Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Charge for FAT File System
pario writes "According to Microsoft, the Redmond company is going to charge a license fee for any product that is formatted in FAT by the manufacturer. Any manufacturer of compact flash memory cards or digital cameras may end up paying Microsoft as much as $250,000 for the use of the file format. The FAT File System is covered by several US patents."
Failure to litigate...
heh...
no seriously, FAT was convenient and fairly standard.. all microsoft is going to do is drive manufacturers to other (hopefully free software) schemes.... That's when we all win! THANKS MICROSOFT!
If they charge people, then they have to support it.
I'll bring them my broken SD-card directories so that they fix their bugs.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The point why I think such a scheme is totally fucked and dishonest is not the fact that such patents exist, but because of the following business model:
1. Create valuable idea
2. Wait until it's a defacto standard 3. PROFIT !!! (no ??? required)It looks more and more like RMS is a true visionary.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
This will probably make MS a little money, until the embedded industry moves en masse to a free file format. If they do, the file formats for PDA's et al move away from MS's (FAT) standard - something that mas long-term repercussions for MS.
The profit margin isn't that great on PDA's et al as it is - why would the industry want to cede a further chunk of that margin to MS? All you'd have to do is include a driver for a free file format with the PDA cradle, card reader, and/or desktop application.
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
Thickheadedness helps the process of moving away entrenched companies. And this case is no different. MS is still very much entrenched, no doubt about that. But hardware manufacturers are now that much more likely to support other standards and filesystems (like ext3) natively, and perhaps as their primary system.
They'll get away with this because they're big enough. And they'll make some money. But this, and similar practices, will work against them in the long run.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
The first FAT file system was developed by Microsoft in 1976. That system was based on the BASIC programming language and allowed programs and data to be stored on a floppy disk. Since that time, the FAT file system has been improved upon multiple times to take advantage of advances in computer technology, and to further refine and enrich the FAT file system itself.
Today, the FAT File system has become the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices. The FAT file system is now supported by a wide variety of operating systems running on all sizes of computers, from servers to personal digital assistants. In addition, many digital devices such as still and video cameras, audio recorders, video game systems, scanners, and printers make use of FAT file system technology.
Microsoft is offering to license its FAT file system specification and associated intellectual property. With this license, other companies have the opportunity to standardize the FAT file system implementation in their products, and to improve file system compatibility across a range of computing and consumer electronics devices.
Nice guys. Create a standard, realize its being used for a lot of devices after 27 years, see the chance for even more money you don't need, and then charge for it.
It's not worth 250k for a license. We had to use it in devices to remain compatible with an OS that was forced upon us.
Give me a break.
Are you familiar with capitalism? Shareholders? There is no such thing as 'enough money' for a corporation.
10:1 says that they're trying to push everyone to WinFS to get DRM embedded into the filesystems of portable devices. Wonder if they're licensing and making WinFS available for free....
-B
Not such a bad idea. Suppose my digital camera's memory card was NTFS. Well, then, I'd be out of luck under Linux unless I had the NTFS driver in my kernel. Last time I really compiled a kernel (ages ago) that driver still said experimental, or some such, and as I recall didn't have write access, just read. Furthermore, any other drive formatted with NTFS that I wanted to access, like a USB or Firewire hard drive, would be similarly difficult with a Linux machine.
/. is for? Shouting questions into the void to see what answers come back? ;^)
And, while I'm rambling, what about the FAT driver in the Linux kernel? Is it in violation of the patent? I really don't know, and I'm too lazy to research it myself. (Isn't that what
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I doubt it. Devices can be just as easily used in other OSs with other filesystems.
And the "buy it blank and format it yourself" theory only works for things like USB drives. It's not as easy to format other devices -- like a PDA or any other device that has to come with some amount of software already installed.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Thanks to royalties on the .GIF format after years of being royalty free, the .JPEG REALLY, and I mean REALLY took off, plus PNG came about as well. Lots of programs dropped .GIf support completely and I didn't blame them. Maybe this will make another standard take precedence on new camera's and flash devices, $250k is a HUGE price to pay for a little startup trying to push a new product
Presumably so - they are using the FAT technology, and hence would need to license the IP. It's not that bad, actually - if you follow the link, you'll see that the license fee is only $0.25 per unit, up to a max of $250,000 per licensee. Rather than a lucrative money grab, this looks like they're establishing a precedent for other licensing opportunities, such as (perhaps) 3rd party hardware/software that uses Microsoft file formats.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Is there a win32 ext2/3 filesystem driver out there anywhere?
Forget that -- there is FAT code in the Linux kernel. More IP that smacks Linux and means that it cannot be distributed (and interoperate with windows, as FAT-based systems were the only major filesystem that both Linux and Windows can read and write out-of-box. Very bad juju.
FWIW, it is *damned* hard to write Windows filesystem drivers -- compare a small Linux filesystem -- RAMFS, at 342 lines of source -- with even a minimal Windows driver. There is an ext2 implementation with read support, though.
Oh, yes. The embedded community uses FAT all over the place. They are going to absolutely go bonkers when this hits the news.
May we never see th
It's a good business decision, sure. But see, MSFT is a convicted monopoly. Their business decisions are supposed to be limited to those things which don't stifle competition. However, since our government is owned by corporations, and the people who are supposed to be enforcing this are ignorant of technology, the monopoly rating has no meaning. That's what we bash.
It seems to me that Microsoft is granting licenses for their FAT code and what-not. They make no mention of not being able to make your own FAT-system (which what everyone has been doing up 'till now).
The only reason you'd really care about this is if you run a large company that makes FAT devices and want to insure that your FAT-system is 100% compatible with specs (which are controlled by Microsoft). Otherwise, you wouldn't care... You'd just look up the well published info already available for free on the 'net.
/dev/random
Regardless of the eventual European stance on software patents, manufacturers would still be hit by the patent when marketing in US or Japan.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Anybody has the right to file a patent and attempt to license its technology (as long as the patent makes sense, which is not always the case with software patents, but that's another story).
The right way to do it: get the patent, announce the technology and licensing terms for it, sell licenses to however's interested. This way, manufacturers can decide whether they want to invest into that particular technology or find an alternative.
The wrong way to do it: get the patent, wait for a large number of manufacturers to widely use the technology, then announce licensing terms. This way, manufacturers have already invested a lot of resources into the tech and have no choice but to pay for the license, because switching to an alternative would cost them even more.
In an ideal world, the wrong way should be illegal and carry criminal sentences for extortion.
It's not an issue that a clean-room implementation would fix. The patent in question isn't on the code, but rather on the file format. Remember all the shit that Compuserve put people through over the GIF file format? This would be similar. Microsoft is saying "Hey! We should be making money off that!". I don't know what this means for FreeDOS, PC-DOS, syslinux-based boot disks etc, but it can't be good...
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
The problem, I think, is that most people don't want to have to format their media before first use. It's convenient to just insert any card and start snapping pictures.
The behavior you suggest is exactly what would happen, but I doubt that any media manufacturer would do this because it would represent a substantial barrier for most people.
Not true. Many embedded devices could use FAT with no "standard interface" for you to know about it.
For example, I have a digital multitrack recording studio with an embedded 20GB IDE HDD. It just happens to be formatted FAT32. I know this because the manufacturer was polite enough to sell a USB add-in card for me to connect the device to a PC or MAC for importing/exporting tracks.
Now, had the manufacturer chosen not to offer a USB port...and only allowed me to import/export tracks via the built-in CD-ROM burner, they could've still used FAT32 for the internal HDD format, and I'd have no way of knowing without cracking the thing open and plugging the HDD into a PC.
I'm certain any manufacturer of embedded products could use FAT32 for embedded drive formats, but use some kind of reverse-engineering crap in the DMCA to prohibit you from knowing it's FAT32.
It's dishonest and unacceptable for them to attempt
to start charging after so many years, for something
noone has ever charged for before, after it has
become something which has become a de facto standard,
often implemented in hardware. Like GIFs were, their
patent should be ignored, and more ideally, legally
shot down.
Was FAT really innovative anyway? The patents just
cover modern issues probably not even implemented
on 95% of the FAT-handling devices (e.g. my
digital camera). From what I remember of CP/M's
filesystem, FAT didn't seem to be markedly
different.
On another node, as IBM and Microsoft had
cross-licensing for most of their early
DOS-related stuff (remember PC-DOS?), should
their claim not be invalidated, could they simply
grant the world an open license for it?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
This is certainly not true. With copyright law, it's illegal to copy code. With patent law, ideas are patented. Wheter it's implemented in a 'clean room' or not, that really doesn't matter.
THAT's the reason why we detest software patents in the first place!
To be able to bring out preformatted FAT flash devices without paying the Microsoft license, one would have to claim rights to 'prior art'.
In contrary with copyright law, however, it's the responsability of the IP holder to come down on the infridger (so as long as you don't get a letter from MS, you aren't obligated to take action).
Yet IANAL but in my past businesses talked about these issues alot with lawyers.
Regarding the question wrt European manufacturers usage of the FAT filesystem. First needs to be seen if these patents are also valid in Europe or not. After initial issuing a patent in Europe, US or Japan it's automatically valid for 3 years in all of these regions. After this period it needs to be registered in the specific region. As I presume these are quiet old patents, one should look into this.
However, there still is controversy regarding software patents and its enforcebility in Europe. European software patents should also have a hardware part. This license has a hardware part, but the patents themselves not. ;-)
You might want to consult a patent lawyer to verify this, but I would bet that it's unenforceable in Europe. However, I wouldn't bet on this for 250k USD
A lot of smaller device vendors will probably sell the unformatted version after they receive letters from MS (which is a pity as FAT is readable/writable by Win/Mac/Linux).
A lot of users will now unknowingly format their cards using NTFS making it harder to exchange data with non-Windows users...
Regarding the FAT driver in Linux; as this MS license only speaks of preformatting digital media in the FAT filesystem, this is not an issue today.
Could Microsoft ask money for inclusion of the FAT driver in the Linux kernel?
Remember, patents are about ideas, not about the actual implementation or even in which language certain algoritms are written (it's about what is accomplished, not about how it's actually done). So as the FAT filesystem is patented technology, they could theoretically take action.
However, the action needs to be taken by them first. If 'prior art' can prove that the Linux implementation is based upon technology very simular than the patents issued, a case in court might prove the patents to be not really valid.
Such a thing would also destroy all possible revenues from licensing programs such as these (it's higly unlikely that device manufacturers will try to prove they had access to prior art, the long-bearded fs developers in the OpenSource community are probably less easy to convince - especially since the patents where only filed in 1995).
If the outcome of a legal case would be different, chances are higher that distributions would just drop the filesystem driver instead of paying money to Microsoft.
So, to me it seems that Microsoft would have more to loose than to gain from going after the FAT driver in Linux.
copyright.
if you follow the link, you'll see that the license fee is only $0.25 per unit, up to a max of $250,000 per licensee
I've been party to meetings and technical design exercises where we struggled to remove mere pennies from the build price of a product, and were elated when we managed to do so. 25 cents is a huge cost delta for the build price of a piece of hardware.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Bdoh! JFS is open source... Available at your closest ftp.xx.kernel.org mirror in recent linux-kernels, and possibly in *BSD too (at least I've got a vague recollection of someone doing a port). And to preempt a possible question, yes, it's IBM's own code, not reverse engineering.
Static, EEPROM (flash) and all other memory chips allready have a built-in filesystem. RAM means random access and voltages on the pins select the exact points on the chip. FAT is used because just about every OS supports it and cheap card readers can be made.
Using no filesystem will get the best usage of the memory chips. Please note that a 1440k floppy won't give you that but perhaps 10% less. As usual M$ shoots itself in the foot and camera makers can advertise 10% more pictures to a card. Tar would work nicely as a 'filesystem' and as far as I know that is free and even Windows understands it. Tar is very efficient but not exactly 'random access' something not usually needed in a camera.
No filesystem or minimal formatting works well on all removable media. That includes DVDs and CDs which will hold considerably more if you don't use cd9660 or UDF. If you have Unix (and SCSI) try it if media is intended to be streamed. Any further discussion of this is offtopic.
But a real point is...if you can't tell that they're using FAT, then they could use ext2 (journalling doesn't seem appropriate) or something else.
OTOH, if they can depend on this being a one-time charge, it's probably cheaper for them to pay the extortion than to convert.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Using a standard random access file system does make sense when you consider that the file system needs to be mounted on a computer. By using FAT they avoided having to spend money writing drivers for the various versions of Windows, MacOS etc.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Let me remind you, this is the kind of B.S. that can happen when you rely on proprietary software (I'm guessing that FreeDOS and friends do rely on MS standards in order to maintain compatibility with MS-DOS programs). Someone can pull the rug right out from under you whenever they want to.
So MS is going to nickle and dime people to death. Who would have guessed...
