M$ to license FAT

[Henry Spencer]

On 8 Dec 2003, Tim Writer wrote:
> IANAL but, as I understand it, damages in a pattern infringement case are
> usually awarded on the basis of lost profit, i.e. the profit M$ would have
> made if it weren't for the infringement.  Linux users who want access to
> their FAT files (from within Linux) aren't about to purchase an M$ product
> (or licensed product) since there's no product available with the
> required functionality...

Microsoft would undoubtedly claim that if access to FAT files was
important and only Microsoft could do it, those people would be running
Microsoft operating systems instead of Linux.  That may or may not be
exactly true, but it *is* true that the more things there are that Linux
can't do, the less practical a system it is for people who need to get
things done, and the more people are driven into the welcoming arms of
Microsoft.  This does provide a plausible argument that there are real
monetary damages being suffered. 

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg at public.gmane.org

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml