-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 El 2009-03-07 a las 14:43 +0100, Camaleón escribió:
El 2009-03-07 a las 11:12 -0200, Juan Erbes escribió:
En muchas empresas, los desarrolladores suelen no llevarse bien con los de asuntos legales de la misma companía, y al dueño, no le importa de como están hechas las cosas (porque probablemente no lo van aentender), sino de su resultado económico.
Los desarrolladores de Tom-Tom no tienen nin voz ni voto. Esto no es un problema de ellos sino de su jefazos y de su departamento legal.
Así es. Al dueño si le importa, porque en ello le va el resultado económico: a la vista está. Y para ganar un pleito por patentes hace falta un montón de pasta, que ahora mismo tom-tom no tiene.
En Alemania, fue rechazada en el 2007: http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86141
Y en ese último enlace, lo confirman:
Otro enlace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT_licensing On 2003-12-03 Microsoft announced it would be offering licenses for use of its FAT specification and "associated intellectual property", at the cost of a US$0.25 royalty per unit sold, with a $250,000 maximum royalty per license agreement.[33] To this end, Microsoft cited four patents on the FAT file system as the basis of its intellectual property claims. All four pertain to long-filename extensions to FAT first seen in Windows 95: O sea, si te limitas a usar nombres cortos, no tienes problemas legales. Many technical commentators have concluded that these patents only cover FAT implementations that include support for long filenames, and that removable solid state media and consumer devices only using short names would be unaffected. Esto es curioso: Additionally, in the document "Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT 32 File System Specification, FAT: General Overview of On-Disk Format" published by Microsoft (version 1.03, 2000-12-06), Microsoft specifically grants a number of rights, which many readers have interpreted as permitting operating system vendors to implement FAT. Y hay otros que tienen patentes sobre FAT: U.S. Patent 5,367,671 - System for accessing extended object attribute (EA) data through file name or EA handle linkages in path tables. Filed on 1990-09-25 by Barry A. Feigenbaum and Felix Miro of IBM, this makes claims on the methods used by OS/2, Windows NT, and Linux for storing extended attribute data in the "EA DATA. SF" file. MS ganó el pleito sobre sus patentes: Finally, on 2006-01-10 the Patent Office ruled that features of Microsoft's implementation of the FAT system were "novel and non-obvious", reversing both earlier non-final decisions.[39] Y sobre lo de tom-tom: Patent infringement lawsuit In February 2009, Microsoft filed a patent infringement lawsuit against TomTom alleging that the device maker's products infringe on patents related to FAT32 filesystem. As some TomTom products are based on Linux, this marked the first time that Microsoft tried to enforce its patents against the Linux platform.[40]. According to Open-Source evangelist Jeremy Allison, other vendors which used Linux and FAT32 where not sued by Microsoft because of secret cross-licensing agreements, covered by NDAs[41], whereas such secret clauses are forbid by the GPL license[42].
Si Tom-Tom se salta a la torera las leyes no puede sino esperar a que vengan los abogados de MS a llevarles a la palestra. Es de cajón.
Exacto. Podría haberse limitado a vender en Europa, donde la patente no aplica (que yo sepa). Pero en el momento en que vende en USA, está expuesto. - -- Saludos Carlos E.R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmyhNkACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VLzwCgitDkrxLJZ6l+iFMdegCHnWuI msgAn39n8j5T82JqcXJgQR5QXeZZ6yvg =rqjE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----