And if you can't tell what they're using, ext2 or any number of filesystems may be usable. But, if you're a manufacturer selling through a channel, you may want to offer diagnostic and repair licenses to resellers. FAT32 may be a better choice merely for the simplicity of unplugging the drive from the device and plugging it into a PC that will in most cases be running Windows for diagnostic/repair work. And it is likely perceived as easier by the manufacturer to train certified repair shops on Windows-based tools as opposed to Linux ones.
Microsoft's licensing agreement lists 4 patents that it covers. All were filed since 1992, and all were granted within the last 8 years or so.
However... if you look at the materials patented, all refer to long file name support. ("Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats," "Common name space for long and short file names," etc.) If one develops a device that utilizes FAT without using long file names, I'd imagine that they'd be safe.
Yep, if killing the FAT file system isn't the objective, it will be the result. It's probably aimed at preventing Linux interoperability with Windows machines. I don't know how that will play out, in court or otherwise, but if MS has patents on FAT, then presumably they may want, or be able, to prevent people from distributing free code to access FAT files systems.
Certainly, any company using FAT for its products will switch to a different file system. SCO may want to sue MS for infringing on its patented "Cock Pistol, Shoot Foot" algorithm.
Overall, I kind of think it might be a good thing that MS is doing this. It provides yet another reason for tech companies to consider embedded Linux for their devices. And the more prevalent Linux becomes in that sector, a) the sooner Linux driver support will improve, and b) the more home users will consider Linux.
"Personally I think MS is simply trying to quicken the demise of FAT so they can drop it quicker. About time, too -- there's simply no need for it anymore."
I respectfully disagree. OSX, OS9, Linux, BSD, and almost any other OS that you can think of can read and write FAT. Any device that is to be cross-platform compatible with read/write works very well with FAT. The only other filesystem that I know of that these all read and write is ISO9660, which last time I checked didn't include long filename support without Microsoft Joliet extensions or some other after-spec hack anyway.
Microsoft isn't going to support a filesystem that makes it easier to use devices on a competitor's platform, plain and simple. OS implementers have had to reverse engineer Microsoft's ways of doing things for a long time, and if Microsoft is allowed to litigate FAT out of use, they'll use it to try to force everyone else out.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You say, NTFS not fully documented. But then you say patents?
(I'm not disputing your assertions, btw.)
Now correct me if wrong, but isn't a requirement to get a patent that you disclose EVERYTHING necessary so that a person "skilled in the art" can recreate the patented work? If such a patent exists, then wouldn't (shouldn't?) it have everything necessary to make a Linux NTFS driver work?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Not optimized for small drives. Okay, then for small media, maybe we should look elsewhere. What format did CP/M use?
Another point is: please define "small" media. When FAT was invented and optimized for small media, the definition of "small" was 360K floppy disks. FAT was unsuitable for a Big Hard Di_k of 2 GB or more. So is a 256 MB flash card really "small" media? Isn't, say ext3 suitable for such a "small" media? It seems to me like that that long ago people talked up how you could install Linux on older systems with tiny hard disks that are smaller than some flash memory cards.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
When you look at the bigger picture, it sure doesn't look like there's any growth left in the company. For me, the telling signs were:
1) first put up when Microsoft started mentioning the word "Linux". They don't do that normally since it validates the product.
2) when they started mentioning it in their financial statements.
3) when LAMP took away most of the MS Windows server growth.
4) more and more mentioning of the word "Linux" by Bill and Steve.
5) recently when Prudentials financial analysts start asking about Microsoft Windows growth prospects against Linux and Linux desktop growth.
6) Microsoft trying to pedal it's patents for $$$.
It may not be visible as a death spiral but it sure looks like there is a massive amount of "concern" in Redmond. And with all of their profits in the OS and office applications, they have nothing but cash to help them get out of this. Even giving away their software will not KILL Linux. It would only slow it down momentarily and they know this. IMHO.
There is concern in Redmond. You can be sure of that. Is the Coriolis Effect in action here? There's probably some movement already and there is no sign of an opposing force. Surely, not this patent claim.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Responsding to myself, but this just occurred to me: I wonder how this will affect the FreeDOS project. My first guess would be that they'll have to rewrite the project to use ext2 or some other file system.
Software patents have been commonly regarded as the "nukes" of the software world. I'm beginning to think that MS has decided it has nothing to lose by going nuclear on the free software world.
Educated guess: The patents cover methods and algorithms, not the particulars of NTFS implementation.
