After a nearly two year long battle, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has decided that Microsoft’s two patents on the FAT file system are in fact valid. Last October the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected two Microsoft patents over the popularly used FAT file format. This came after a re-examination of Microsoft's patents sought by the Public Patent Foundation. The Public Patent Foundation argued that others had done similar file format work before Microsoft's patent, and that awarding Microsoft this patent would only hurt the computer community.
Now that the re-examination is over, the Patent Office has concluded that Microsoft's FAT file system is in fact novel. This decision now means that the two FAT file system patents Microsoft submitted can become patentable. While this is in fact very good news for Microsoft, others in the computer industry are not so pleased with this decision. Who could blame them? After all last October Microsoft published an outlined version of its FAT file system license, with prices ranging from cameras to standard televisions.
The FAT file system is used not only on versions of the Windows operating system, but also on removable flash memory cards, Linux/Unix products, and is a common file system used to transfer data with Windows. The Public Patent Foundation is sure to fight back, but with the patent almost handed to Microsoft they may already be out of time.
View: Microsoft's FAT File System Technology License
View: More Information
Now that the re-examination is over, the Patent Office has concluded that Microsoft's FAT file system is in fact novel. This decision now means that the two FAT file system patents Microsoft submitted can become patentable. While this is in fact very good news for Microsoft, others in the computer industry are not so pleased with this decision. Who could blame them? After all last October Microsoft published an outlined version of its FAT file system license, with prices ranging from cameras to standard televisions.
The FAT file system is used not only on versions of the Windows operating system, but also on removable flash memory cards, Linux/Unix products, and is a common file system used to transfer data with Windows. The Public Patent Foundation is sure to fight back, but with the patent almost handed to Microsoft they may already be out of time.
View: Microsoft's FAT File System Technology License View: More Information
If that is the case, I think there is something seriously wrong about a company not patenting the format in order to gain dominance for that format in the market place and then turn around and start charging royalties on it.
*plants a bomb in the "antiMicro$oft bandwagon".
Go Microsoft.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25529
It's ok, I'm awake now.
* Warned
Last edited by shockz on 11 Jan 2006 - 06:16
I don't care what that stupid Wikipedia says, FAT was around before MS made it public... stop relying on the Wikipedia...
http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=111590.
As Croquant pointed out, it was around before MS-DOS.
What Wikipedia fails to mention is that Microsoft's Xenix filesystem was partly FAT-based (if I remember correctly, it was some kind of hybrid between FAT and a normal Sys V filesystem).
i just found it funny
oh. and why dont you just change wiki to what it should be then.
Last edited by rob.derosa on 11 Jan 2006 - 08:32
But no one (including companies) should not be able to patent anything if they didnt discover it(research and making a usable product)
I am not sure when the FAT file format was created or by whom but if it wasnt from microsoft they should not be able to patent it and no one else for that matter, but only by the person/company that did the hard work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
oh and btw, nobody here is probably using FAT32 (willingly), NTFS is the best...and thats the one that I care about the most, anything else is a moot point that fanboys get to hollar about how much "M$ sukz becuz they didn't maek teh FAyT ThiRTee-Too11!1!!" so what, their version was superior, their version was a standard, and good for them for protecting what was theirs.
and another thing, I think its hilarious that everyone figures just because something is widely used (ie: FAT) that it shouldn't be allowed to be patented. Hey, thats somebody's work. Somebody spent alot of time writing that and to let Joe Computerdude go and suddenly take it and do whatever they want with it is stupid. I don't want to see MILLIONS of forks of the FAT FS. like LFat, or FAT++, or BigFatty 2.0, or whatever. Its not like FAT is even really a viable FS anymore in the first place, why do people care so much.
Yes I am aware that its used in small devices for storage, but again, I have to pay royalties to people to use certain technologies...why is this any different?
and now their product is out, and then found out that they have to pay for that thing. Imagine if you have to pay some stupid tax for the 5th wheel in your car after you've bought the car ages ago.
And it is going to be the digital camera makers, the MP3 players, USB stick manufacturers and so forth that will end up paying the licensing fee. Well, actually, they will just pass the costs on to the consumer (you).
Linux/Unix users have no need for FAT. Dual-booters, however... They often use it to transfer files between OSes.
It's the manufacturers who will have to pay, and they will just pass the costs onto you, great huh?
Edit: both are only Ext2 drivers, so Ext3 will work, just no journaling.
