Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

Am Freitag 10 Juli 2009 schrieb David Newall:
Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Donnerstag 09 Juli 2009 schrieb David Newall:
What I don't understand is how anybody could be satisfied with the
status quo. We cannot leave vfat unchanged, for that will perpetuate
a pool of victims to be sued, and Linux loses credibility every time
that happens. Something *must* change.

What is especially attractive about Andrew's position (he said this
more eloquently than me) is that developing a solution to avoid the
patent will impact Microsoft revenues; and that will be most
instructive to them. That's almost sufficient reason by itself!

Pardon me, but I just don't get how adapting software to software
patents will contribute into solving the problems they cause.

As Andrew said, if we work around a patent without losing function we
destroy the economic value of that patent. Nobody would pay licence
fees for a patent if there was a good work around. As patent holders
attack us, we devalue their patents. Eventually (probably quickly)
they'll learn not to attack us.

To me your thoughts appear to be *within* the patent approach and *thus*
implicitely saying "yes" software patents as such. Going this way I think
actually strengthen patents. The FAT patents have not yet been tested.
They might easily just be void and invalid.

But going the way you outline would be giving in to the patent claim
*before* it has even been tried and tested for validity. And thus IMHO
this strengthens the patent and it holder. If you change the upstream
kernel Microsoft can always say: "Look Linux kernel developers think that
the kernel infringed our patents."

The linux kernel has not yet been proven to infringe any FAT patent.
Microsoft claims that it does. But so did SCO claim that it contains
source of UNIX that they said they have a license for. SCO could never
prove that claim. The linux kernel community ignored SCO for exactly that
reason. Why on Earth should it handle Microsoft differently? Just due to
its sheer size and weight in capital? The trial with TomTom just proves
nothing right now.

Instead of
implementing a feature like long name + short name support straight
forwardly and simply one has to invent utterly complex, error prone
and ugly work-arounds that actually even limit the functionality.
Actually I do not envy Tridge for doing that job.

It's not a given that working around a patent will result in something
ugly, error-prone or complex, nor that it will limit function. But it
is true that we have to work around them. We can't permit Linux to
violate patents (nor can we permit a serious claim of such.) That
would cause no end of legal trouble, and would drive vendors away.
Since vfat violates Microsoft's patent, or at least they seriously
claim it does, we have to do something. We really have no choice.

Right now to me it seems that it is nowhere but clear that Linux violates
valid patents about the inner workings of FAT. Currently any work to adapt
the kernel to the FAT patents is based on the assumption that they might
be valid, not on facts.

To me it seems that Microsoft has won if it can get Linux kernel
developers to cripple the upstream vanilla kernel in order to avoid
software patents.

It's still not certain that we have to cripple Linux to work around the
long filename patent. Granted it looks sad, but Andrew is still
working on it. If it turns out that we do have to cripple Linux, well
sometimes we win, sometimes we lose; but if don't at least try we
always lose. When we work around a patent without losing function we
win big, and Andrew said that has already happened for other patents.

I just relate to what is currently available. If Tridge posts a different
patch things might be different. But right now this is just pure
speculation. So I would like to stick to what is actually there. This
patch.

Microsoft sued only TomTom regarding FAT patents upto now. Why? If
they acted like SCO they would have gone against IBM, big Linux
distributors like Novell and especially against several companies at
once. I think this might be cause that Microsoft just knows that
their software patent claim would break down if really tested. I do
think that Microsoft does not want those FAT patents to be tested in
court. Cause I think they know they would not stand a chance.

I think you're right that Microsoft does not want their patent tested
in court, but as they have more money than anyone, they could keep a
patent case in court forever, costing both them and those they sue more
and more money. If the other party keeps fighting they stand a real
chance of running out of money (and thus out of business); or they
could settle, as Tom Tom did.

I think you omit that doing this would cost Microsoft really lots of
reputation. I believe that Microsoft fears testing the patent in trial and
having a long trial just as much if not more than the company it sues.

Would you buy a Unix or something else from SCO? I wouldn't. Would a
company do it? I think only if forced to by compatibility constraints. Now
SCO OpenServer or what it was called may be more replaceable than Windows,
but Windows has become replaceable in more and more use cases as well.

If Microsoft would be serious about playing the bad guy they IMHO would
pay a forbiddenly high price for it. Actually I believe this would impose
a high, probably existential risk to Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft has lots of
money. But the current economic crisis has shown how easily insane amounts
of money can be disintegrated in no time. I do think that Microsoft is
neither almighty nor immune to that.

