Message-Id: <200907102049.12427.Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:49:00 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	tridge@...ba.org, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, john.lanza@...ux.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, corbet@....net,
	jcm@...masters.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

Am Freitag 10 Juli 2009 schrieb David Newall:
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag 09 Juli 2009 schrieb David Newall:
> >> What I don't understand is how anybody could be satisfied with the
> >> status quo. We cannot leave vfat unchanged, for that will perpetuate
> >> a pool of victims to be sued, and Linux loses credibility every time
> >> that happens. Something *must* change.
> >>
> >> What is especially attractive about Andrew's position (he said this
> >> more eloquently than me) is that developing a solution to avoid the
> >> patent will impact Microsoft revenues; and that will be most
> >> instructive to them. That's almost sufficient reason by itself!
> >
> > Pardon me, but I just don't get how adapting software to software
> > patents will contribute into solving the problems they cause.
>
> As Andrew said, if we work around a patent without losing function we
> destroy the economic value of that patent.  Nobody would pay licence
> fees for a patent if there was a good work around.  As patent holders
> attack us, we devalue their patents.  Eventually (probably quickly)
> they'll learn not to attack us.

To me your thoughts appear to be *within* the patent approach and *thus* 
implicitely saying "yes" software patents as such. Going this way I think 
actually strengthen patents. The FAT patents have not yet been tested. 
They might easily just be void and invalid.

But going the way you outline would be giving in to the patent claim 
*before* it has even been tried and tested for validity. And thus IMHO 
this strengthens the patent and it holder. If you change the upstream 
kernel Microsoft can always say: "Look Linux kernel developers think that 
the kernel infringed our patents." 

The linux kernel has not yet been proven to infringe any FAT patent. 
Microsoft claims that it does. But so did SCO claim that it contains 
source of UNIX that they said they have a license for. SCO could never 
prove that claim. The linux kernel community ignored SCO for exactly that 
reason. Why on Earth should it handle Microsoft differently?  Just due to 
its sheer size and weight in capital? The trial with TomTom just proves 
nothing right now.

> > Instead of
> > implementing a feature like long name + short name support straight
> > forwardly and simply one has to invent utterly complex, error prone
> > and ugly work-arounds that actually even limit the functionality.
> > Actually I do not envy Tridge for doing that job.
>
> It's not a given that working around a patent will result in something
> ugly, error-prone or complex, nor that it will limit function.  But it
> is true that we have to work around them.  We can't permit Linux to
> violate patents (nor can we permit a serious claim of such.)  That
> would cause no end of legal trouble, and would drive vendors away. 
> Since vfat violates Microsoft's patent, or at least they seriously
> claim it does, we have to do something.  We really have no choice.

Right now to me it seems that it is nowhere but clear that Linux violates 
valid patents about the inner workings of FAT. Currently any work to adapt 
the kernel to the FAT patents is based on the assumption that they might 
be valid, not on facts.

> > To me it seems that Microsoft has won if it can get Linux kernel
> > developers to cripple the upstream vanilla kernel in order to avoid
> > software patents.
>
> It's still not certain that we have to cripple Linux to work around the
> long filename patent.  Granted it looks sad, but Andrew is still
> working on it.  If it turns out that we do have to cripple Linux, well
> sometimes we win, sometimes we lose; but if don't at least try we
> always lose. When we work around a patent without losing function we
> win big, and Andrew said that has already happened for other patents.

I just relate to what is currently available. If Tridge posts a different 
patch things might be different. But right now this is just pure 
speculation. So I would like to stick to what is actually there. This 
patch.

> > Microsoft sued only TomTom regarding FAT patents upto now. Why? If
> > they acted like SCO they would have gone against IBM, big Linux
> > distributors like Novell and especially against several companies at
> > once. I think this might be cause that Microsoft just knows that
> > their software patent claim would break down if really tested. I do
> > think that Microsoft does not want those FAT patents to be tested in
> > court. Cause I think they know they would not stand a chance.
>
> I think you're right that Microsoft does not want their patent tested
> in court, but as they have more money than anyone, they could keep a
> patent case in court forever, costing both them and those they sue more
> and more money.  If the other party keeps fighting they stand a real
> chance of running out of money (and thus out of business); or they
> could settle, as Tom Tom did.

