German Court Invalidates Microsoft FAT Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Court Invalidates Microsoft FAT Patent

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday December 7, 2013 @02:26AM from the exercising-their-patent-rejection-muscles-to-get-rid-of-the-fat dept.

walterbyrd sends this news from Techworld: "A Microsoft storage patent that was used to get a sales ban on products from Google-owned Motorola Mobility in Germany has been invalidated by the German Federal Patent Court. Microsoft's FAT (File Allocation Table) patent, which concerns a 'common name space for long and short filenames' was invalidated on Thursday, a spokeswoman for the Federal Patent Court said in an email Friday. She could not give the exact reasons for the court's decision before the written judicial decision is released, which will take a few weeks."

37 of 192 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What about FAT32 by rossdee · 2013-12-07 02:30 · Score: 2

Does this ruling cover FAT32 or just FAT16
1. Re:What about FAT32 by peppepz · 2013-12-07 02:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The patent doesn't mention the width of FAT entries. It doesn't mention FAT at all, only directory entries.
2. Re:What about FAT32 by queazocotal · 2013-12-07 02:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As I understand it, exfat has been carefully designed to be rather patent laden, and rely on multiple patents - not just this one that is due to expire soon.
3. Re:What about FAT32 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-07 02:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Every camera, phone and tablet manufacturer should use UDF to format flash cards. It's patent free and supported by all major operating systems. The only thing missing is write support in Windows XP, but it would cost Google pennies to write a free driver, compared to the billions they pay Microsoft for FAT patents.
4. Re:What about FAT32 by symbolset · 2013-12-07 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  This is one of the few patents in exFAT left that hasn't been invalidated. Not that it matters. Microsoft will still sue over one of 10,000 other patents.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
5. Re:What about FAT32 by Zimluura · 2013-12-07 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  scratch that, VFAT was introduced with NT3.5 (September 21, 1994), so the patent was probably filed for in anticipation of the NT3.5 release.
  from the same wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
  OS/2 added long filename support to FAT using extended attributes (EA) before the introduction of VFAT; thus, VFAT long filenames are invisible to OS/2, and EA long filenames are invisible to Windows, therefore experienced users of both operating systems would have to manually rename the files.
  perhaps that was taken as prior art?
6. Re:What about FAT32 by jonbryce · 2013-12-07 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It covers long filename support in FAT. Digital cameras that stored photos with 8.3 filenames were never affected by this patent regardless of which version of FAT they used.
7. Re:What about FAT32 by peppepz · 2013-12-07 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  Wouldn't this violate the F in FRAND? If anything, the problem is that UDF is probably patented as well. Still, UDF is a better file system than *FAT feature-wise, and perhaps the relevant patents aren't in the hands of patent trolls like Microsoft.
8. Re:What about FAT32 by leuk_he · 2013-12-07 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  No MS will not refuse it. It will include this in the patent license needed for a android phone.
  It is suspected that MS receives 10 dollar/euro (not sure) for every sold android phone, in patent licenses.
  However as part of the license it is sealed exactly what is licensed. So you cannot work arround this. And nobody is usre about this. And since fighting of a pantent is a long and expensive proces, most suppliers just pay, because is has the least risk, and most economic outcome. The FAT patent is needed to read SD card (maybe...) .
  Apple decided to fight android. MS decided to earn a lot of money on it.
9. Re:What about FAT32 by leuk_he · 2013-12-07 04:28 · Score: 2
  
  One of the points of a SD (or SDEX) card is that you can read it very simple in an other device. By formtitting it it in JFFS2 or YAFFS you cannot read/exchange the card in windows. Inconvinent, but technically possible.
10. Re: What about FAT32 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-07 04:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Apples earns money with Android as well. HTC for example signed a license agreement with Apple and pays them several dollars per device.
  Apple wanted to sign such an agreement with Samsung as well. Before all this litigation stuff. But Samsung refused. That's why they got sued.
11. Re:What about FAT32 by mrchaotica · 2013-12-07 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  I'd think it would violate the "ND" (non-discriminatory) part instead.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
12. Re: What about FAT32 by queazocotal · 2013-12-07 05:03 · Score: 2
  
  No, it's not.
  This situation deeply depresses me, the fact however remains - you cannot legitimately sell a SDXC compatible device without it supporting exfat.
13. Re: What about FAT32 by icebike · 2013-12-07 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But it has never been standardised by any commitee.
  That's true only as long as you are willing to totally ignore the SD Association.
  This is one of those cases where the industry is way ahead of the so called "standards" organizations.
  The SD Association offers a formatter for SD/SDHC/SDXC cards but only for Windows and MAC. It may format a card in such a way that some devices can't use it.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
14. Re:What about FAT32 by Bert64 · 2013-12-07 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  The monopoly commission should investigate exFAT...
  It's not the best filesystem on offer, there are many much better filesystems which are more suitable for use on flash media, and which are available royalty free... The only reason anyone even considers exfat is because microsoft will intentionally never support anything else.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Well... there goes Microsofts Android ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-07 02:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

There goes Microsofts Android extortion profits...
1. Re:Well... there goes Microsofts Android ... by symbolset · 2013-12-07 02:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The appropriate reference page.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
2. Re:Well... there goes Microsofts Android ... by zlogic · 2013-12-07 03:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  MS gets FAT32 royalties from pretty much every device with SD cards. GPS devices, MP3 players, TVs, digital cameras, car audio etc.
  Most "modern" Android devices don't have memory expansion slot (which sucks) and use ext4 internally. Most of the other MS patents taxing Android cover Exchange connectivity and that's unlikely to be invalidated soon.
3. Re:Well... there goes Microsofts Android ... by moronoxyd · 2013-12-07 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  There are lots of current Android phones with SD card slots.
  Nexus devices don't have them because somebody at Google doesn't seem to like them.
  High end devices of other companies sometimes don't have them because the manufacturer wants you to buy the model with 32 or 63 gig rather than the model with 16 gig and a cheap MicroSD card.
  But the mid-level devices of the same manufacturers usually come with a CD card slot as they cut down the onboard flash memory to reduce the price.
4. Re:Well... there goes Microsofts Android ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-07 05:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why do we need MS filesystems at all? None of my USB sticks is FAT -- what a shitty filesystem.
  And who the fuck is connecting to exchange? How about removing the exchange connectivity and offering that via a paid app?
  Any other aspect of Android that Microsoft is fraudulently attempting to obtain patent taxes from?
5. Re:Well... there goes Microsofts Android ... by chihowa · 2013-12-07 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  Nexus devices don't have them because somebody at Google doesn't seem to like them.
  SD cards reduce your reliance on "the cloud". It's not surprising that Google doesn't like them.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
6. Re:Well... there goes Microsofts Android ... by maxwell+demon · 2013-12-07 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  First thing - a card mounted via UMS (USB Mass Storage) to a PC isn't available to Android OS.
  Well, they would just have to design it differently. I don't see a principal reason why it should not be possible for the card to be available to both at the same time.
  Also, who says that the card must be directly available to the PC via UMS while inserted in the phone?
  
  Think of all apps (and their data) installed on the card and how would they behave if the card suddenly becomes invisible to Android...
  Simple solution (if for some reason not removing the underlying problem, see above): Suspend the apps before unmounting the card, and unsuspend them after the card gets available again.
  
  Second thing - security issues. FAT filesystem on most SD card - no file ownership.
  Sure. Because it is impossible to keep your SD card physically secure. Hint: Unless you're encrypting your files, file system level security is moot as soon as the attacker has access to the physical medium. And if you're encrypting the files, file ownership is moot, too: It's the key which controls who can read it.
  
  One of the core Android principles is that you never need a file manager. With a memory card mounted a user can start to wonder where data (photo, music, file) ends up.
  How do you share data between Android apps?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Licensees should be able to recover their payments by putaro · 2013-12-07 02:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

There should be a way to get a refund if you paid license fees for an invalid patent. Anyone have a guess as to how much money Microsoft has made off this patent?
Expect Nexus phones to have SD cards... by bogaboga · 2013-12-07 02:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

...that is at least in Germany. Google never wanted to pay any licensing fees. It's been Google's modus operandi for years.
1. Re:Expect Nexus phones to have SD cards... by citizenr · 2013-12-07 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Haha, you really think it was about patents and not about forcing users into uploading everything into Google cloud.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
2. Re:Expect Nexus phones to have SD cards... by jonbryce · 2013-12-07 10:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
  In terms of actual EU courts, we have the EU General Court, but that only has competence to hear cases against the EU itself. For example, if the European Patent Office refuses to grant your patent application, you can go there to appeal your decision, or if the EU competition authority thinks you are behaving in an anti-competitive manner, you will face trial in that court.
  Most other cases involving EU law are heard in national courts, with the European Court of Justice as the final court of appeal. Generally speaking, judgements in national courts are binding only in that country, but persuasive elsewhere in the EU. ECJ judgements are binding in the whole of the EU. The exception is cases involving copyrights, patents, trademarks and registered designs (known as design patents in the US). For those cases, the national court sits as an EU court, and judgements are binding throughout the EU. Another exception is the EU small claims procedure, where consumers can take cases against suppliers in other EU countries in their local court, and the local court will work the the court local to the supplier to sort out the dispute. Small claims cases are not legally binding, but can be appealed to the European Court of Justice, who's judgements are legally binding.
Re:Licensees should be able to recover their payme by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-07 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why? Was the product defective? Was something illegal done? Bernie Madoff's customers deserve restitution. Microsoft's do not. Whether or not the patent is valid, you pay to license the filesystem.