And then they would also show even more clearly than ever the absurdities
of the current software patent law in the USA. This would strengthen
forces that work to revert that law. More politicians would see that the
software patent law must be changed.

Accepting such a patch IMHO would help Microsoft to get away with
seeding fear, uncertainity and doubt and not having the software
patent tested and be made void. Actively adapting to software patents
gives them a place to be, gives those who support them your energy.

This is wrong. Doing nothing is what helps Microsoft.

I can't continue aguing on that basis. I just stated my oppinion. You say
it is wrong. I can say your oppinion is wrong. But nothing gained by that.
No need to continue to cycle this. My oppinion is my oppinion and yours is
yours. And I don't buy your oppinion even when you present it as factual
thing.

Actually I think just ignoring them would be better.

This is also wrong. Microsoft have sued Tom Tom, and they won't stop

Same here. Just:

there. They'll keep picking businesses to sue; and each time they do
they'll win; and each time they win, Linux's reputation becomes
tarnished. Eventually the manufacturers that build on Linux will move
to some other platform, which would be a disaster for us.

You seem to know more than me. Sure I can speculate about what Microsoft
will be doing and I did. But I am pretty sure that I can not really *know*
it. Your statements sounds bold enough to suggest that you have looked
into a crystal orb of foresay. Did you?

I just point out to you: They didn't do anything else than suing TomTom
just yet. Thats fact, unless I did not notice any other trials going on.

Shall Microsoft attack IBM or other big companies. Shall Microsoft
attack big Linux distributors. Shall they attack the upstream Linux
kernel

IBM? Of course they would, and then Microsoft and IBM would
cross-licence their patents. They've probably already done this.

You really think they would? Have they been already that successful at
seeding fear, uncertainity and doubt? I bet that they would not dare to
challenge IBM on such ridiculous patents.

Big Linux distributors? I don't see Red Hat or Novel fighting, should
Microsoft sue. They'd know the score, and either settle or remove the
function.

Sure? What about indemnification assurances regarding SCO claims that
AFAIK both Novell and RedHat offered to their customers? SCO is smaller
than Microsoft, granted. But still, those patents, the whole software
patent law in USA are ridiculous. Giving in to them would probably loose
Novell and RedHat more than is gained by testing them and having them
declared as invalid and void as they should be declared.

The upstream kernel developers? I don't know. They would if they felt
they needed to, but the truth is that they can do just as well by
attacking manufacturers who build on Linux, such as Tom Tom. How many
more Tom Toms do you think it would take to drive manufacturers away
from Linux? I don't think the number is large.

Directly attacking upstream kernel developers IMHO would backfire even
more than suing companies. Do you really think Microsoft can risk to loose
that much reputation? Do you really think that Microsoft is ready to
handle the response of the open-source community, big news sites,
companies supporting open-source, lawyers supporting open-source? I think
they aren't and I think they know that. And thus I think they would not
dare to do it. Right know they only had a go at TomTom. To me this looks
like the behavior of coward. Apart from I think Linux including all its
surroundings isn't that weak that it needs to fear Microsoft. I think
right know its more the other way around.

Granted, speculation, but IMHO a quite plausible one. Anyway I will end it
here. And as I think there is not much more to be said without recycling
arguments I will try to refrain from any comments on arguments that have
already been rised.

Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs
    ... "My reaction is that so far, what he said is just more FUD ... Officials at Red Hat Inc., the leading Linux distributor, also ... This is simply Microsoft FUD - If you wish to buy into it, ... they have a valid patent claim that they believe Linux violates they ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: dont use Suse Linux
    ... out Linux will backfire on them. ... Perhaps this is exactly what Microsoft wanted in the first place. ... offered Novell a deal that was "too good to be true", ... the really frustrating things about the changes in the patent laws is ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: off:patent deals ?
    ... "Linspire has signed a patent deal with Microsoft" ... they are afraid of MS 234 patent claims in linux. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions
    ... if we work around a patent without losing function we ... We can't permit Linux to ... might be cause that Microsoft just knows that their software patent claim ... Microsoft have sued Tom Tom, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Microsoft offshores patent war - so goes the WTO?
    ... Microsoft offshores patent war - so goes the WTO? ... GPL software and using it illegal. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage)