That's true. Manufacturers have to pay Microsoft "US$0.25 per unit". In any case, I doubt there are any other patent infringements other than the FAT issue. Also, can't I just recompile my kernel without FAT file system support?
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Guus Snijders wrote: > 2007/3/1, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 3/1/07, Hussam Al-Tayeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not only Linux is affected by the FAT patent. You have a lot of > > > manufacturers who ship Usb drives or Cameras that use FAT filesystem for > > > storage (where internal storage parts are freformatted as FAT). > > > > I think that would be considered fair use, those companies aren't > > actually writing products to implement fat, they'd just be formatting > > it with microsoft's utilities. They don't make the profit of 'fat' > > anyway. > > Actually, they /do/ pay for FAT... > I had to use google to get some hard data on this and it look like Ms starting > requesting charges since december 2003... > > See for example: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03120403microsoftisfat.asp > > hth, hand. > > > mvg, > Guus Snijders > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch -- Regards, Hussam Al-Tayeb. GnuPG Key: F97D3A19
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