I think you omit that doing this would cost Microsoft really lots of 
reputation. I believe that Microsoft fears testing the patent in trial and 
having a long trial just as much if not more than the company it sues.

Would you buy a Unix or something else from SCO? I wouldn't. Would a 
company do it? I think only if forced to by compatibility constraints. Now 
SCO OpenServer or what it was called may be more replaceable than Windows, 
but Windows has become replaceable in more and more use cases as well.

If Microsoft would be serious about playing the bad guy they IMHO would 
pay a forbiddenly high price for it. Actually I believe this would impose 
a high, probably existential risk to Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft has lots of 
money. But the current economic crisis has shown how easily insane amounts 
of money can be disintegrated in no time. I do think that Microsoft is 
neither almighty nor immune to that.

And then they would also show even more clearly than ever the absurdities 
of the current software patent law in the USA. This would strengthen 
forces that work to revert that law. More politicians would see that the 
software patent law must be changed.

> > Accepting such a patch IMHO would help Microsoft to get away with
> > seeding fear, uncertainity and doubt and not having the software
> > patent tested and be made void. Actively adapting to software patents
> > gives them a place to be, gives those who support them your energy.
>
> This is wrong.  Doing nothing is what helps Microsoft.

I can't continue aguing on that basis. I just stated my oppinion. You say 
it is wrong. I can say your oppinion is wrong. But nothing gained by that. 
No need to continue to cycle this. My oppinion is my oppinion and yours is 
yours. And I don't buy your oppinion even when you present it as factual 
thing.

> > Actually I think just ignoring them would be better.
>
> This is also wrong.  Microsoft have sued Tom Tom, and they won't stop

Same here. Just:

> there.  They'll keep picking businesses to sue; and each time they do
> they'll win; and each time they win, Linux's reputation becomes
> tarnished.  Eventually the manufacturers that build on Linux will move
> to some other platform, which would be a disaster for us.

You seem to know more than me. Sure I can speculate about what Microsoft 
will be doing and I did. But I am pretty sure that I can not really *know* 
it. Your statements sounds bold enough to suggest that you have looked 
into a crystal orb of foresay. Did you?

I just point out to you: They didn't do anything else than suing TomTom 
just yet. Thats fact, unless I did not notice any other trials going on.

> > Shall Microsoft attack IBM or other big companies. Shall Microsoft
> > attack big Linux distributors. Shall they attack the upstream Linux
> > kernel
>
> IBM?  Of course they would, and then Microsoft and IBM would
> cross-licence their patents.  They've probably already done this.

You really think they would? Have they been already that successful at 
seeding fear, uncertainity and doubt? I bet that they would not dare to 
challenge IBM on such ridiculous patents.

> Big Linux distributors?  I don't see Red Hat or Novel fighting, should
> Microsoft sue.  They'd know the score, and either settle or remove the
> function.

Sure? What about indemnification assurances regarding SCO claims that 
AFAIK both Novell and RedHat offered to their customers? SCO is smaller 
than Microsoft, granted. But still, those patents, the whole software 
patent law in USA are ridiculous. Giving in to them would probably loose 
Novell and RedHat more than is gained by testing them and having them 
declared as invalid and void as they should be declared.

> The upstream kernel developers?  I don't know.  They would if they felt
> they needed to, but the truth is that they can do just as well by
> attacking manufacturers who build on Linux, such as Tom Tom.  How many
> more Tom Toms do you think it would take to drive manufacturers away
> from Linux?  I don't think the number is large.

Directly attacking upstream kernel developers IMHO would backfire even 
more than suing companies. Do you really think Microsoft can risk to loose 
that much reputation? Do you really think that Microsoft is ready to 
handle the response of the open-source community, big news sites, 
companies supporting open-source, lawyers supporting open-source? I think 
they aren't and I think they know that. And thus I think they would not 
dare to do it. Right know they only had a go at TomTom. To me this looks 
like the behavior of coward. Apart from I think Linux including all its 
surroundings isn't that weak that it needs to fear Microsoft. I think 
right know its more the other way around.

Granted, speculation, but IMHO a quite plausible one. Anyway I will end it 
here. And as I think there is not much more to be said without recycling 
arguments I will try to refrain from any comments on arguments that have 
already been rised.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists