#3: But honestly wth does interoperabilty and innovation have to do with a system using an unlicensed technology of somebody elses?
If MS is so concerned about interoperability (as their marketing people have been shouting that they are for the past year), why are they now directly impeding it in this one specific case?
I guess MS should just give them a pass because they are using Linux...
No, they should give them a pass for the same reason they give the rest of the entire world that uses FAT a pass. Where's suit against every USB flash drive vendor out there? Where's the suit against IBM and every other vendor that ships a Linux kernel with VFAT? I don't believe for a second that MS has tons of companies licensing this patent. I hate it when this happens: entity gets patent for something but doesn't assert it. Then everyone starts using the thing they patented. Years later, after the thing is ubiquitous, entity suddenly starts making noise about patent licensing. Isn't that what a submarine patent is, and aren't those generally used by patent trolls? Plus, there's a very good chance that the patent wouldn't survive inspection after the Bilski decision (and that patent was already revoked once), and maybe that's why MS is pounding on a shrimp like TomTom while lying through their teeth that it isn't about Linux?
You know I heard it is the year of Linux and it is about to unseat MS on desktops and servers.
Then you've been listening to idiots.
What I find funny is MS's filesystems are consistantly called "inferior" by the open source community.
I'm fairly well-read on the FOSS front, and I don't remember "consistently" reading anything about NTFS being inferior to anything else. Links? FAT had obvious limitations that were addressed by a hack, but when it comes to file systems, your usage patterns can determine which is best.
|