What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
85 Comments
- abbathdoom, on 03/05/2009, -11/+68Microsoft are evil.
- chthonical, on 03/06/2009, -4/+44Honestly, the patent system is destroying capitalism by allowing corporations to assume control of broad, general categories and lock out any and all competition. To hell with it.
- SQLserver, on 03/06/2009, -2/+41The god damn problem with software patents is that they are used in most cases simply to bully others.
What if Apple had successfully patented the Graphical User Interface? We'd all be forced to use some (probably crappy) Macs. Apple wouldn't have to innovate if they owned the Market, and anyone else would just be completely out of the question. Hell, any software that used a graphical user interface would have to be owned by Apple.
This is the problem. The computer world is like the academic world in which people build off of others' ideas.
Code should be intellectual property, just as someone's writing is. However, software patents are as stupid as literary patents. What if we handed out patents on the "Mystery Genre" or "All books in the first person"? This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff software patents do. - CalcProgrammer1, on 03/06/2009, -2/+37They're using FAT. Big deal, Microsoft wrote a piece of code that handles a FAT filesystem, Linux coders also wrote a program that does the same thing. They're not the same thing, the Linux FAT implementation is much different from the Windows one, no copying, stealing, etc. involved.
Software patents are ridiculous, they're patenting an end rather than a means to an end, it's like patenting movement after you invented the wheel. You sue anyone else who tries to make moving things (belts, gears, whatever, they all infringe on your wheel patent because, like the wheel, these things move). It's ridiculous, and so are software patents. - DougVitale, on 03/05/2009, -3/+34"One reason why they think they can get away with it? It turns out Microsoft already has Linux-using customers who've signed similar deals."
Not to mention that Novell, Xandros, and Linspire have signed "IP protection" patent agreements with Microsoft. Remember these Linux vendors when you make your choice for your preferred distro. - sanskrtam, on 03/06/2009, -0/+24Am I one of the few people who think that the patent systems are needed to be reformed?
This is getting ridiculous. - chthonical, on 03/06/2009, -2/+26Except that Microsoft abuses the patent system to dominate the market, thereby defeating the balance capitalism requires to keep working. One of their patents technically consists of all means of interacting with a computer. They have a general patent on input devices of all types.
- CalcProgrammer1, on 03/06/2009, -1/+24You should've read his post, he points out that patenting a filesystem is ridiculous, just as patenting rock music, patenting air travel, patenting eating, and patenting any end process is. Patents in the non-software world only ever apply to implementations, not results, same should go for software patents.
- CalcProgrammer1, on 03/06/2009, -1/+22Microsoft being a company is fine, it's the stupid patent system that is flawed. Microsoft uses patents to kill off competition--EXACTLY the opposite of what capitalism is supposed to do! Competition forces companies to improve, Microsoft dominates the industry (I don't have a problem with this) and uses their patents and money to shoot down any rising competition (this is where the evil begins) so that they can retain their status without real improvements (stagnating the industry).
The idea of a "software patent" is dumb anyways. I can see how you would patent a piece of code, an explicit algorithm, a digital copy, etc, but patenting a way to do things is just absurd. The Linux FAT driver is probably a lot different than the Windows FAT driver, two very different tools that accomplish the same task. That would be like if Sears sued anyone who tried to make a screwdriver because it infringed their Craftsman Tools patent.
It's like inventing the first flying machine and patenting the act of flying. Say I build a helicopter, now that I can fly, I can strike down others trying to build airplanes, rockets, hot air balloons, and other aircraft because those too fly and I built the first flying machine so I have exclusive rights to flying. It's bogus, but so is Microsoft's claim. - CalcProgrammer1, on 03/06/2009, -1/+21They did not copy FAT. Do you think helicopters copied airplanes? No. The Linux FAT driver is nothing like the MS FAT driver other than that it reads and writes the same data off of a hard drive. Both output it to the OS differently (as both OS'es handle files differently) and the Linux developers implemented FAT based on coding a new program that could interpret what was on a drive as files and then write files in the same manner. No copying involved there.
- clip9, on 03/06/2009, -2/+21Idiot. How is it good for capitalism that Microsoft can patent lookup tables? In effect making it impossible for anyone to make FAT implementations for *30* years.
- gcnaddict, on 03/06/2009, -8/+26As great as the GPL is, if something has a patent on it, the GPL can't cover it unless the company or person who owns the patent specifically covered the code for the patent with the GPL. Otherwise, it's a moot point.
Granted, if software patents are wiped, this might work out better, but I personally support software patents because, *in my opinion*, software is a set of instructions/directions which creates something that accomplishes a task with less effort... same thing with physical objects (instructions for building a physical device that accomplishes a task with less effort). The entire goal of patents is to protect innovations which accomplish things faster/more efficiently/whatever the requirement might be.
On that note, I think software patents are better off expiring at three-five years because of how much faster software/tech progresses. Otherwise, others can't create competing applications before the code becomes useless, leaving the patent holder with a monopolistic lock. - CalcProgrammer1, on 03/06/2009, -2/+17I think software patents are bad due to how they work. I do NOT think you should be able to patent a process. That means no mp3 patents, no mpeg patents, no FAT patents, none of that. You SHOULD be able to patent an implementation of said process. Microsoft could patent a FAT driver that writes and reads a FAT filesystem, but someone else who writes a different driver is not infringing on Microsoft's implementation. That is a fair system.
- Mutiny32, on 03/06/2009, -0/+15The reason why TomTom uses FAT in the first place is so that its file system has to be mountable in Windows in order to connect a device to TomTom Home to modify files. In addition to that, a lot of TomTom devices have a SD card slot. While flash memory can be formatted in Ext2/3/4/xfs/btrfs/whatever, there is one universal format: FAT.
Microsoft is so afraid of the GPL they wouldn't touch ext2 read/write capability with a ten-foot pole. So they act like it doesn't exist. You have to actually install a grey-area third-party program/driver in windows to even see an ext2/3/4 partition. - T8erT0T, on 03/06/2009, -0/+14Lol, Linspire.
- ArthurSucks, on 03/06/2009, -2/+16If you can't innovate, sue people. Worked so good for the RIAA / MPAA.
- Mutiny32, on 03/06/2009, -0/+14Because they risk incompatibility. Most of those devices have to be mountable in Windows and seen as a drive or at least a block device with a recognized file system that can be modified. it will be a cold day in hell when Microsoft adds FOSS file system support natively.
- CalcProgrammer1, on 03/06/2009, -1/+15Communism is forced, the GPL is choice. Huge difference.
- GreatDrok, on 03/06/2009, -1/+11Maybe you should look it up too? You'll probably be surprised to find out that it is "Godwin's Law'.
- clickwir, on 03/06/2009, -0/+10This is awful. Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to have such broad patents that actually attempt to get held up in court.
- CalcProgrammer1, on 03/06/2009, -1/+11Reverse engineering by disassembling and modifying is already illegal, the legal way to reverse-engineer is where one team disassembles/analyzes something and documents it and another team creates a clean, new implementation.
- bratterscain, on 03/06/2009, -0/+10CalcProgrammer1, I couldn't have said it better.
- Proz, on 03/06/2009, -0/+10Even Microsoft agree with you - So no, you're not alone.
- jackdaniels06, on 03/06/2009, -5/+14Mircosoft IS evil and those who oppose worship fascism and dick-tatorships and love Bernie Madeoff.
- tuxchick, on 03/05/2009, -1/+9This is huge. Straight from Mr. Gutierrez. Lawsy!
- sjvn, on 03/05/2009, -2/+9Yep, straight from Mr. Microsoft Law himself.
- jamesmcm, on 03/06/2009, -0/+7You would copyright an implementation though, not patent it. Software patents are just retarded as they can patent the only decent solution to a problem, even if it is obvious, and stop others from using it.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/patent-reform-is-not ... - JudgeDredd, on 03/06/2009, -0/+7Will someone explain this to me? Why does Tom Tom use FAT32 in the first place? I am clearly not understanding this.
- Culyt, on 03/06/2009, -1/+8Patents where never intended for software, they where specific to physical things.
Otherwise you could patent things like math formulas, physics, how to organize warehouses, and so on.
More and more stuff is becoming software based, you might not be able to patent how physical paintings are organized in a warehouse, but you could patent it in software.
FAT was also denied the patent last time because it had too wide a usage, I'm not sure why its come back again.
This is also going to be a problem again, since FAT has a size limit on partitions and files which we will soon hit (FAT32 is 2TB, or 8TB with 32k clusters) , since Windows is basically the entire market we will switch to whatever Microsoft have in Windows (or just NTFS). The new standard will have its own patents.
About the only alternative is if some open standard popped up the leveraged FAT, such as programming the hardware to allow access the the partitions as split FAT volumes or as one giant volume using an open filesystem and included drives for Windows or allowing dual NTFS/OpenFS access. If it got popular enough then MS might implement it (but more than likely they would try and use their own). - 4321234, on 03/06/2009, -2/+9Novell never acknowledged any Microsoft patents. They agreed with Microsoft to not sue each others customers over patents. They never agreed not to sue each other. Novell has in fact sued Microsoft since they signed that agreement.
- glitchbit, on 03/06/2009, -0/+6maybe the solution is for these companies to start using an ext format and just distribute some windows drivers... get the monkey off their back. Maybe even devise a way to format an sd card with both formats so a user could still use FAT for other things.
- satcomer, on 03/06/2009, -0/+6Well this is a case that the ZFS might surpass FAT32 then. I really hope this or an open source file system comes down the pike.
- Culyt, on 03/06/2009, -0/+6ZFS has 52 patents on it from Sun so I doubt it.
I also don't see USB/MP3/Camera manufactures switching to something that requires the users to install drivers.
I think the real solution will be to turn everything WIFI. Then it doesn't matter what file system is in use. Of course that will give MS an opportunity to patent the WIFI -> Windows connection standards for things like integration with the OS, but basic TCP over 802.11 should be do able using things like HTTP and FTP. Also I believe SAMBA now has patent immunity but maybe thats only in Europe, but if not it could be used to transfer stuff from wifi enabled camera and such.
Are the basic wifi standards truly open? I remember the patent claims on 802.11n, also some patent claims for a and g. - merky1, on 03/06/2009, -0/+6These companies are also barely hanging on, and fighting a lawsuit vs. MSFT is completely different than fighting vs. SCO.
It would be interesting to see how much money SCO sucked out of the community, paving the way for MSFT to force more competitors out of the game. - gcnaddict, on 03/06/2009, -1/+7Then renewing should be barred.
The time limit, I think, should be capped at 3-5 years, 7 years max. - MCJackhammer, on 03/06/2009, -1/+7"They are not talking about a peice of software,they are talking about the file system structure"
Which runs on software.
Speak of retarded... - pixelguru, on 03/06/2009, -0/+6They should have signed a pact with each other saying that it Microsoft went after any of them, they would fight back as a group.
- inactive, on 03/06/2009, -0/+5“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” Mahatma Ghandi
- pentiumii, on 03/06/2009, -1/+6Don't u think comparing MS to Hitlers Nazi might be a bit of a stretch
This isn't any thing new every major comapny in world does this look at apple
Steve jobs and his cult there way closer to being more like Nazi then MS
trying to maintain your position on the mark is a far cry from killing jews
when MS start forcing apple user in to camps and cooking them in oven u can call them the Third Reich
now i disagree with this law suite just much as the other guy but don't u think calling MS the third Reich is bit much over a ***** patent case
do your research people almost every major tech company out there is guilty of this same thing
probable apple more then any one - DangerCollie, on 03/06/2009, -3/+7You mean a realistic license like the Windows EULA?
And what do you know about the GPL?
My guess would be "nothing". - javaroast, on 03/06/2009, -1/+5Next time you decide to rip someone for not reading the article, you should probably have read the article yourself. They aren't talking about the file system structure at all, they are talking about the naming scheme to map long file names to the 8.3 file names. The topper is that these patents were initially rejected. So what they patented is taking a file:
phillydidnotread.txt --and mapping that to
PHILLY~1.TXT or
PHILLY~2.TXT - jamesmcm, on 03/06/2009, -0/+4Well I have an iMac and I certabily wouldn't. Software patents are stupid, they patent obvious solutions to problems and then prevent others from using it, slowing progress.
"Software patents
The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983, and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed GIFs. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.
There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users want. What will we do when this happens?
Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the patented features. But those who value free software because they expect it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the practical effectiveness of the “bazaar” model of development , and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle." - depro9, on 03/06/2009, -7/+11kill the overlords & free the world.
- Culyt, on 03/06/2009, -0/+4RIAA didn't have $60bil, they also had to deal with the fact that each country has a different law and the internet is global meaning if its legal in any country you can download it. On the flip side if MS can enforce a patent in America (Specifically thanks to a Texas court room) then other countries manufactures have to deal with that if they want to sell their product their.
There are just too many people to bother going after them 1 at a time and expecting to scare them (they had, what 100 lawsuits?, PirateBay has 20million subscribers, and that just people who bother to subscribe to a site that doesn't require it for download).
Plus its almost impossible to really prove infringement has taken place without twisting the law or lobbying to make new ones the fight file sharing. - jamesdew, on 03/06/2009, -1/+5Wow that really is a genius idea, how did they come up with that.
- esc27, on 03/06/2009, -0/+3If Tom Tom is profiting by using technologies covered by Microsoft's patents, then of course Microsoft has the right to pursue restitution. Of course the same goes for companies whose patents are being "infringed" on by Microsoft. I kind of look forward to the eventual software patent war, hopefully it will be the end of those patents.
- inactive, on 03/05/2009, -5/+8"These continuing and blatant violations of the GPL cannot be allowed to stand"
SJVN, does this mean you are ending your support for SUSE? - MCJackhammer, on 03/06/2009, -0/+3They already chose when they accepted the GPL instead of propietary licenses. And the deals they did with MS weren't made to "get around" the GPL; they were made to avoid being sued for MS's claimed patent holdings.
- clickwir, on 03/06/2009, -0/+3Still using FAT. That's the whole problem.
- WhereAmI, on 03/06/2009, -0/+3Yeah so many anti-Microsoft people, so few that actually don't use their products. (I'm a Linux user, not Apple.)
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is