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."
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.