Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:23 AM EST

I do not think so. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:28 AM EST

Please place corrections to the article here. A summary in the title is nice. ---

"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"

"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"

"I'll put `maybe.'"

--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: esni on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:28 AM EST

My suggestion would be: 'would you please take a long walk on a short pier'



---

Eskild

Denmark





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:30 AM EST

Discuss Groklaw News Picks here. Please mention the title of the News Pick you're comment relates to. ---

"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"

"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"

"I'll put `maybe.'"

--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:33 AM EST

Place off topic comments here. Please break up long lines such as URL's posted to the text. NOTE: The RSS feed is down. ---

"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"

"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"

"I'll put `maybe.'"

--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:50 AM EST

I think the case actually could be made that this is a

patent of a valid type, as it does meet the transformative

requirement of a software patent (specifically it makes a

file or directory normally only accessible by 32 bit

systems also accessible by 16 bit ones.)



However, I think Microsoft is going to lose this claim for

a completely different reason: prior art. Now, my old

Macintosh is not running, but when you used it to format PC

floppy disks, it was capable of doing it in a way that

allowed the Mac to see the original Macintosh file names

and resource fork, and provided an 8 and 3 stub name to a

PC.



They released this in 1992.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Exchange/

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 08:05 AM EST

One of the patents, the "Method and system for generating driving directions" is described at



www.google .com/patents?id=Xzt4AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,054,745.



That patent sounds very basic, an algorithm which tells a driver where to drive:



A method and system for generating driving directions composes computer-based instructions that emulate a human driving perspective. Language-based instructions guide a driver along a route that encompasses a sequence of roads and intersections. An algorithm applies rules based on human perception to route components. The algorithm diagnoses road name changes so that instructions are clear and concise. The algorithm analyzes road and intersection geometry at confusing areas, such as road forks, roundabouts, ferry crossings, cloverleaf interchanges, and ramps, to generate instructions that conform to a driver's natural perspective. The algorithm analyzes the configuration of an intersection with respect to a driver's field of view to compose a clear and concise instruction. When appropriate, the algorithm produces compound instructions for adjacent intersections.



I don't know how relevant prior art may be or if the example below is that. Anyhow, the service Map24 has been online for more than eight years, i.e. three years prior to the Microsoft filing date



Patent number: 7054745

Filing date: Sep 3, 2003

Issue date: May 30, 2006



There are numerous versions of the Map24 webpage at:



web.archive.org/web/*/ http://www.map24.com/.



The oldest is from 19 June 2000:



web.archiv e.org/web/20000925063213/www.map24.com/map24/



and contains the following German text:



© 1999-2000 NETSOLUT GmbH - powered by MapTP

Digitales Kartenmaterial von Tele Atlas B.V.

Die Nutzung der Kartendaten unterliegt Lizenzbedingungen.

Kontakt: info@map24.com

MapTP is developed by Navteq and can be read about here.

< br> I cannot claim I know the difference between MapTP or Microsofts patent, but on a first look the patent seems predated by at least three years by Map24 and/or MapTP.







---

______

IMANAL





. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: NibbleAbit on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 08:13 AM EST

Microsoft is not interested in acting legally or illegally. They are just

interested in dominating the market.



If you look at their past pattern from the '80s on, they run a fowl of the law,

get sued and frequently loose the legal case. But by the time the courts have

finished, who cares about loosing the legal battle. The competition has

effectively withered and died.



Now a slight twist. Base your product on Linux and get sued by Microsoft for

patten infringement. They don't care if they win. By the time the courts have

finished, your business is gone. Do this enough times, and new products are

very unlikely to be based on Linux. No one wants to risk being sued for patten

infringement.



So what if a few pattens get invalidated. They have lots. They can sue 10

companies per month for many years and still not run out of pattens, although I

suspect they will only start actions against a few a year. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nola on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:07 AM EST

Microsoft has been known in the past to have smart lawyers. I'm less sure about

management's willingness to listen, but that's another issue.



