From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier Galibert Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:06:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20090504170636.GA56325@dspnet.fr.eu.org> References: <20090504124129.GL7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504124433.GW8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504130638.GN7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504132119.GX8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504143919.GA6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504150834.GZ8822@parisc-linux.org> <1241451391.20170.12.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <1241453259.20170.17.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: linux-fsdevel , LKML Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:30:20AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > When all of the pieces are public how can having secret veiled reasons > make sense? Because knowingly violating a patent triples the damages, among other things. There's a persistent rumor that a valid microsoft US software patent exists that covers the standard method of handling long file names on FAT filesystems. It seems that such a patent is used by microsoft in litigations, the latest being against tomtom. I think all of these litigations have been settled, but I can easily be wrong. I have no idea whether such a patent actually exists, and even knowing the reference (I don't) I am not competent to judge what it covers or whether it would actually hold up in court. But knowingly violating a patent is consider way worse in US courts than simple independant recreation. So I guess the knowingly part is what the "you need a local lawyer" crowd tries to avoid. OG.