Fat File System Licensing?

[Bronek]

Just want to ensure that OpenPandore won"t have to dig deep in the pockets to pay the lawyers (as TomTom did, but they can afford it). If OpenPandora is to handle FAT file system, which I think is standard in SD cards (e.g. formatted by digital cameras - just to point where this de facto standard is useful), I suppose it should have licensing agreement with Microsoft. I read in an old article it is $0.25 per device sold, but I am not sure whether this is still correct.

Still, it does not hurt to check at the source. It"s here
CODE
http://www.microsoft.com/iplicensing/productDetail.aspx?productTitle=FAT%20File%20System


I leave it as it is - whatever decision devs make, I see no need to interfere. And obviously I am not going to discuss it with open source zealots.

 

[lulzfish]

I don't know if there's an issue with just reading FAT, since there's free software that does so, but this could be an issue if FAT is used in the main internal flash.

 

[Kaze0110]

This seems like a repeat of a previous post. The board manufacturer TI would of incurred these costs as part of their licensing rights if that were the case.

 

[God Ginrai]

This seems like a repeat of a previous post. The board manufacturer TI would of incurred these costs as part of their licensing rights if that were the case.

We also found out that that isn't true in the case of SD, OP has to pay the SD licensing fees. So why are you so sure about TI being the ones to pay for FAT?

-God Ginrai

 

[habib15]

This seems like a repeat of a previous post. The board manufacturer TI would of incurred these costs as part of their licensing rights if that were the case.

This statement is all kinds of wrong. First TI is only manufacturing the OMAP processor not the whole board. And the last time I checked there was no hardware inside the OMAP to do FAT file system anything, so why would TI have any obligation to pay the royalties. FAT and other file systems are in the domain of the operating system and firmware not the hardware.

I would think OP would be fine since they have no money to pay. M$ isn't going to go after this small a company with no hope of every receiving damages.

My guess is if OP doesn't include the mkfs.vfat utilities on release there would be no case.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

the FAT implementation of the Linux kernel is not based on any copyrighted code, and as previous court cases showed it is not possible to license/patent abstract ideas, easy as that. even is they would try to sue OP they would epically fail.

 

[Kaze0110]

This seems like a repeat of a previous post. The board manufacturer TI would of incurred these costs as part of their licensing rights if that were the case.

This statement is all kinds of wrong. First TI is only manufacturing the OMAP processor not the whole board. And the last time I checked there was no hardware inside the OMAP to do FAT file system anything, so why would TI have any obligation to pay the royalties. FAT and other file systems are in the domain of the operating system and firmware not the hardware.

I would think OP would be fine since they have no money to pay. M$ isn't going to go after this small a company with no hope of every receiving damages.

My guess is if OP doesn't include the mkfs.vfat utilities on release there would be no case.

Then I'm all kinds of wrong.

I never did find out how that thread turned out, solely how the thread was progressing along. And I thought this thread was referring to the chip bios being hosted on board, and THAT was because I thought the whole thing, omap processor, and board contents, were purchased as a singular item from TI.

So indeed, I was wrong on several counts. I can concede that.

 

[Squidge]

This seems like a repeat of a previous post. The board manufacturer TI would of incurred these costs as part of their licensing rights if that were the case.

It is a repeat, it was discussed in the SD licensing post here: www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?s=&showtopic=47119&view=findpost&p=710777

TI don't license any codecs or software patents for code you may or may not write on the OMAP, as it would be daft to pass the charge onto your users if they are not going to use such features as SD, FAT, etc. Therefore OP will have to pay the licenses.

I'd say it would be easier to pay the licenses than have to deal with legal costs if they do decide to go after OP. Some people don't care about the size of the company, and some don't care if the legal costs force you out of business.

But, we have someone looking into it.

 

[Vimacs]

well they had lost those patents for some time and then got them back, currently they are suing tomtom (first serious case on fat?), i would wait to see how that works out, not that unlikely that those patents get dropped.