I don't have the background to make an informed opinion on the merits of the

claims here. My suspicion is that MS has chosen what they think may be a strong

case with the intention of limiting the damage done by Bilski. I don't see this

a a prime case in itself but as a means to shore up other patents in the

portfolio [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ka1axy on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:12 AM EST

It's surprising to me that MS was able to patent the concept of installing a

computer into the dashboard of a car, and networking it to other car systems.

Perhaps the particular *application* is novel, but the concept of distributed

computing was well known at the time (1999), as was embedded computing (since

other processors in the car are mentioned in the patent).



The patent for a wireless connected car computer in 1999 is also surprising.

Since it's pretty clear that the wireless connectivity they were talking about

is an add-on, and since wireless cards for PCs were generally available at the

time, how does combining a PC (installed in a car) and a wireless interface

become "novel and not obvious"?



Aren't these patents too obvious? Except for the cost involved, it would have

been easy to disassemble a laptop and remount it in a car in 1999. The only

other novel idea was running all the car systems off the same computer...again,

the issue that kept people from doing that was not that they didn't think of

it,. the processors and operating systems at the time weren't up to the task

(but they're patenting the *idea* of a car computer, not its actual design)...



...and, saving the best for last: the patent actually suggests (the real-time

version of?) Win95 or WinNT as the OS to run the whole show; security, audio,

speed control, climate control, etc. Maybe NT could have handled it on a 500

MHz P3, but I shudder to think about using Win95 and getting a blue screen when

I try to shut off cruise control! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:14 AM EST

Well, I'd like to share references to VFAT (FAT32) in the Linux kernel. First, about naming conventions: It seems to me that what is called FAT32 in the DOS/Windows world is called VFAT in the Linux world. I believe there is a slight technical difference that does not matter in practice. FAT32 technically describes the size of the FS, and VFAT describes the 'virtual' long file naming capability. In practice both capabilities are assumed whether one says 'VFAT' or 'FAT32'. (I hope and expect others to correct this post where I'm incorrect and to expand on it.) In the 2.6.26 kernel (current in Debian Sid/Unstable), the VFAT in Linux is documented at /usr/ src/ linux/ Documentation/ filesystems/ vfat.txt The document can be found online for example at vfat.txt. If I'm understanding my research correctly, the source code to VFAT has been moved in the kernel tree very recently in the 2.6.28 kernel. It was at linux/fs/vfat/namei.c (under /usr/src) prior to November 2008, now it is at linux/fs/fat/namei_vfat.c. The file can be seen as a patch (because the whole file was removed from one place an added to another) at namei_vfat.c. Note that much of Linux is documented in the source code, and that is why I post this. For those unaware comments in C source start with /* and end with */. In particular, this comment is in the source (from 2.6.26) (e-mail addresses redacted by me): /*

* linux/fs/vfat/namei.c

*

* Written 1992,1993 by Werner Almesberger

*

* Windows95/Windows NT compatible extended MSDOS filesystem

* by Gordon Chaffee Copyright (C) 1995. Send bug reports for the

* VFAT filesystem to [redacted]. Specify

* what file operation caused you trouble and if you can duplicate

* the problem, send a script that demonstrates it.

*

* Short name translation 1999, 2001 by Wolfram Pienkoss [redacted]

*

* Support Multibyte characters and cleanup by

* OGAWA Hirofumi [redacted]

*/

Linux' "DOS FAT" support is implemented as a module stack, that I know of these modules are involved: vfat, fat, msdos, nls_base, nls_utf8, nls_cp437 and probably nls_* (everything nls). Note NLS is just a naming system, it stands for National (or Native) Language Support. In my experience, vfat is not compiled into the kernel but instead as a kernel module. The reason for this as I understand it, is that it is not native to Linux and not needed early in the typical boot. I think this might be different in embedded systems; they are not my specialty though. Note that the source code file for VFAT (namei.c in kernel 2.6.26) is just 24,341 bytes long. The actual vfat module occupies 14,976 bytes of memory in Debian Sid kernel 2.6.26-1-amd64 and 13,377 bytes of memory in Fedora 8 kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8. This is a very tiny amount of code, in my opinion. I also noted that Debian seems to load the vfat module by default, making it part of their typical default install. Not sure about Fedora though, it was loaded when I checked, but I've been messing with SD cards and USB sticks on that system, so it may have gotten loaded then. ---

"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"

"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"

"I'll put `maybe.'"

