Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Samsung Properly Open-Sources exFAT File-System

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?
    I'm no lawyer so I can't be too sure, but I think the answer here is No. I think Microsoft exFAT's patents still apply even if there's an open source implementation of them in circulation. That's to say, if you use it, you're the one who is going to get sued by Microsoft, not Samsung.
    But then again, it's probably dependent on where you are in the world and how much of a legal team you can afford.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?
    not everyone is american
    it's still legal to use a US software patent in the majority of countries without paying a penny to M$
    and for US citizens , the law does not sue particulars for private non-commercial use of patented technologies

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?
    Nope.
    Code license is about the code. Patent license is about what the code do.
    The two are completely separate.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Fuck Microsoft, and their patents. It is wrong to patent something like a filesystem in the first place, to hinder interoperability with free software. Especially since it's not especially innovative, it's of poorer quality than FAT32. It supports larger volumes, larger file sizes and has some arbitrary limits removed, but has very poor fault tolerance. (not even any backup copies of the file allocation table)

    I blame the corrupt American patent system every bit as much as Microsoft and I have absolutely no sympathy for their imaginary property.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?
    This means if you are on countries without software patents, you can legally use it. Anywhere else, you can use it, as long as you don't get caught.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    307

    Default

    No one cares about exFAT anyway. I'll use F2FS on my USB thumbsticks in the future. Until then I'll just use FAT32.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    533

    Default Sofware patents are not valid in most countries, ignore them

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?
    The answer to this one is simple: host the code and binaries ONLY in countries that don't recognize software patents. Create a "restricted driver" that has to be added by end users, who already ignore patents for things like mp3, H264, etc. Any Linux user needed ExFAT probably also needs ffmpeg or avconv, only institutional users in places like the US need to be bothered with paying for "legal" Fluendo codecs.

    In selecting host countries, avoid Trans-Pacific Partnership countries or those in the talks for an atlantic version. My folks will do all they can to sabotage the negotiations and sink both trade treaties, but we know they contain some sort of "intellectual property" provisions but details have been kept secret. Just to be safe, avoid any country that has signed or is considering signing any "free trade" deal in which the US is involved. There will alway be plenty of counties that offer themselves as havens for this sort of thing.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    The answer to this one is simple: host the code and binaries ONLY in countries that don't recognize software patents. Create a "restricted driver" that has to be added by end users, who already ignore patents for things like mp3, H264, etc. Any Linux user needed ExFAT probably also needs ffmpeg or avconv, only institutional users in places like the US need to be bothered with paying for "legal" Fluendo codecs.

    In selecting host countries, avoid Trans-Pacific Partnership countries or those in the talks for an atlantic version. My folks will do all they can to sabotage the negotiations and sink both trade treaties, but we know they contain some sort of "intellectual property" provisions but details have been kept secret. Just to be safe, avoid any country that has signed or is considering signing any "free trade" deal in which the US is involved. There will alway be plenty of counties that offer themselves as havens for this sort of thing.
    Crap. That bloody EU-US free trade agreement will ruin a lot of things.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    plus im damn sure that whatever the licensing terms for the exFat patents are, royalty-free dissemination is definitely not one of them.
    It's almost like Samsung's legal team thinks that they understand these agreements better than you. The nerve!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    16

    Default Reflection on what really happened

    Gentlemen, may I direct your attention away from Microsoft Patents back to what actually happened. Correct me if I'm wrong but what I see is:

    Samsung violated the GPL and was caught red-handed.

    They tried to use GPL'd code in one of their closed-source apps. The code leaked, and the evidence was there in plain sight to everybody. The guy that actually caught them was probably not the brightest star in the universe, but he created enough stir-up that the case got proper publicity. Samsung did the only sensible thing they can do at such a moment: properly release it open-source.

    The patent debate is only between Micro$oft and Sam$ung. They will reach an agreement one way or the other...

    This case shows me very frightening development: Big companies *do not care* about the GPL. They don't have to. Any GPL'd code out there is a free resource that they can exploit as they see fit. If they get caught --> damage control and a PR campaign for their "Open-Source Initiaitves".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •