OSDev.org

Hi,

A recent thread has got me wondering about software patents - specifically for FAT long file names.

The professional programmers on the site seem to keep repeating that US software patents are not valid outside of the US. I live in the UK and my OS is hosted on UK servers. Does this mean I can freely use the FAT long filename specification in my OS (and any other Patented US algorithms) without worrying about any comeback? Does it theoretically stop people in the US downloading my binaries?

[I understand I will just be taking your word for it and any replies do not constitute legal advice!]

Cheers,
Adam

The thing to remember here is the power of M$, if they threated your host with legal action (if they have a case or not ), your host will take down your code.
I am from England and live in England, and would not have LFN in my fat code.

Patents? Cancel them!

And after a quick google, a patent for electrical sausage cooker? My homemade 240V powered electrocutes faster! [/sarcasm]

As for the topic, well I'm not a lawyer but if you aren't selling your OS for money, I think you aren't breaking the (US? UK?) law.

As for the topic, well I'm not a lawyer but if you aren't selling your OS for money, I think you aren't breaking the (US? UK?) law.

AFAIK, you actually still are. Even if you never release your OS, and it infringes on a patent, you're still breaking the law.

Alboin wrote:Even if you never release your OS, and it infringes on a patent, you're still breaking the law.

I wrote:AFAIK Americans like taking advantage of everything.

Seems that I'm right, lol.

Many other country's like Germany do not have software patents... so far.
In the EU there is a patent for this crap. But it was rejected in Germany by the Bundespatentgericht (federal patent court) because of absence of innovation.

I still don't understand how it can even by patented because there are no software patents in Germany and the EU as far as I know. ?.?

Well... if you have enough money you can **** and eat as many children as you like... something like that...

If you write software and try to care about that, well just don't write any more software... because you will burn in the HELL OF PATENTS:

long url shortened - Combuster

Yes, they really tried this! O_o

That patent might have made sense in the 1960s, but the patent was filed on May 14, 2003 - some people are just that crazy...

I wonder, did it get accepted, or did someone have enough common sense and computing knowledge to understand what they were trying to do?

Good god! A SW patent for a BASIC function? Published in 2003?! OMG!

Thank God software patents are illegal in the EU, for now...

Hi,

AJ wrote:The professional programmers on the site seem to keep repeating that US software patents are not valid outside of the US.

First, I am not a lawyer - don't assume anything I say is correct (it's all "IMHO").

Large companies patent things in every country they can - a US patent may not be valid outside the US, but depending on where you are an almost identical local patent may be valid.

However, it's possible for countries to do deals with the US - "We'll respect your patents if you respect ours" - so a US patent may be valid in some countries.

If your software infringes on a patent you can't really distribute your software in any country where the patent is valid. Basically, someone in the US who downloads your software and uses it is infringing the patent (even if you aren't by providing your software). In this case if someone in the US gets sued for using your software then they can probably sue you for damages for providing the software; *unless* you clearly state that your software can't be used in the US (and anywhere else where it infringes patents).

Lastly, just because a patent is valid doesn't mean the patent should be valid, and if you do end up in court the court can decide the patent isn't valid. Basically the US patent office is too lazy to properly check if a patent should or shouldn't be valid, so to save time they pretend it is valid and let the courts decide later (if necessary). This means that if you've got a large team of lawyers you may be able to ignore some patents (if you know the patents shouldn't be valid). However, Microsoft may use the "potential" patent infringement as part of a scare campaign and never take you to court. It's a way for Microsoft to do the most damage to you without taking the risk that the courts will say that the "valid" patent is invalid.

AJ wrote:I live in the UK and my OS is hosted on UK servers. Does this mean I can freely use the FAT long filename specification in my OS (and any other Patented US algorithms) without worrying about any comeback? Does it theoretically stop people in the US downloading my binaries?

The UK and Australia have strong diplomatic ties to the US, so it's more likely that the UK has a "we'll respect yours if you respect ours" agreement with the US. I don't know for sure though.

It would stop people in the US from legally downloading your binaries (but wouldn't stop them from illegally downloading your binaries, then claiming they had no way of knowing and suing you if they get caught).

For this specific situation I wouldn't infringe the patent in the OS. I would consider a large message explaining why long file names aren't supported though, something like "Due to US patents this obvious extension to FAT is not supported, even though there may be prior art".

In addition, for a modular OS there's no reason why you can't have 2 different "FAT file system" modules - one that doesn't support long file names and one that does. That way anyone can download and use the OS without long file name support; and, after reading warnings, etc (that also explain how crappy the US patent system is) anyone can download the module that supports long file names.

Of course FAT is crappy - refusing to support long file names at all might be a good way to force people into using a better (non-Microsoft) file system....


Cheers,

Brendan

Software patents certainly are messed up... However, I don't think people are quite grasping the strategies that companies use around their patent portfolios.

Microsoft almost certainly doesn't care if you use LFN in your hobby OS. If your OS becomes super popular, then maybe they'll start to care. The reason big companies like Microsoft grab as many patents as they can is to protect themselves against much smaller companies whose entire business model is based on suing the bigger companies for infringement.

Microsoft makes enough money as it is -- they don't need to waste their resources suing hobbyist OSdevers. It's a waste of time and bad PR. It's usually the smaller companies that are patent trolls, not the bigger ones.

karekare0 wrote:

That patent might have made sense in the 1960s, but the patent was filed on May 14, 2003 - some people are just that crazy...

inflater wrote:Good god! A SW patent for a BASIC function?

This Patent might not even make sense 5000 Years ago!!!

This is the "IS NOT", <> or how C people say != operator. There is no %§$&§%/ way anyone can patent this or even think about it.

Do you want to know if you have social awareness? Well did you want to kill the people who tried to patent this? If the answer was yes, you are a very social human!!!

I am a semi-professional inventor in the US, and US patent law is (obviously) very close to my heart.

Brendan and Colonel Kernel have their facts 100% straight, to the best of my semi-professional understanding.

Some things that are useful to note. The LFN patent has already been challenged in US courts, and was already ruled VALID. Using massively repeated strings of volume names to hold filenames instead is wacky, stupid, but definitely non-obvious -- and that last point is what makes a patent.

To some extent, M$ probably DID try to get that patent to make sure that it had some leverage in keeping the filesystem proprietary. As said above, they don't care about a small OS using FAT32 with LFNs. But they DO like having some leverage against RedHat, Linspire, etc. -- because that patent (and many others) really are being flagrantly ignored.

A patent gives you the right to sue someone for messing with your invention in any way, for as long as the patent is active -- whether it is done for commercial purposes or not. But if the patent holder never finds out, or never sues you ... then there is no problem. It is not your job, ethically, to avoid using patented stuff. And keep in mind that the LFN patent expires in 5.5 more years. Will your OS be widely distributed by then?

After a patent expires, the whole point of a patent is that you are then ENCOURAGED to use the contents of the patent.

Hi,

Thanks for all the sensible advice, everyone. I have definitely made the decision not to support LFN - just basic FAT. My project is a hobby OS and I never see it becoming commercial, so with my limited resources I can't afford to take any risks.

Cheers,
Adam

Why not support ext2, it has no patents and better at defragmentation. Also it has has long file name support, file permissions. Oh and you will learn more too.

Because I intend to support both.

Cheers,
Adam