--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:17 AM EST

Just a quick look through and about the only one I can't think of prior art or

obviousness for might be claim 8. I have not dug in to the exact patents but the

names all cover obvious old ideas, as 70s, 80s old. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:21 AM EST

The patent "7,117,286: Portable Computing Device-integrated Appliance is described at:



www.google .com/patents?id=K_N6AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,117,286



and reads:



In accordance with one aspect, a portable computing device determines a type of an appliance in which the portable computing device is docked. The portable computing device identifies, based on the type of the appliance, a user interface configuration for the portable computing device, and configures the user interface of the portable computing device in accordance with the identified user interface configuration. In accordance with another aspect, a car stereo includes a docking station into which an off-the-shelf handheld computer can be docked. The car stereo also includes an input/output (I/O) component that allows the car stereo to communicate with the handheld computer when the handheld computer is docked in the docking station of the car stereo. In accordance with another aspect, an appliance in which a portable computing device can be docked is an integrated vehicle stereo and portable computing device docking station.



As I interpret it, it is about a changing GUI interface when you move the display from one gadget to another.



Patent number: 7117286

Filing date: Oct 11, 2005

Issue date: Oct 3, 2006





I am not sure if prior art applies here, but to me it sounds very much like the FlukeView interface which changes depending on gadget connected.



FlukeView is developed by Fluke and is an adaptable GUI for multimeter tools. The FlueView has been around since 1999, according to



us.fluke.com/usen/produc ts/FVFHistory.htm



If I understood it correctly, the FlukeView is used on a portable computing device, e.g. a laptop, together with a multimeter. Here are some features:



Expand the power of the world's most rugged, accurate handheld test tools with FlukeView® Forms Documenting Software.



To address the increasing demands for reporting and documentation, Fluke presents FlukeView Forms documenting software. FlukeView Forms increases the power of your Fluke tool by enabling you to document, store and analyze individual readings or series of measurements, then convert them into professional-looking documents.



Several versions of the product are available, depending upon the type of cable needed to download data from your instrument and depending upon the data reporting capability you need. FlukeView Forms offers two levels of capability: FlukeView Forms Basic, and FlukeView Forms plus Designer. FlukeView Forms Basic can be used alone to download measurement data and create reports that can be saved and printed. FlukeView Forms plus Designer allows a user to edit an existing form or create a new form to customize the report to individual needs. A common edit might add a company logo and title. See the [Features] tab on this page for more information.



Capability Comparison



Capabilities FlukeView® Forms Basic FlukeView® Forms plus Designer



Transfer data points from your meter to your PC X X

Number of standard forms 2 9

Able to modify standard forms No Yes

Includes FlukeView® Forms Designer for customizing forms No Yes

Number of multiple meters whose data can be viewed simultaneously 1 8

Number of concurrently running instances of FlukeView Forms allowed 1 4

Ability to change company name on report No Yes

Supports multi-page forms No Yes



FlukeView Forms supports the following test tools:



* Fluke 1550B MegOhmMeter

* Fluke 1653 / 1653B Electrical Installation Tester

* Fluke 180 series

* Fluke 287 and 289

* Fluke 45

* Fluke 53-II and 54-II

* Fluke 568 IR Thermometer

* Fluke 789 ProcessMeter

* Fluke 8808A

* Fluke 8845A/8846A

* Fluke 89-IV and 87-IV

* Fluke 975 AirMeter Test Tool

* Fluke 983 Particle Counter



The ability of FlukeView Forms to support multiple instruments enables the user to install and learn only one software application in order to use these multiple tools fully.



