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."
Litigation: The Business Model of the Future!(TM)
(Disclaimer: The above statement is the intellectual property of Uberm00 Corp. and may not be used without prior written permission.)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Gotta love submarine patents.
Is there a win32 ext2/3 filesystem driver out there anywhere?
What if you just sell the cards and usb sticks unformatted and have it formatted under windows? That way you could evade this kind extortion?
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.
Hm...since Apple's Disk Utility will let you format pretty much any writable media in FAT, will Apple have to pay Microsoft for that privilege? Will they choose to do so, or will they drop the ability?
Note to manufacturers: this will make your Mac formatted media actually cheaper to produce, so even if you don't give the consumer a discount, that's just one more reason to continue to produce Mac-compatible product...
--
$tar -xvf
I see nothing wrong with it. They own the patents, so they have the right to sell it to whoever pays. BTW, slashdot post is a bit misleading.
"Pricing for this license is US$0.25 per unit with a cap on total royalties of $250,000 per licensee."
The $250K is the cap; that means, that is the maximum amount they will charger per license holder for the use of the FAT. Just thought it came across incorrectly.
A blog like any other.
All four listed patents deal with the problem of having both short and long file names. None of my digital cameras use long file names.
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.
The earliest versions of the FAT file systems were around in 1981. (Actually probably 1979 or 1980 if you count Seattle Computer's QDOS). Those patents must've expired by now, right? Or does Microsoft get a perpetual patents the same way Disney gets perpetual copyrights?
Does this mean the Linux kernel will be dropping FAT support? And BSD for that matter?
http://ext2.yeah.net
Can they enforce their patents in Europe ? What will be the consequence for Euro-based device manufacturers ?
Maybe we deserve this world ?
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
Where do you get your information? That number is inaccurate:
NTFS, FAT, FAT32
A blog like any other.
I wasn't trying to be funny, I was serious. It is however funny that you thought, that I thought, that it was funny....
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
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
And if they can stop a manufacturer from delivering a product such as a USB drive pre-formatted with FAT, then can't they do the same with a pre-formatted floppy disk? For that matter, can't they do the same with a floppy disk that contains software? Anyone who sells PC software on floppies will owe Microsoft money! (There are less today than there were just five years ago, thanks to CD's, but there are still many small businesses out there. I just got a driver on a floppy last week with something I bought).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
RTFA. (Go ahead, give me the old "You must be new here" - joke. :)
:)
The linked article does not mention home computers. Microsoft wants license fees from:
1) Manufacturers of solid state removeable memory devices
and
2) Manufacturers of certain types of consumer electronics that use the FAT file system:
portable digital still cameras
portable digital video cameras
portable digital still/video cameras
portable digital audio players
portable digital video players
portable digital audio/video players
multifunction printers
electronic photo frames
electronic musical instruments
standard televisions
Do you think you'll ever buy one of those? Then it'll affect you.
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
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.
This one isn't really submarine --- They created FAT in 1976, according to the microsoft.com page ... but the earliest patent was filed in 1995.
That can't possibly be right. In the US (but nowhere else) you have a 1 year's grace period from the time of publishing an invention such that you are still allowed to patent it. Even with the USPTO's track record (!!) I honestly can't see them granting a patent based just on 1976 technology. MS must have included new ideas... or something like that.
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.ht ml
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
The four patents cited all relate to Microsoft's kludge for shoehorning long file names into a filesystem that can only take 8+3 names. You know, Microsoft -> Micros~1.
First I'm going to get obligatory whinges out of the way. It's ludicrous that this is patentable. The patent is stupidly long and verbose, probably to make this 'innovation' seem more significant than it actually is. The patent is also worded to sound as though this is a useful general idea, rather than something that you'll only ever see in FAT because everyone else is sane enough to just use a better filesystem.
