these litigations have been settled, but I can easily be wrong.
I have no idea whether such a patent actually exists, and even knowing the reference (I don't) I am not competent to judge what it covers or whether it would actually hold up in court.
But knowingly violating a patent is consider way worse in US courts than simple independant recreation. So I guess the knowingly part is what the "you need a local lawyer" crowd tries to avoid.
OG.
| |