Here are some dates from that history page:



Revision 3.0 January 2005

- Added support for the 1550B

- Added new product - FlukeView® Forms Basic for use with 180 Series, 789 and 1550B

- Up to six traces of meter data can be displayed on a single graph

- Improved usability and many new features in FlukeView® Forms Designer

- Added the ability to annotate forms with 'sticky notes', to better explain anomalies

- Added the FlukeView Forms® Demo/Reader tool, a free download that allows co-workers or clients to open, view and interact with your FlukeView® Forms files



Release 2.2 February 2004

- Added support for Fluke 1653 (see also add-ons & updates)

- Possibility to use localized forms for Germany (ZVEH), Austria (ÖVE) and Switzerland Electrosuisse, gem. NIV)

(see Home ► Quick Link ► Add-ons & update)

Release 2.1 May 2003 - Forms and data can now be copied between FlukeView Forms databases: Databases can now be easily managed so that they contain only the data you want them to.

- The Fluke 789 ProcessMeter is now supported.

- Display Readings tables can be customized in FlukeView® Forms Designer: The order of the columns and the number of readings displayed per row can be changed, and custom user annotation columns can also be added.



Release 2.0 February 2002

- Display data from more than one meter on a single form

- Added Fluke 45 support

- Improved graphics and printing functions



Release 1.6 April 2001

- Localized for German, French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Simplified Chinese



Release 1.5 December 2000

- Added support for the Fluke 180 series DMMs

(183,185,187,189) and Fluke 87-IV DMM

- Improved, more powerful interactive logging

- Faster -- database operations optimized for greater speed

- Extensive documentation added



Pre-1.5 releases 1999

- Initial release of FlukeView Forms; supports the Fluke 89-IV DMM and 53/54 Thermometers

- Localized FlukeView Forms for the 53/54-II V1.0 for German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Japanese











Well, to me FlukeView is very much what the patent describes, and, FlukeView is prior art, if that applies here.











.



---

______

IMANAL





. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM EST

This line from the ITC complaint sounds so familiar. 15. Microsoft's continued success depends largely on its ability to establisch, maintain,

and protecht uts proprietary technology through, inter alia, enforcement of its patent rights. As we all know 99% of microsofts patents are on software,

looks and feel written down as business practices and hot air. So after Bilski we can read this line as: 15. Microsoft's can not continue its success because it depends largely on its ability to establisch, maintain,

and protecht its proprietary technology through, inter alia, enforcement of its patent rights. An other company in a death roll.

/Arthur [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 11:31 AM EST

I'm just baffled on both sides.



Why would Microsoft want to risk losing this over Bilski?



Why wouldn't TomTom just pay up like everybody else does? It's cheap money -

extortion, sure, but cheap. Why fight?



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: CraigAgain on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 11:49 AM EST

Okay, PJ's back now. (M$ screwed up; they shouldn't have ticked her off.)



---

Don't change your dreams to fit reality. Change reality to fit your dreams. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 03:31 PM EST

linux umsdos also did long to short filename mapping.

It was in the Linux kernel from 1992 to 2008.

Also Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS did this in 1989 (and perhaps in earlier

versions).

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 05:00 PM EST

Patent 6,704,032: Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input Mechanisms can be read at:



www.google .com/patents?id=zb0QAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,704,032



and reads:



Improved methods and arrangements provide user interface platforms that are capable of meeting the unique requirements of manufacturers, while also advantageously supporting the development of independently designed software applications. In accordance with certain aspects of the present invention, methods and arrangements are provided whereby certain key events are defined and operatively associated with the hardware suite. These key events, which are essentially virtual events, can be invoked or otherwise implemented by the manufacturers and independent software vendor (ISV) applications. These key events are categorized as being either determinate events or indeterminate events, and their functionality can be based on different behavior models. The behavior models consider the notion that the user interface will most likely include various focusing (e.g., function selection) and/or editing (e.g., parameter modifying) capabilities. As such, the methods and arrangements can...