On a more practical note, these patents cover only the long name -> 8.3 stuff. Those digital cameras that write 8.3 names (DSC00001.JPG, DSC00002.JPG, ...) should be fine. Shipping blank but FAT-formatted media should also fall clear of the patent's grasp - the patents don't cover the FAT filesystem itself, just the 'VFAT' Win9x method of fitting long filenames into FAT. Furthermore, the patents seem to cover algorithms for inserting long filenames into the directory tables - implementations that don't write, but only read data, might be okay.
Simple blank FAT, might I add, has been around for at least 17 years, so any patents on it should have expired by now.
Ob-disclaimer: I've only skimmed the patents, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm probably wrong.
OK, so we format it in ISO 9660 and the drivers are written to treat it like a CD-RW. Microsoft just makes companies move to standards. (Or they ship it unformatted, and the users choose how to format it according to their OS of choice.) Put the driver on the device (small ISO 9660 file system) set to auto install, and you're set.
Talk about submarine patents. Floppies have been shipping FAT for *decades*!
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
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
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.
Do these devices really need compatibility with "dead" operating systems?
The second patent seems to another concerning filename formats. I haven't bothered to look at the other 2.
The four patents listed appear to be to do with VFAT, and specifially the way it simultaneously has a short (8.3) and a long name for each file.
The earliest patent was granted in 1996 - what then of the Rock Ridge CD format which offers a somewhat similar mechanism for long Unix filenames over the standard short ISO9660 length, and was adopted in 1994?
That doesn't mean they won't go there, just that they haven't yet. Still, the typical knee-jerk reactions here are as yet unwarrented.
It's very good move by MS.
/. -- when you're done writing around 200k files to flash media it was already past erasure limit for those sectors at the beginning i.e. media was destroyed.
FAT is a terrible format for Flash media, because it constantly updates some variables in first several sectors of the disk. The effect was mentioned some time ago on
So it might actually give some incentive for vendors to move to JFFS or similar FS _designed_ with this flash-specific limitation in mind.
rrw
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
It's not like they provide very much information, but here are the patent abstracts, plus links to the full patents. They sure don't seem interesting, and they all seem to deal with the coexistence of long and short filenames. All of this wouldn't be patentable in Europe.
United States Patent 5,579,517
Reynolds , et al. November 26, 1996
Common name space for long and short filenames
Abstract
An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.
United States Patent 5,745,902
Miller , et al. April 28, 1998
Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats
Abstract
A multiple file name referencing system stores multiple file names in a file. These multiple file names include an operating system formatted file name and an application formatted file name. When an operating system formatted file name is created or renamed, the multiple file name referencing system automatically generates an application formatted file name having a potentially different format from, but preserving the extension of, the operating system formatted name. The multiple file name referencing system similarly generates an operating system formatted name upon creation or renaming of an application formatted name. A B-tree is provided which contains an operating system entry for the operating system formatted name and an application entry for the application formatted name, each entry containing the address of the same file to which both names refer. The multiple file name referencing system converts the operating system formatted file name to the application formatted file name by accessing the B-tree with reference to the operating system entry, and vice versa. As a result, either file name can be used to directly reference the file without requiring additional file name translation.
United States Patent 5,758,352
Reynolds , et al. May 26, 1998
Common name space for long and short filenames
Abstract
An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.
United States Patent 6,286,013
Sure, you could have it use another FS (ext2) but can you imagine a DOS not using FAT?
here's the fist of the patentes in question. Filed for only in 1995, granted in 1996. I've looked at it, but I don't have a good understanding of how claims in a patent work. If each claim represents something they own then I don't see any way they can makes claims as broad as claim 1. If the patent is only for something that matches each and every claim, then it would seem that a very minor (even compatable) varient on one part of any these claims would allow an alternate file system to co-exist that would not infringe the m$ patents. But then it doesn't make much sense for this (or any) patent to go into extreme detail in making claims that would limit what the patent applies to.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Disclaimer: I've worked with the FAT12, FAT16 filesystems in assembly language.
