Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Gets Back Its FAT Patent In Germany
Dj writes to let us know that Microsoft has regained its FAT patent in Germany. (We discussed it three years ago when the German Federal Patent Tribunal ruled that Microsoft's patent on the FAT file system, with short and long names, was not enforceable.) "The [German] appeal court's decision brings it into line with the US patent office's assessment of the FAT patent. In early 2006, after lengthy deliberations, the latter confirmed the rights to protection conferred by [US] patent number 5,579,517, claiming that the development was new and inventive."
MS has patented Steve 'Sweaty' Ballmer??
I wonder if I can I patent turtle-necked geek with a messiah/god complex.
just saying.
Just too bad that software patents can not be inforced in germany. They only exist for a possible future change of german or european patent law. A change which is currently rather unlikely.
Isnt there a statue of limitations in germany? I mean, FAT is like 20 years old.
What am I missing?
I wonder how much that cost MS. Bribes aren't cheap.
There is a war going on for your mind.
This seems fucked up. The patent was invalidated, which allowed anyone to implement the technology from the patent. Now, they're saying that the patent is valid, which means that anyone who implemented technology from the patent has been retroactively made a criminal. They will have to pay royalties on anything they sold, and they will be unable to sell their product anymore, even if they spent millions on developing it (unless they get a license from Microsoft).
I believe the correction you are looking for is "statute."
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
No, he means Statue of Limitations, not statute.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Does this have any practical significance? Am I missing something? Is FAT still worth enough for them to bother fighting to have their patent in Germany?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
except for the one benchmark that matters -- using it with windows.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The patent is not for the FAT filesystem itself. The patent is for the kludge that allows FAT to support both long filenames and 8.3 filenames.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_filename
Tell this to cameras, PDAs, consoles, embedded devices... In a windows-dominated world, what else would you use that everyone could read from write to? NTFS? Ha, no.
as in "you are limited from viewing this statue?"
401 error on your link buddy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Microsoft was basically granted a patent for throwing metadata in unused volume labels ? Why would anyone even WANT to violate the patent ? According to the Wikipedia entry on Long Filename, too many files with the same first six letters will cause issues. Man, that is one hell of a hack.
I wonder how much that cost MS. Bribes aren't cheap.
Loose talk about bribery is for losers.
Given the importance of complex legal codes, {German] judges must be particularly well trained. Indeed, judges are not chosen from the field of practicing lawyers. Rather, they follow a distinct career path. At the end of their legal education at university, all law students must pass a state examination before they can continue on to an apprenticeship that provides them with broad training in the legal profession over two years. They then must pass a second state examination that qualifies them to practice law. At that point, the individual can choose either to be a lawyer or to enter the judiciary. Judicial candidates start working at courts immediately, however they are subjected to a probationary period of up to five years before being appointed as judges for lifetime. Judiciary of Germany
I really think you're wrong!
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
`Similar 8.3 file naming schemes have also existed on earlier CP/M, Atari, and some Data General and Digital Equipment Corporation minicomputer operating systems'
I think he meant: http://www.statueoflimitations.us/
Isn't that patent close to expiration now?
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
just saying.
From what I've heard, the problem with the iDiet is that it's a little too effective.
Latest Update: After another couple of years on the diet, Steve finally gets the well-defined cheekbones he was after.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Why would anyone want to be stuck with FAT? There are several great file systems in use these days.
Because pretty much everything uses it, that's why. You can put forward a well-argued case about why ext69 is a better filesystem because it can store 1GB of data in seven bits, still be readable after a direct hit with a hydrogen bomb leaves only three atoms of the drive remaining, and solves world peace- but it won't be compatible with every random Tom, Dick and Harry device out there.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Hey man, its not fat, its just bloated.
The patent issue here is not how to store a long filename in a FAT directory. The patent covers the technique for making a file system where each file has two names, and 8.3 "short" name and a "long" name.
This was crucial back in the day. Your Windows 3.1 system could read the floppy disk written by your Windows 95 computer; that file you saved as "ode to a summer day.txt" would wind up as ODETOA~1.TXT in Windows 3.1, and you could access the file.
But these days, nobody really cares about the 8.3 "short" filenames. Windows XP, Windows 7, Mac OS, etc. all just look at the long filenames.
So, Andrew Tridgell made a change to the Linux VFAT driver, and now Linux writes a valid long filename, and puts horrible junk in the space for the 8.3 filename. The horrible junk includes illegal characters for a filename. Thus, Linux is not writing both a long and a short filename, and thus isn't infringing.
And Linux still has the FAT driver, in addition to the VFAT driver. The FAT driver reads and writes 8.3 filenames only. In the event that you have a volume with nothing but 8.3 filenames, you can still use it with Linux.
http://www.osnews.com/story/21766/Linux_Kernel_Patch_Works_Around_Microsoft_s_FAT_Patents
The FAT long filenames patent should expire sometime around 2015, at which time Linux will return to full compatibility. (I presume that in countries that don't enforce software patents, people are still using Linux with full compatibility.)
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Ballmer is thin by kraut standards.
Nope. Times have changed.
As an American who has spent about half of the last 20 years in Germany, I can tell you with great certainty that the average German is in much better trim and is a relative toothpick compared to the average American. It stuns me sometimes when I come home and see all the lardasses waddling thru shopping malls here.
America has the obesity epidemic, not Germany.
The court actually meant that Microsoft could patent fat, you know, the stuff that so many of you think fills the space between Mr. Ballmer's ears. Now that they have the patent, they can charge 89 euros per pound above a BMI of 18. In Germany, that adds up to about 200 billion euros. Now, why would Microsoft get a patent on fat? It is soft ware.
There are windows ext2 drivers. And damn near every camera, pda, and MP3 player in the world comes with an (often useless) driver/install disk. Maybe this market should push back. Maybe this is why we have laws regulating monopolies. Its not like there are no options here.
With Steve Baldmer at the head of Microsoft, that was kind of obvious.
Who is Steve Baldmer, anyway.
If something is obvious, then you can't patent it. Oh, behavior, you can't patent corporate behavior.
--
This is not the statue you are looking for. Nothing to see here. Move along.
You are always welcome to create your own drive and sell it in the market place without FAT. In this free market, if you make a better product, then you should be able to wipe out the rest of the market or at least be able to compete to a level of profitability. So far, the market has cried loudly that FAT is the best of the best having nearly crushed all the competition. Furthermore, in a truly free economy, monopolies should be allowed to exist as long as they provide the best product for the best price. The minute a monopoly no longer creates the best product for the best price, a competitor will rise up and take that dominance away. Thus, clearly, the free market system has indicated there is either limited use for the ext2 file system, or no one has tried.</sarcasm>
Yeahhhhh.... but that's not the patent.
My point was kind of to mock a couple of groups. First, those that believe we have a free market system. Second, to mock those that think everything is unicorns and leprechauns in a truly free market system.
I believe that monopolies are the end result in a truly free market system. One player will dominate the market place through one means or another. Once they have that monopoly, they will force their will on others, and squeeze out any possibility of another player rising. Furthermore, even if that were not the case, not everyone has the means, ability, or resources to actually start up a business. Yet, some people just think that a truly free market will just make room for the best ideas even for those without the resources.
UDF? Granted, writing to it is finicky under OS X and I'm not sure how well Windows works but it has been a full FAT replacement for ages. Except people don't seem to bother even perceiving it.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
That would require packet writing (UDF 1.50+, I believe?), and that feels somewhat tacked on as an afterthought.
Maybe it could indeed be used, but I'm not sure what the limitations and performance issues would be, if any, but perhaps it could be a viable replacement -- only, it's not nearly as universal as you make it sound like, unlike FAT.
Actually, no. It requires the "Plain" build (random read/write access), which is the most basic UDF build that all UDF implementations should support. Packet writing is a means of making it transparent to the user whether he's using a write-once or a rewritable medium, using either the "VAT" or the "Spared" build.
Annoyingly, proper support of plain UDF is not universal and operating systems may or may not properly work with plain UDF filesystems. For example, even though OS X is supposed to properly support plain UDF I still managed to confuse the filesystem layer by using a UDF-formatted USB stick (done on both 10.5 and 10.6).
The large number of UDF revisions and the lack of support some OSes have for them is a large problem. If all major OSes fully supported UDF and treated it as a first-class citizen, we'd have a shoe-in for FAT32's successor.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)