Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft FAT Licensing Plan - No Big Deal?
prostoalex writes "InternetNews.com describes the reaction to Microsoft's decision on FAT licensing. It doesn't look like the company is expecting to make any significant money out of licenses (there's also a cap of $250K, so none of the big guys will have to pay millions to Microsoft). It also doesn't look like Linux companies are stressed over this decision. "We are only accessing FAT32 file systems, not using them. This licensing program is of little interest to SuSE", a Novell/SuSE spokesperson said."
for small devices and portable media like flash cards for its simplicity.
So simple in fact, many companies have rolled their own FAT-alikes that are backwards compatible with it and thus likely avoid licensing fees. M-Soft likely sees it as a opportunity to squeeze the last bits out of the old tech... such as "is your FAT system *really* compliant? Why not just buy ours and we guarantee it is!"
I don't see why this is worthy of a story...pretty common business practice out there.
-
I've got to lodge a protest against that moderation also. OK, moderate it to "Offtopic", but certainly not "Flame Bait".
Merry Christmas to all.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
This package includes not only reference code but also several patent licenses -- and a patent applies to any implementation that uses the covered technique, not just theirs.
So while they may be describing this move as fairly harmless, I'm not inclined to be so sure.
Not needed... you're confusing that with the requirement that an owner must defend a trademark or lose it. Non-enforcement doesn't invalidate a patent, only prior works can do that.
However, non-enforcing a patent and then allowing it to go into widespread use unchecked is a very slimeball thing to do. If somebody pointed out that FAT32 was owned by Microsoft, and there was no affordable licenses, the makers of FAT32-formatted devices would suddenly stop, turn around, and pick another, presumably less MS-compatible format.
If Microsoft chose to waive-off their patent into the public domain, they could do that. However, then they'd be allowing the open source world to have access to it too, and MS wouldn't want to do that.
By establishing a nominal fee, they prevent open source programs from formatting things to FAT32, but allow the making of FAT32-formatted devices to go on relatively unhindered...
Believe me, I'm all for a good conspiracy theory. Especially involving Microsoft or SCO.. But I'm pretty sure that's why they break compatibility with every NTFS revision. Not at all related to this move. As a post above stated, I'm pretty sure this has to do with the antitrust thing, so that Bill can get up there and say look we licenced FAT. We enabled users to remove the explorer icon. We're a great bunch of guys, see? Nevermind that messenger can't be removed, or that if you disable it, Outlook will re-enable it for you, and so will your security updates.
Reading the other comments I'm seeing that this is being considered as a move to protect the patent. Thats probably true.
On a different point I see a few comments on how the maximum amount is $250,000 and that such a small amount it's not worth caring about. I don't know what companies you guys work for but my company could barely spare 1/10 of that given the recent market. I don't know of any company that turns around and goes "1/4 million is that all? Nope don't need to know what for let me just sign the cheque". I'm left wondering if this will be enough of an issue that small companies will look elsewhere for small filesystem. In my companies case it isn't an issue as we made the run for linux already. I assume that microsoft has to worry about driving away to many of the small customers.
The big guys may rule the world today, but they where nobodies 20 years ago and have to worry about those small fry that have the right combination of talent and luck.
Why then would they go about it in this manner?
NTFS is not useful for small volumes (less then 1Gb, I don't remember what the minimum NTFS volume size is off-hand). It also can't be used on read-only media (unlike FAT32).
FAT32 handles niches that NTFS simply won't fit into. There's no way that this will bring about 'complete' adoption of NTFS/WinFS. (If anything, it would push another open format such as one of the Linux filesystems or UDF.)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Actually, the patent is not for the DOS-style fat, but for the vfat extensions, namely the way long file names are stored.
Also, because FAT32 is not suited for media under 128 MB, the patent is relevant to general computing these days, for 32 and 64 MB memory sticks and suchlike.
May the moderators mod me down if this is going too far, but IMNSHO this is typical arrogant MS. They seem to think they're the only ones capable of implementing something correctly, despite all the evidence to the contrary. How many open standards (protocols, formats, etc) have they half-implemented (or just plain screwed up) and then claimed to have extended with their own half thought-out ideas? (Here's a tip MS: If you don't implement the whole standard in the first place, you're *branching* not extending, aren't you?). And how many times have closed-source competitors and open-source hackers re-implemented some format or protocol of MS's? And although I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, I seem to remember a number of times when the FLOSS implementation has been better and/or more flexible.
</rant>