So someone "skilled in the art" could create a filesystem using the techniques in NTFS described by the MS patents, but this wouldn't necessarily be compatible with NTFS.
The enemies of Democracy are
Mac's HFS and HFS+ are another alternative. There's PC (pay) software to read them already in at least 3 flavors, and I believe Linux supports them, too. Of course, these may be covered by Apple patents.
Of course, this might explain why it's such a bitch to format to FAT on a OS X Mac....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
So, like the gold rushes, it will be a huge waste of time and money for almost everyone involved?
The *only* nice thing about FAT is that all the Windows machines in the world can read it without installing drivers.
More important is that every electronic gizmo taking flash memory cards (digital cameras and MP3 players) can read/write it without installing drivers!
Because although installing a filesystem driver may be painful on Win98, it's one thousand times worse on solid-state electronics.
The purpose of the DMCA is for situations like Adobe's ebook, where if someone cracks the encryption they'd get free ebooks. In that situation the DMCA is a Good Thing. Coporations can't use the DMCA to cover up illegal activity or to stifle competition
Prohibiting the creation of Free Software PDF readers is undeniably stifling competition.
It's a chicken and egg thing - the cameras are designed to use FAT because they're made to interface with Windows machines.
MS isn't going after Sony for the cameras they made yesterday, they're gunning for license fees for cameras they are *going* to build.
The cameras don't talk to each other, so it won't matter if the camera I buy next year doesn't speak FAT. Unfortunately, no other filesystem is as well supported on the desktop as FAT.
Your not exactly wrong, but...
Not everything inside NTFS is patented. A patent for a "means to store a filename in an inode" doesn't tell you a whole lot about anything.
Once again, look to abuse by the patent system. Patents and Copyright were supposed to superceed trade secrets. Either Or, was supposed to be a choice you had to make. Now you can use both, thus the entire point of the patent system has been corrupted.
Patents were supposed to cover "inventions", not mear discoveries or things that could be produced by anyone skilled in the art as a matter of need. Thus something like NTFS may be subject to patent, and thus made available to the public at the end of the term. But, again, the system has been corrupted such that one NEVER patents the invention itself, but as many individual acts of routine as possible. Thus, your "invention" remains opaque and your "patents" can cover all sorts of routine.
FAT is a "filesystem" that any not-so-good programmer might throw together if so asked to store files. It is hardly an "invention" under the intent of the patent system.
Imagine the Light bulb. Prior, nothing even remotely like it was in existed. That's an invention. Putting a metal base on it, using blue glass, or shaping it like a christmas tree bulb is not (well, was never supposed to be). Those little improvements are somthing anyone skilled in the art of glassblowing would take for granted.
>So now that you'll either not "have a positive experience or put[s] a
>lot of pressure on [y]our support systems" trying to install a digital
>camera or flash media under Windows, do you think that Microsoft will
>have to drop their desktop distribution?
This fear of "negative experience" will cause the camera vendor to bend over and pay the license fee, because they (rightly) fear their customers are not capable of installing extra drivers.
That was the intent, and I suspect to some extent it still works that way. But I suspect that there's far more happening of a different sort with patents - and that's the creation of a club. Remember the phrase, "stand on the shoulders of giants?" Well, the shoulders are patented. If you want to stand on those shoulders and reach higher, you have to let the giant reach that high, too.
In essence, patents have created a club, and while you can still get a patent and make money, you probably can't disrupt an existing technology, because you need to license existing technology to make your patent work, and the most likely license term is to cross-license your technology back to the would-be disruptees. They can either take advantage of the technology, or you'll find that the license prevents you from disrupting their business - unless you're excessively lucky.
I recently heard about a guy with some sort of chemical/drug/food (forget which) patent that's running out. NONE of the industry has agreed to license it, they're just waiting for it to expire. In the meantime he's losing all of his development and attempted marketing money. Maybe he was asking absurd terms, maybe he deserved them, but the industry felt we could get along without the new product, the guy couldn't commercialize without more money than he had, so they could afford to wait.
Come to think of it, I've got a friend in the very same situation.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
the cameras are designed to use FAT because they're made to interface with Windows machines.
Once, but not any more. Originally cameras used FAT for Windows compatibility (Even though it wasn't really needed back then... at that time, consumers needed new drivers to recognize flashcards, so they could've installed a new filesystem at the same time). But today, cameras need to be compatible not only with Windows desktops, but also other digital cameras, media on store shelves, Kodak photo-kiosks.