 

[sindbad]

well they had lost those patents for some time and then got them back, currently they are suing tomtom (first serious case on fat?), i would wait to see how that works out, not that unlikely that those patents get dropped.
TomTom chickened out and settled ouside of court.

 

[lulzfish]

well they had lost those patents for some time and then got them back, currently they are suing tomtom (first serious case on fat?), i would wait to see how that works out, not that unlikely that those patents get dropped.
TomTom chickened out and settled ouside of court.

"TomTom, gimme your lunch money or I'll tell the teacher you're using something I thought of first, or at least earlier than you."
"That's illegal?"
"Do you wanna waste the time and money finding out?"
"No.."

 

[DavidBowman]

I would think OP would be fine since they have no money to pay. M$ isn't going to go after this small a company with no hope of every receiving damages.

Never underestimate the greed of huge corporations. For proof, see the case of Sony vs. Bleem!

 

[Monk]

Also, if copyright holders, trademark holders, so on and so forth do not protect their rights they can in effect lose them - and the ability to collect fees from large companies as well as small ones. Being small or not turning a profit does NOT make you invulnerable.

 

[DavidBowman]

^^ I almost said that same thing in my last post. It's a good point. Xerox, for example, had to at least make a show of dissuading people from saying "xerox it" or else their copyrighted name would fall into public domain because it would become part of the lexicon.

 

[lulzfish]

They must have done a good job, I've always called it "photocopying".
Wish someone would do the same for Photoshopping and iPod.

 

[Tom`]

Also, if copyright holders, trademark holders, so on and so forth do not protect their rights they can in effect lose them - and the ability to collect fees from large companies as well as small ones. Being small or not turning a profit does NOT make you invulnerable.

That is not strictly true. It does not apply at all to copyrights - you cannot "lose" them until they expire, or unless you release them into the public domain (and even then, not all countries recognize the right to do that, so they could still be copyrighted there).

Trademarks, on the other hand, can be devalued with use. The thing about trademarks, of course, is that they are not particularly restrictive - if your use does not negatively impact the registering company, effectively, use is permissible. (If your product cannot be legitimately confused with a product from a different source, the trademark can be valid even if another company is already using the name.) (for example, the name "Pandora" is already trademarked by Pandora Radio, but they would probably have no legitimate case against OpenPandora Ltd.)

You cannot copyright a name - you can, however, trademark it, which was the case with Xerox (and is the case now with Google).

(edited for clarification)

 

[PoisonedV]

They must have done a good job, I've always called it "photocopying".
Wish someone would do the same for Photoshopping and iPod.

1. most people refer to iPod not because it's a popular term but because they are too stupid and or ignorant to know a better one
2. photoshopping doesnt bother me. would you prefer everyone to say 'photo manipulation' (which takes nearly twice as long to say it and is cumbersome) just so that poor little gimp doesnt get spurned

 

[truekaiser]

the only thing that might happen is they will have to ship the pandora with fat & fat32 support not compiled in the kernel, like *buntu, debain, fedora, and free versions of mandravia linux will probably do.

 

[Tom`]

the only thing that might happen is they will have to ship the pandora with fat & fat32 support not compiled in the kernel, like *buntu, debain, fedora, and free versions of mandravia linux will probably do.

The funny thing is that all those distros (well, I have not tested it under Fedora, but) (K)(X)Ubuntu, Debian, and Mandriva (at least, when I used it back in the days when it was Mandrake) have it compiled in. In fact, I've been using Linux since 2003, and I don't recall a time when it was ever not included in a default kernel (well, maybe not in DD-WRT, but...on the other hand, it does have the option to use an SD/MMC card).

 

[neko]

The funny thing is that all those distros (well, I have not tested it under Fedora, but) (K)(X)Ubuntu, Debian, and Mandriva (at least, when I used it back in the days when it was Mandrake) have it compiled in. In fact, I've been using Linux since 2003, and I don't recall a time when it was ever not included in a default kernel (well, maybe not in DD-WRT, but...on the other hand, it does have the option to use an SD/MMC card).

They have been doing that for years and basically told Microsoft where to shove it. Nobody pays Microsoft for this, ever. It's a complete non-issue.