My opinion on this FAT thing
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:00 am
This is for those that reside in the US.
Microsoft could sue you for writing your own FAT driver, even if they have provided a specification for FAT. However, they only have a case, based on HOW you wrote the driver, not whether or not you wrote it. I am sure many of you have heard of the DMCA, which is what this opinion is based from. It stipulates that you cannot reverse engineer a product to create your own from it. If you do not use the specification, and reverse engineer a FAT driver using Microsoft binary code, yes, this is an infringement.
As for the case of Lindows, Microsoft owns a trademark to the word "Windows" in the category which "Lindows" also falls under. The names are simply too similiar, and it is quite possible that Lindows may have violated Microsoft's trademark. Another case recently that appearred, for example, was "Victoria's Secret vs. Victor's Little Secret."
Microsoft could sue you for writing your own FAT driver, even if they have provided a specification for FAT. However, they only have a case, based on HOW you wrote the driver, not whether or not you wrote it. I am sure many of you have heard of the DMCA, which is what this opinion is based from. It stipulates that you cannot reverse engineer a product to create your own from it. If you do not use the specification, and reverse engineer a FAT driver using Microsoft binary code, yes, this is an infringement.
As for the case of Lindows, Microsoft owns a trademark to the word "Windows" in the category which "Lindows" also falls under. The names are simply too similiar, and it is quite possible that Lindows may have violated Microsoft's trademark. Another case recently that appearred, for example, was "Victoria's Secret vs. Victor's Little Secret."