As I interpret that patent, it is in part about how to simulate "real buttons" with "virtual buttons" yet controlled by "real buttons". Some basic facts of the patent are:



Filing date: Oct 27, 2000

Issue date: Mar 9, 2004



One group of software which commonly simulate various types of buttons is music programs. Here one can mention CakeWalk as example, as it has been around for a long time:



web.archive.org/web/*/www.c akewalk.com



where the oldest version is from 1996.



Cubase is another program which use a zillion virtual buttons and developed by Steinberg:



http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.steinberg.net



At first sight, I think both these programs are prior art regarding the patent described above.











---

______

IMANAL





. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 06:29 PM EST



Haven't seen this angle discussed yet, the ITC aspect of it.



My feeling is -- go ahead, Microsoft, go after not just U.S. firms

but the rest of the world. Quickest way to get foreign countries

to renounce U.S. patent laws. The fruit of U.S. Patent Office

stupidity and the U.S. Bonus Culture.



In an economy like this. Brilliant.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 07:27 PM EST

I get the impression from the article by By Erika Morphy that the attack is from a slightly different angle. Take a couple of quotes: Microsoft is seeking "to obtain an exclusionary order barring the importation of TomTom devices at our border," he said. Microsoft's Gutierrez, for his part, has told reporters that the filings are not targeting Linux technology per se, but rather the manner in which TomTom has used it. Considering the Bilkski decision has a requirement to have a patent "tied to a particular device", it seems to me, the focus of MS' target is not Linux (although I'm sure they'd love to target that), but the TomTom device itself. I wonder if MS would have even bothered if TomTom created the device, modified an appropriate version (or simply put together the correct packages) and made it available for download. In short: Instead of TomTom creating the device and importing it into the US with all the software installed! They: Created the device importing it into the US without software. Then the software was added in the US by the customer. MS wouldn't be able to target the device anymore, they'd have to target Linux directly. Second hunch: it's the combination of software on the device Microsoft doesn't like. Whether it's the combination or specific software, Microsoft seems to be directly targeting the device to indirectly target Linux. I wonder if TomTom can use the fact that MS' patents are not actually attached to a device to have themselves declared safe. Either way, with the angle of the attack being trade, it doesn't appear TomTom has that much time unless they can get a Judge to have anything else put on hold while s/he makes a ruling on the validity of the Microsoft patents. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 08:43 PM EST

Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity... A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking, operating system. Since when has Microsoft ever had an "open platform" of any kind. In my opinion those words are custom tailored for Linux. Why would they ever say "open" when dealing with a profit motivation with a proprietary software operating system as their core business model? I don't know a whole lot about the patent business but I notice a little "B1" right after the patent number, which I might suspect is some kind of revision number. What are the odds that the word "open" was added in the last revision? ---

DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]



Patent 6202008 vs M$ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:33 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:59 PM EST

I'm sure that M$ weighed the issue of Bliski when this complaint was filed. I

personally think that this is the first many nuisance suits that M$ will file

against Linux and Open Source applications. Though, the M$ complaint will

provide some FUD value it also provides a distraction from other M$ more

immediate plans to roll out Win7 and Silverlight.



What a coincidence that the timing is mere hours after M$'s announcement to

provide computer training - using the M$ Silverlight web presentation algorithm

- to federal and several state governments. Ah, state sanctioned support of a

proprietary non-standard web presentation algorithm, what a sweet plum that

would be.





stage_v

[ Reply to This | # ]



They thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 05:00 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 01:53 AM EST

Again, with working link.... (sorry, but the comment editor is not really good) It might have been posted already, but even then, one can not mention it too often: MS' claims with regard to FAT are a toothless tiger at least here in Europe as they already fell flat on their stomach when they tried to intimidate German competitors with this. Here is a more detailed explanation that might be convenient for American lawyers, and the full text of the verdict. Please spread this to other places as this might be helpful in this and the other cases that will follow and might convince als American judges outside Texas... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Winter on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 04:49 AM EST

From the Heise link: Federal Patent Court declares FAT patent of Microsoft null and void Since December 2003 the software heavyweight has been offering FAT file system licenses, which range in price from 25 US cents per unit to a maximum one-off payment of 250,000 US dollars per manufacturer/vendor. By purchasing the license the licensees acquire permission to format storage media such as flash memory systems with the file system and apply the protected technology. This patent must be a real cash cow! This means that MS controls much of the Flash memory market as every producer of a controller active in the USA must get an MS license. A license that could, eg, have conditions to harm competitors. Rob ---

Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 06:20 AM EST

These are the claims from the 5,579,517 Microsoft long file name patent, which

is only 1 of 8 patents involved in the TomTom suit. Most of the others are

related to computers in cars.



As you can plainly see, the claims are tightly tied to a machine.



Accordingly, they clearly meet the requirements of the MACHINE OR Transformation

test decreed in Bilski.



If you look at enough Microsoft claims, you'll soon see that they are all tied

to machine. It's as if they have been anticipating Bilski for 20 years....





1. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a

memory means storing the operating system, a method comprising the

computer-implemented steps of:



(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein

the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short

filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by

the operating system;

(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for a the file

wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file and

wherein the second directory entry includes an attributes field which may be set

to make the second directory entry invisible to the operating system and the

step of storing the second directory entry further comprises the step of setting

the attributes field so that the second directory entry is invisible to the

operating system, said long filename including more than the maximum number of

characters that is permissible by the operating system; and

(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system.



2. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a

memory means storing the operating system, a method, comprising the

computer-implemented steps of:



(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein

the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short

filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by

the operating system;

(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for the file

wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file and

storing a checksum of the short filename in the second directory entry, said

long filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is

permissible by the operating system; and

(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system.



3. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a

memory means storing the operating system, a method, comprising the

computer-implemented steps of:



(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein

the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short

filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by

the operating system;

(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for the file

wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file, said long

filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is

permissible by the operating system;

(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system;

(d) storing in the memory means at least one additional directory entry

holding a next portion of the long filename and a checksum of the short

filename.



4. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a

memory means storing the operating system, a method, comprising the

computer-implemented steps of:



(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein

the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short

filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by

the operating system;

(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for the file

wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file, said long

filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is

permissible by the operating system;

(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system;

(d) storing in the memory means at least one additional directory entry

holding a next portion of the long filename and a signature that uniquely

identifies which portion of the long filename. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 06:38 AM EST

The US patent "6,202,008 - Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity" is described at:



www.google .com/patents?id=crt7AAAAEBAJ&dq=6,202,008



and is summarized as:



A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.) and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word processing, etc.). The computer system has an Internet wireless link to provide access to the Internet. One or more of the applications may utilize the link to access content on the Internet.



some facts about the patent:



Patent number: 6202008

Filing date: Sep 10, 1999

Issue date: Mar 13, 2001



There are many prophets in the world, and the submitters are not necessarily among them. But George Gilder may be one of them. The quote below is from a web page at:



www.seas.upenn.edu/~gaj1/in ventgg.html



and titled "INVENTING THE INTERNET AGAIN".



The page is described as follows:



This series of articles by George Gilder provides some interesting technological and cultural background that helps prepare readers to better understand and place in proper perspective the events relative to the National Data Super Highway, which are unfolding almost daily in the national press. I contacted the author and Forbes and as the preface below indicates obtained permission to post on the Internet. Please note that the preface to this article and all footnotes must be included when cross posting or uploading this article.



The following article, INVENTING THE INTERNET AGAIN, was first published in Forbes ASAP, June 2, 1997. It is a portion of George Gilder's book, Telecosm, which will be published in 1997 by Simon & Schuster, as a sequel to Microcosm, published in 1989 and Life After Television published by Norton in 1992. Subsequent chapters of Telecosm will be serialized in Forbes ASAP.



According to Web-Counter, this article has been accessed times since June 23,1997.







While I haven't seen the book Telecosm, the web page itself predates any filing dates of the patent.



