Also, this is a terrible article. Only business dudes would support the worst option for the resolution of this dispute, settling behind an NDA so that Tom Tom can violate GPL and no one can know about it.
The only sane outcome is for FAT to be declared so mind numbingly mundane and obvious that it can't be patented.
I wrote a fat driver a while back for a 'replacement firmware' project. There really wasn't anything at all to it :/ Lookup table, directory entries, ummm... yeah that's pretty much all.
4 comments
[ 31.4 ms ] story [ 599 ms ] threadNot biased at all.
People like this piss me right off.
Additionally, it is unclear if the reason the article presents is actually valid (see http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/post/2009/03/12/Microsofts-vanis...).
I wrote a fat driver a while back for a 'replacement firmware' project. There really wasn't anything at all to it :/ Lookup table, directory entries, ummm... yeah that's pretty much all.