It also seems easy to code around if that's all it is. There are lots of other file system formats that are free. And why any Linux-kernel-based device would choose FAT32 for its default file format seems very odd to me. I would expect ext3 or ext4 to be used. I wonder why that choice was made?
FAT32 could easily die on Linux devices. People could use one of the likely several FAT32-to-other free software file system converters which would change everything on-the-fly without data loss, requiring only a reboot to then be free from Microsoft's dominion. It could probably be an app downloaded from Google Play. I would advise everyone to completely avoid any areas where there are patents hinging over "standards" like this. Flash, file systems, digital media formats in general, all of it. I don't care how widely in use it is, stop using it for anything new, and begin changing it in every new version to support free and open standards. It profits nothing, except the patent holder, which means it profits nothing. In a physical device, it takes a long time to perfect it, get it working, and then patent it. And the replication of a physical device by another company is a significant endeavor that can't be easily achieved. The same is not true of software. A brilliant developer could, off the top of his head, write a few thousand lines of code in a short period of time, using fundamental ideas to data manipulation within the given system (CPU, motherboard, hardware devices), and probably half of those ideas he naturally came to on his own by looking at the way the system was designed and is implemented, trip over patents. It shouldn't be like that for software. Patents serve no purpose except to hinder innovation, whereas the patent system was originally considered in the U.S. Constitution, for example, to actually expand the sciences because it took a real effort to produce a thing. It's not true with software, and it takes almost no effort to copy it, which means once something is known about, everyone on the planet can get a copy of it without affecting the original in any way, shape or form, within minutes. Such a thing has never been possible in this world before. Digital media is a completely new creation, and it demands a completely new framework for how it's governed. I personally believe the physical / mechanical system which operates the software should be the ONLY component patentable in a computer system, because ONLY that device has limitations on use. The software can be configured within that system however it can be, but it is the machine itself that physically executes it. It's like trying to patent math. A person could patent a calculator design, but the idea of performing this computation, then this one, and actually patenting that sequence of formula use, or number processing ... it's literally insane. The same is true for software. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin --- On Wed, 7/25/12, tegskywal...@hotmail.com <tegskywal...@hotmail.com> wrote: > From: tegskywal...@hotmail.com <tegskywal...@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Trisquel-users] What are these patents that MS owns in Linux? > More and more people are paying. > To: trisquel-users@listas.trisquel.info > Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 12:10 PM > If that is the case, that really > sucks becuase FAT32 is everywhere and supported on old > operating systems that people still use like Windows XP, > supported on cameras and video game consoles, and of course > modern Windows, Mac, and Linux systems. > > The sad reality is that people want things to work "out of > the box" and FAT32 has offered that for a long time. Another > problem exists is the support of more flexible and open > formats that Apple and Microsoft will choose not to use. It > would be great if the EXT file systems worked natively on > Windows, but Micorosoft wouldn't do it. They would keep > peddling their FAT and NTFS file systems which are > patented. > > Why is Microsoft doing this? They aren't a small business > scrapped for cash in any way. Are they trying to feel > relevant? Or are they trying to justify the employment of > tens of thousands of people in the Seattle area? >
