> (it's not clear that the license applies to floppies.  Or
> PIC-like dataloggers. The article specifically mentions SOLID STATE
> media and CONSUMER electronics devices.)
>
> This is typical microsoft bogosity, comparable to the recent
> unix nastiness from SCO.
>
> legally, I think they're on awfully shaky ground, having permitted
> unlicensed use of FAT for many years now, without making much (any?)
> noise.  If you want to claim you own IP, you have to make visible
> efforts to protect it.
>
> (And I'd think the long filename stuff would be covered by prior
> art in EUNICE (a unix environment for VMS from SRI, circa 1982.)
> It's not quite the same, but it was awfully similar...)

        I agree. FAT has been used far to long without any question for this sort
of thing to hold up in court. I don't think it will stand up to the first
challenge, whoever that may be. TTYL

----------------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.