FAT is relatively well documented. IIRC, one can already format a FAT filesystem from Linux, and even if they can't, writing the drivers wouldn't take long.
But why would you use FAT in the first place? It's a very inefficient filesystem, built for ancient hardware.
Since static memory sticks have no problems with random access, it doesn't make sense to use traditional filesystems which were designed to minimize seek latency involving mechanical components. In fact, due to the block access factor, most filesystems are very inefficient when it comes to data storage.
One would think that instead of using a filesystem per se, the memory of a memory stick should be managed in a fashion similar to malloc. The difference would be named allocation - a "filename" would be associated with every section of memory allocated.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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.
There's always: http://sys.xiloo.com/
Which seems a bit improved on the very useful expore2fs.
I want NATIVE file system integration, VFS is NOT DEEP ENOUGH.
http://sys.xiloo.com/
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
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.
GINF is a filessytem structurally similar to FAT and just by coincidence happens to be compatible, but is not FAT. Would some crazy idea like this work to dodge a patent? If you have a clean implementation of the filesystem that differs in specs from another fs are they really the same? I think it would really only be FAT if you use the microsoft driver. If you don't use the MS driver it must not be true FAT. LAME seems to use this idea; everyone knows LAME Aint an MP3 Encoder, it just so happens that by pure coincidence the files it outputs are compatible in an mp3 decoder.
If you looked it up, you'd see that the patents listed on microsoft's page are not for FAT itself, but for long filename extensions to it.
The patents listed were filed in '92, 95, 96, and 97. I haven't looked into the details of the patents, but I assume the date those features were published would be during the mareting of windows 95, so the first 2 at the very least are within the 1 year publish-file grace period.
Your credit card information wants to be free.
Dear Sirs:
I'm a computer professional. On rare occasions I still used floppy disks that I have formatted and put business product on. I might distribute two or three a year to business contacts this way. It has come to my attention that Microsoft now wishes to enforce it's patents on the FAT file system and I believe that the floppies that I distribute might fall under this extension of you monopoly power. Therefore I would like to request that you provide me with the proper paperwork and licensing agreements so that I can pay my 25 cents each time I do distribute a FAT formatted floppy with my product on it.
If we can take down web sites, perhaps the Microsoft legal department should receive a few million requests from people who want to be sure they don't cheat bill out of his two bits when they format and distribute a floppy.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"Microsoft needs to defend this patent lest they lose it."
You're confusing Trademark law with Patent law; Trademarks must be defended lest they be abandoned, patents can be enforced against some, all, or none of those infringing on the patent at the patent-holder's whim. The entire practice of "defensive patents" rests on this.
U.S. Patent #5,579,517 Common name space for long and short filenames
An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.
U.S. Patent #5,745,902 Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats
A multiple file name referencing system stores multiple file names in a file. These multiple file names include an operating system formatted file name and an application formatted file name. When an operating system formatted file name is created or renamed, the multiple file name referencing system automatically generates an application formatted file name having a potentially different format from, but preserving the extension of, the operating system formatted name. The multiple file name referencing system similarly generates an operating system formatted name upon creation or renaming of an application formatted name. A B-tree is provided which contains an operating system entry for the operating system formatted name and an application entry for the application formatted name, each entry containing the address of the same file to which both names refer. The multiple file name referencing system converts the operating system formatted file name to the application formatted file name by accessing the B-tree with reference to the operating system entry, and vice versa. As a result, either file name can be used to directly reference the file without requiring additional file name translation.
U.S. Patent #5,758,352 Common name space for long and short filenames
An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.
U.S. Patent #6,286,013 Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system
An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
The GIF file format isn't patented. You can't have a patent on file formats, the order of fields in a sector, etc. There is nothing innovative in that.
... instead of following the compression algorithm.