And, what I find most interesting is a paragraph in the middle of the article, where I have underlined the most intriguing part in an excerpt:



Going over the cliff of costs, the industry can introduce radically new products. We have just undergone the epoch of the personal computer, climaxing in 1996 with PCs outselling TVs in units for the first time. We are now entering a new era when a new form of PC will be dominant. It may not do Windows, but it will do doors. Tetherlessly transcending most of the limitations of the current PC era, the most common PC will be a digital cellular phone.



It will be a dataphone, as faithful readers of these pages will know. It will be as portable as your watch and as personal as your wallet. It will recognize speech and convert it to text. It will plug into a slot in your car and help you navigate streets. It will consult electronic yellow pages and give directions to the nearest gas station, restaurant, police headquarters, or hotel. It will collect your news and your mail and, if you wish, it will read them to you. It will conduct transactions and load credit into a credit chip on a smart card, which can be used like cash. It can pay your taxes, or help you avoid them, or soothe you with soft music as you do your calculus homework. It will take digital pictures and project them onto a wall or screen, or dispatch them to any other dataphone or computer. It will have an Internet address and a Java run-time engine that allows it to execute any applet or program written in that increasingly universal language. Or it will dock in a more powerful machine to perform more demanding functions. It will link to any compatible display, monitor, keyboard, storage device, or other peripheral through infrared pulses or radio frequencies.



And, oh yes, it will unlock your front door or car door, open your garage door, or even play Jim Morrison songs, if you are old enough to care for those swinging Doors of the 1960s (amazingly enough, my teenage daughters do).



Sorry, though, Nokia, your model 9000, which comes closest today to this new machine, will not cut it, at least in the United States, because it is based on Europe's increasingly obsolescent GSM standard. Also offering the right form factor but the wrong access standard is the IBM- BellSouth Simon, which is based on the U.S. analog cellular system (AMPS) or CDPD (cellular digital packet data). The most common PC will not be a GSM or CDPD device, because it will soon need to provide bandwidth on demand while draining the lowest possible power, whenever it is not plugged in. Thus the first PC of the new paradigm will probably have to be CDMA, built from the bottom up to provide bandwidth on demand, according to TCP/IP Internet standards, at a handful of milliwatts of communications power.







While I haven't yet read all of it, I think this as close to a blueprint you can come. And, above all, it predates the filing of the patent with at least two years.



There are numerous versions of the webpage as listed by www.archive.org. The oldest archived is from 31 July 1997.







---

______

IMANAL





. [ Reply to This | # ]



Telecosm - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 06:52 AM EST

Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 10:04 AM EST

Just an idea.



Before I start, I don't have a TomTom or Garmin (although I have used/borrowed one) so take this with a pinch of salt.



Why not format the flash as EXT2?



I have done this myself (for embedded applications) as this gets around the stupid 2GB limit of FAT32.



This would allow TomTom to get around the need to use FAT32 within their own code. They would (of course) have to provide a little utility for reading/writing EXT2/3 to/from FLASH under Windows but with code like EXT2IFS and Explore2FS around, it cannot be that hard (and I have written Windows device drivers in the past).



Having done that, they can concentrate on defeating Microsoft without having to worry about being taken to court over FAT32 (which I view as viral MS technology much as the NTFS-3G driver and Mono/.NET is).



Having said all that, hopefully this stupidity should be thrown out with reference to the Bilski case and Microsoft exposed as the toothless 'patent bully' that they appear to be.



---

Open Source Software - Unpicking the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece. [ Reply to This | # ]



Sidestep Microsoft THEN fight them - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 10:43 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 11:23 AM EST

I think it is pretty simple...Microsoft want to have the patents against Linux

have a piggyback ride so that patents, that on themselves are doomed to not

stand post-Bliski world, will get more FUD value if TomTom is forced to pay for

Microsoft IP.



If they are successful I think we will see many more patent suits when Microsoft

add some Linux related patents to patents they think can be enforced. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 07:32 PM EST

NOT a software method, they actually have just about NOTHING to do with each

other.



To say they are even close to the same thing shows how little you know about

what you're talking about.



About what i would expect from PARAlegal or ex-para.



Learn the law and what your talking about.