MS isn't going after Sony for the cameras they made yesterday, they're gunning for license fees for cameras they are *going* to build.
That's painfully obvious, and changes nothing.
The cameras don't talk to each other, so it won't matter if the camera I buy next year doesn't speak FAT.
Oh really? You've never moved a memcard from one camera to another? You don't enjoy the convenience of tearing an SD Card out of its package and immediately jamming it into your camera, without reformating it first? (Which would erase any data already on the card)
It is precisely because all current digital cameras use FAT that future cameras will need to- otherwise, those future cameras will be at a competitive disadvantage because sticking a memory-card into them doesn't "just work".
From a domineering-industrialist standpoint, Microsoft has played this very well: they allowed FAT support to seem free long enough for all digital cameras to use it, even though initially filesystem didn't matter. Now that the manufacturers are addicted, they can start to bring up the price. A textbook submarine patent.
Well, with one difference. Microsoft (in this case) own and developped the technology they want to license. That should make a different between the two issues, don't you think so?
People have been apparently blinded by Open Source Software, if they thought they could use a proprietary technology freely.
For once, Microsoft is doing what they should do. And still, the slashdot community is bashing them. I guess it is hopeless then.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
That's not an NT file-system driver, it's just a program that can read files and looks like Explorer. A proper driver is an NT IFS (installable file-system) driver, like this one.
No, OSS people have been blinded by Megalosoft's 20+ year failure to enforce rights regarding FAT. It's an old tactic - introduce a feature, wait until it becomes a defacto standard, and *then* demand a pound of flesh.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
I'd be willing to buy a digital camera that's just a little less convenient in order to take this and rub it in Billy's face.
Admirable. And non-representative of the typical consumer's response.
PS. Slashdot had better not allow editing of posts. That's inimical to a threaded message system. You can't have a coherent discussion if the comment you were replying to can be totally redone, leaving a response floating after it that now seems irrelevant.
If editing is allowed, it should always leave an option to see the earlier version(s)... and if someone responds to the pre-editing version of the post, then that version should be the default one displayed (With a small link going to the new version).
The first thing Slashdot should do to modernize its comment system is to create an official way to quote the preceding message, instead of relying users to manually paste it and insert italic tags.
Aside from the fact that software patents in and of themselves should not be acknowledged as having any validity. Software after all is covered under copyright law, not patent law.
Microsoft has allowed the fat file system to propogate for free until becoming a standard, and now is slamming charges on it's use for everything that should grandfather this. Microsoft has every right to do it (again if you believe software patents are legitimate and therefore give right) but they shouldn't impose this on existing applications of the technology. Rather on whatever comes out of the gate from this day forth.
Besides that, the fat filesystem is only unique in the sense that it never occured to anyone to write a filesystem so blatantly weak and crippled.
I believe the real reason microsoft is doing this is because fat is the only filesystem which can easily be used to exchange data between windows and other operating systems.
Even more reason to get ext2/3 drivers ported (and ported well) to Windows.
For once, Microsoft is doing what they should do
I thought they were innovators, making their living from "inventing" and "creating" useful things.
If that's where their money came from, I'd be jealous but happy for them.
This is *not* doing what they should be doing.
Look, FAT has value only because it was freely and widely used. It's not a magical filesystem that no one else could have created. If these restrictions had been there from the beginning, then I would also say things were "fair". But, to give it away so that peope can come to depend on it and then all of a sudden claim that it's "technology" that you have monetary rights for is indeen underhanded.
It may well be all fine and dandy within the scope of the law (maybe that's the only thing you're arguing), but that doesn't make it ethical, nor what a supposed "technology" company that "invents" and "innovates" does for a living. It might be what MS does, but it's nothing more than legislating for dollars.
If anything, Stallman's probably right: we should avoid all propietary software for exactly these underhanded reasons. And maybe people won't be so quick to poo-poo the efforts to create patent-free standards and formats (like ogg, etc.).
My problem is that companies, supposedly, gain revenue from some sort of service or innovation. This doesn't fit either, it's really not much better than extortion (the value of FAT is artificial, and only valuable now *because* all were once free to use it).
Sounds like crap to me. If it can be shown that MS encouraged the use of FAT without demanding payment for years, then I think a good case can be made that FAT is now in the public domain.