The hardware process of the LZW compression algorithm was what as patented. You can write GIF files without using compression (literal, clear dictionary, literal, clear dictionary
Here, Microsoft's patents relate to algorithms for fitting long filenames onto a file system that only supports short filenames. They do NOT have a patent on the (V)FAT filing system. However, in working with those filing systems you may need to use algorithms which Microsoft managed to patent.
Does my bum look big in this?
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.
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.
I had a computer at work die recently. The motherboard popped a chips as it turns out. The problem was that it messed up the hard drive (NTFS) in the process. I couldn't get the drive to mount on any other NT machines so I tried running a Linux distro from CD. It mounted the drive without problem and was able to read most of the contents (some of it was still gone but I was able to recover my work from that day at least). So in this case Linux was better at handling NTFS than Win2K was.
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.
Except, the linked webpage clearly states:
"Microsoft's FAT file system license offers limited rights to issued and pending Microsoft patents on FAT file system technology, as well as rights to implement the Microsoft FAT file system specification."
It appears that Microsoft is selling a liscense to implement their filesystem. However, the liscense is for manufacturers of consumer electronics and removable media. It's unclear, based on my lack of knowledge of this legal area and the ambiguity of this document, whether (e.g.) writers of software targeting non-consumer electronics products (such as personal computers) would need to approach Microsoft for liscensing.
However, the patents all have to do with VFAT long filenames. Thus, it appears that a manufacturer may only have to refuse to deal with anything other than valid 8.3 filenames to avoid the patent liscensing hassle. I don't know how Microsoft could claim to enforce a restriction on implementing anything on FAT that's not patented; I don't believe they can, under US law, but like I said, I have a very incomplete understanding of US law in this respect.
"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.
The problem with it is, their implementation of long filenames for FAT was in the hands of people outside of Microsoft well before the one-year prior drop-dead date for the application. Before it was Windows 95, it was codenamed Chicago and it was available to ISV's beginning of 1994 (as in it was available to developers outside of the company BEFORE April 24 1994...) - I know, I was part of that beta program. It does not matter WHAT you have with those people in the way of non-disclosure, they're customers and the moment you put an improvement in the hands of anyone outside of your company, the clock on the filing date starts ticking because you've revealed it to the world as far as the law is concerned.
The first patent, at least, is invalid by their OWN prior art.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.
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.
A Patent, in and of itself, doesn't care about those things. So, in actuality, Microsoft could ask for royalties on each and every Patent on this list and legitmately so unless each are invalidated or your implementation is somehow found to not infringe.
Let's go over the Patents one by one, shall we?
5,579,517 - Common name space for long and short filenames. Filed for on April 24, 1995. This one only impacts you if you're using a Common Name Space for long and short filenames. Basically, the scheme they deployed for Chicago- references a preferred embodiment for MS-Dos 5.0 that was apparently handed to the USPTO as part of the application. Very much likely to be invalidated, though, by their OWN prior art release of Chicago to the world in December of 1993. This describes a scheme for handling long and short filenames correctly. If it's not invalidated, you might run afoul of it trying to do a VFAT type implementation.
5,745,902 - Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats. Filed for on July 6, 1992. Reading the abstract of this one, you'd have to allow renaming of just the name and preserving the extention for the purposes of keeping track of the filetype. Abstract explicitly mentions the use of a B-tree (Limits the scope of what they're claiming- you can possibly sidestep things by using red-black, AVL, etc...). They don't appear to have troubled this application with a possible prior art release, but unless you're doing the exact same thing for handling renames, etc. I don't think you're impacted by this one.
5,758,352 - Common name space for long and short filenames. Filed on September 5, 1996. A cursory reading of the Patent filing made by Microsoft leads one to believe that this is a re-application of the 5,579,517 Patent. While I'm not an IP lawyer, they appear to be claiming the same basic things in both documents. If this, in fact, the case, the 5,579,517 Patent's invalidation would likely invalidate this one. You would probably run afoul of this Patent if you attempted to implement a VFAT style filesystem.