SO when are you going after the FSF for taking Cisco to court regarding

COPYRIGHT LAW ???



Groklaw is a joke, paralegals are secretaries NOT lawyers. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 11:41 PM EST

Bilski or not, the lesson of the VFAT patents is that it's perfectly legal to

file for a patent of an ugly kludge. Unix implemented long file names right,

while MS copied CP/M, which in turn had copied other older file systems. They

had to patch it to accept long file names without breaking compatibility. I

sympathize with the poor souls who were assigned to make that work! Wasting

multiple directory entries to emulate a long file name in an 8.3 file-name

system is nothing I'd want my name associated with for all posterity to see. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 08:54 AM EST

Microsoft publicly claims that their disagreement with Tom Tom is not about

Linux.



Had that been true, they would never have included patents against Linux in

their complaint.



There are two issues here. Did Tom Tom illegally use one of Microsoft's

non-Linux related patents? If Tom Tom loses, will Microsoft claim they have won

a Linux related patent trial? Maybe not in public, but you can be sure they

will use it in their marketing strategy.



My conclusion: We should do everything we possibly can to make sure Tom Tom

doesn't suffer because of Microsoft bully tactics. So every patent they are

claiming in this case should be re-examined and if possible declared invalid!



Disclaimer. I own a Tom Tom, and like it, except I wish it would quit trying to

find a route from here in the states to the hotel we stayed at when we visited

Maui. Maybe I just need to remove those favorites. But they have fond

memories.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 09:25 AM EST

after you get past the commercials this video talks about challenges TomTom has been experiencing. Perhaps Microsoft is looking to go after what TomTom would loose if they cause the company to loose value hence loose investments. click here for video [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 03:47 PM EST

Dear Mr. Ballmer,



It was with some surprise that I learned that your company has filed a lawsuit

against TomTom, alleging, among other things, that TomTom is in violation of

certain of your patents by making use of functionality in the Linux operating

system necessary to interoperate with the Microsoft (MS) Windows operating

system. As you are undoubtedly aware, Linux is licensed in a way such that

either ALL users are able to benefit from it or NONE. If you believe that

TomTom's use of Linux in this fashion infringes your patents, then ALL,

including myself, would also be liable for infringement.



You are certainly entitled to protect your Intellectual Property rights and ask

for relief if you believe they are being infringed by Linux. In fact, in order

to make sure that your rights are protected, I have taken steps to eliminate ANY

need to interoperate between my Linux and MS Windows systems. I have deleted

ALL copies of MS Windows from ALL of my computers. You need not be concerned

about having to seek relief here. In the future I will avoid the use of ANY and

ALL of your company's products, and, insofar as I am empowered, will ensure that

no purchases over which I have authority involve ANY of your company's products.

In such a way I believe that ALL of your company's Intellectual Property rights

will be maximally protected. Your shareholders should be pleased.



It is disappointing to see that a great company such as yours has decided to

compete with Linux in the Courtroom rather than in the Marketplace, pursuing a

direction dictated by CFOs and Legal Counsel rather than Chief Executives with

vision and imagination. However, that is your choice.



Oh yes, The SCO Group, another company that decided to pursue Linux over alleged

infringement of its Intellectual Property rights, is now listed on the epiq.com

website. Under Bankruptcy, Chapter 11.



Best regards,



Former Microsoft Customer



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Letter is now in the US mail. My last Windows partition has been reformatted as

ext2.

[ Reply to This | # ]



My nastygram - going out tomorrow - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 06:11 AM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 02 2009 @ 06:02 AM EST

Groklaw said:

Sorry, creation of new accounts has been temporarily disabled



Me:

Hi I'm Boaz Harrosh.



This is Karma laws: On the technical side TomTom deserves what they have coming

for them, using vfat, why the hell for?

Yes I know all about the conect-as-USB-slave thing, that is not an excuse.



But TomTom, you'll get to redeem your bad Karma and come out on top, by holding

out this litigation, if you hold out you'll win for sure. (Karma laws again)



Free Life

Boaz

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 05:42 PM EST