You would be right if modern patent licensing wasn't a legalized protection racket. The patent is invalid so there was never a product to begin with, only a bunch of men dressed in expensive suits telling you "that is a nice business you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it, either pay up or face years of curt battles with sales bans mixed in". The nearest thing to a product is the promise not to loose your business to a violent death.
Re:Licensees should be able to recover their payme by putaro · 2013-12-07 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Patent validity shouldn't be random. The patent office should be examining them properly. If you start suing people over your patents you should be sure that you've checked prior art, etc. Many of them patents are obviously bogus but because there's no real penalty for extracting licensing fees for them patent trolling is a viable business.
Re:File formats? by David_Hart · 2013-12-07 04:06 · Score: 2

I thought file formats were not patentable anyway. And why hasn't this expired yet?
According to the article it expires next year.
Not useful by Waffle+Iron · 2013-12-07 04:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of the important requirements for a patentable invention is that it must be "useful".
This patent originally covered a way to provide compatibility between short and long file names. But nobody has used short file names in decades.
So now, the "feature" continues to be necessary only so that FAT can provide compatibility with itself. That's like begging the question. The feature no longer has any intrinsic usefulness, and in fact just serves to make the file system format more convoluted and less efficient.
The patent system ought to be changed so that any patent should be revoked once it is no longer useful for its intended purpose. This particular patent has recently been "useful" solely as a way to give Microsoft leverage in the media device market. The covered feature provides zero benefit to end users.
1. Re:Not useful by ledow · 2013-12-07 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sorry, but you describe a useful function. Whether it's relevant any more or not is neither here nor there. If I invent a way to make a clockwork mechanism work more efficiently, that's still an invention, still patentable. And, as Trevor Bayliss shows, still something that should be protected by patents even if it's "old hat".
  The real crux of the matter is whether FAT is "obvious to one skilled in the art" which is a much, much, much more relevant and important test of patentability. Fact is, it pretty much is. If you're a filesystem designer and you're handed FAT and told to make it store long file names, FAT LFN's are pretty much one of a million ways to do them - and not even a particularly effective or perfect one.
  Lacking such "inventiveness", and being just something that anyone with half a brain could come up with, AND being in a jurisdiction where software patents shouldn't be allowed by the EU courts anyway, that's what means it should be invalidated. By the same token, BTW, Trevor Bayliss would also fail. What he did wasn't invention, just quite a smart combination of two existing technologies. But at least it was a physical invention and not a way to get Linux-based vendors (e.g. TomTom) to pay Microsoft money for Windows-only inventions.
One-time vs. recurring fee by tepples · 2013-12-07 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

The practical problem with "forcing users into uploading everything into Google cloud" is that carriers limit uploads and downloads per month to Google cloud. A lot of people would rather purchase an SD card one time than pay the carrier every month to have access to a larger library while away from Wi-Fi.
Network effect by tepples · 2013-12-07 04:30 · Score: 2

But nobody has used short file names in decades.
In VFAT, the long file names are interleaved with the counterpart to inodes under UNIX. Each inode contains an 11-byte short file name, and these must be unique within a directory.

So now, the "feature" continues to be necessary only so that FAT can provide compatibility with itself. That's like begging the question.

It's to provide interoperability with the billions of other devices using FAT. How is a network effect necessarily begging the question?
1. Re:Network effect by Waffle+Iron · 2013-12-07 05:10 · Score: 3
  
  The network effect is similar to begging the question.
  Something is popular because it's popular.
Re:Pure money grab by the neo-Nazi regime. by MightyMartian · 2013-12-07 04:51 · Score: 2

Just don't mention the war!

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Licensees should be able to recover their payme by sjames · 2013-12-07 09:45 · Score: 2

How is that worse? At least the plaintiffs have the ability to opt out of the mess, defendants do not. I would up the ante a bit more and require that the fees be paid back with interest and that if the holder should have known the patent was invalid they pay back triple.
When you go around shaking people down for money, you better be damned sure it is owed to you.
Re:Licensees should be able to recover their payme by martyros · 2013-12-07 09:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

What would be better is if the US patent office had to repay the royalties (or perhaps a percentage of them). Then there would actually be incentive for them to be careful about the patents they approved. As it is, they get money for any patent they approve, and no negative consequences for approving patents which are later overturned.

--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.