6,286,013 - Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system. Filed on January 28, 1997. This one is an EXPLICIT Patent-style description of how Windows 95/98/Me handles long filenames on an x86-32 platform. Cute. The applicablity of this Patent to anything other than an exact clone of Windows 95/98/Me is doubtful at best. They explicitly mention things like BIOS interrupts and x86 register names in their claims. Better yet, the preferred implementation was deployed to the World at large in Windows 95- TWO YEARS PRIOR to the filing date.
You should consult a Patent attorney before making any decisions regarding this request for royalties from Microsoft. However, having said this, I'd feel fairly comfortable about the situation overall based on the observations made above.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
While flash is random access and doesn't have a physical seek latency, it is indeed a block device. On reads this isn't evident, but on writes it is. You can only overwrite whole blocks at a time. This is why it actually does make some sense to use traditional file systems on flash devices.
The enemies of Democracy are
That's easy. Red Hat will not include the precomiled module in their binary kernel packages, but 40 new sites will pop up with incompatible RPMs of the module for various kernels. Debian will probably move it to a separate set of packages in non-free or non-US. Mandrake and Suse will do fuck-all, since they're in Europe. Gentoo users will say 'what's a binary package?' and continue compiling it into their kernels. Slackware users will say 'tgz kicks ass, dependencies are teh sux0r.'
;)
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.
The Microsoft article pointed to by the story claimed that the first version of the FAT file system appeared in 1976. Any 1976 patent has, as you say, expired.
But the FAT design was such a half-assed pile of crap that it became obsolete very quickly, and Microsoft patched it up several times. Presumably, they patented the fixes.
It is difficult to understand how even the notoriously permissive US Patent Office could grant a patent to something as far behind the state of the art as the FAT file system. Its only original features were steps backwards from the state of the art. Not only the Unix filesystem, but several proprietary minicomputer filesystems which have since died, were significantly better than the FAT filesystem.
>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 FAT file system format was never patentable to begin with, since there was nothing particularly novel about it when it was created. What's more, it has been in use for more than 20 years (the lifetime of a patent) and nothing about it was patented within a year of its implementation and release to the public. So, Microsoft has no rights here. Its claims to the contrary are absurd.
Just discovered this link in a comment over at Groklaw. Section 1.e. of this document would seem to indicate that MS has already granted the right to use FAT for hardware and operating systems:
It doesn't seem like they could actually sue anyone for using FAT under this covenant, which is copyrighted 2000.
Of course, just as Microsoft may have assumed, manufacturers could either use FAT and pay up, or sell their media unformatted, in which case the customer needs a M$(-licensed) product to format it to FAT.
However manufacturers will probably want to test an initial write/read cycle, but if (for the sake of quality control) they simply format their media to something else (let's call it FOSFS, the hypothetical Free and Open Source File System
If this has been Microsoft's reasoning, they have neglected to consider another possibility:
On current removable media of 256 megs and up, an entire Linux distribution takes up less than 10% of capacity:
Unless the boot process from USB memory requires more than a rudimentary, non-infringing "allusion to FAT", such media could not just be formatted in an empty FOSFS, but it might rather be sold with preinstalled software such as this (compiled without FAT support of course): Cameras etc. could switch to the new FOSFS immediately, for PCs would not need to support it "out of the box", as the removable media itself would actually "be its own driver" (and media viewer, and provide network connectivity, etc.).
In this case, such "not-so-blank media" should certainly bear the penguin logo as a "seal of quality".
To justify adding a Creative Commons mark next to it, one could even fill the remaining space with some free and open (motion) pictures and/or audio to be played on first use.
Microsoft itself would have to catch up and release Windows support for the FOSFS before everyone sends and serves pictures from some sort of "USB Linux".
If only one major manufacturer of removable memory takes an approach like this, at M$ the employee who came up with that "bright idea" of a FAT license but failed to see this option may have a hard time explaining...