Last edited by The_Decryptor on 11 Jan 2006 - 09:02
Also, people who say, "Your just angry you didn't think about it first" just don't understand the point or the concern. It's not right for a company to own something and charge royalties on something that has been an open standard for so long. If they wanted to patent it, they should have done so when they first started using it. Waiting until now only cripples companies who have been using the standard all this time. It's a waste of resources. And you know who is going to pay for that waste? That's right. The consumer. It's tragic, but true. Prices will rise to cover the cost of the royalty fees charged under Microsoft's patant tyrrany. It's getting to the point that even open source projects need patented just to ensure corporations can't come in later and patent them. It really is a sad state of affairs. There need to be checks and balances to these sorts of things. And I just don't see that happening. And while we argue it, we're letting these people win.
America needs to understand that patents such as this are not good for the overall welfare of the economy and for the people themselves.
I purchased my Linux boxed set years ago, and I have purchased my only commercial game I ever play (UT2004) for my Linux box. So, Linux users do buy software.
We just don't have much reason to "warez" software with good free alternatives.
And open_coder, i wouldn't exactly call FAT, an "open standard", MS developed it by it's self, it just hasn't wanted money until now.
@markjensen: Yeah I bought UT2k4 too. Good game. My point was that we tend to support open standards over commercial products. The comment about not paying for software was in jest.
--Alex
Last edited by ph_bradley on 11 Jan 2006 - 01:22
Manufacturers could make an agreement to use one of these standards as oppose to FAT. Microsoft is notorious for keeping 3rd party hardware/software compatible with Windows (that is their "nitch"
Me Thinks.
For thumbdrives, ext2 is possibly a better option than FAT as long as you don't need to use the drive in a Win9x or Mac OS environment (possibly there is some way of supporting it in OS X, but not in Mac OS Classic).
It surprises me that most thumbdrives I've seen still come formatted in FAT12, the FAT type normally used for floppies. You'd think that with even Mac OS Classic being able to handle at least FAT16, that'd be the standard. Or even FAT32, given that hardly anyone uses anything pre-Win9x these days.
Thats the outcome I'd favor anyway.
Meaning Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent infirngement.
They use the patents to counter-sue companies which sue them.
I am sure there will be a similar discussion in time about Creatives patent for navigating music on portable music players when they aggressivly go after Apple (and other) for royalties.
Yeah, it's a bit down the road, but fair game IMO.
What's Microsoft doing? Patenting this, way after it's creation, purely for a profit.
Yay for abusing 'the system.'
Edit... opps idiot am I. <.<
Last edited by Sierra Sonic on 11 Jan 2006 - 06:15
Did you see the "Microsoft's FAT File System Technology License" link under the quoted text from the article?
Seems like a nice money-maker to me.
It will probably hurt Apple more than anybody else if they use FAT.
How many units have they sold up till now?
Bill Gates is chuckling somewhere right about now.
It uses the same FS as Mac OS X
what would happen to computer community.. haha
It'll create nothing but trouble, by allowing less interaction between the OS'es.
NTFS is definitely copyrighted by MS, but they never utter any word.
Say Ive created a device that can teleport anything to anywhere. Thats MY invention. But tony, u should understand that my girlfriend left me coz Ive been spending 2 much time with this device, I ate only instant noodles and spent all my money on this device. Never went 2 the barber and so on. Now other peeps r using this invention or part of it to make profit. I should get some benefit out of it, or some royalties.
From that point of view, FAT is MS's (Yep its not M$ its MS or microsoft). If they want to patent it, I guess they have full right. Its theirs. But still... I think that royalties should b paid by companies who r makin profit out of FAT. Linux is free, so no profit out of it, they shoud not pay. Company doing Flash memory cards or MMC's should pay, like any other companies selling products with FAT.
[to.microsoft.haters]
(most of u may not like their products but to code products like office or windows, u dont just sit and watch the roof. Im a windows user and I like it. If u say MS products r crap, then code a better one and show it to the world. Talking is easy but when to put it into practice?? Haha.. gotcha kid!!
[/to.microsoft.haters]
Coming back to the topic; wat I want to say is that MS should get the reward of their hard work (yes tony... hard work) but also think about open-source peeps. They should not pay any royalty. So, some peeps should pay, n some shouldnt n MS should patent their stuff.
the amount they may generate from this patent is probably going to be totally insignificant.
Last edited by gunnerhkjp on 11 Jan 2006 - 15:04
cap for each manufacturer.
every Portable digital video cameras (i think the ones using flash are in the millions if not in hundred thousands) X 0.25c = 2,500,000.00$~
every Portable digital still/video cameras (meh good quality hybirds arent that much lets say a hundred thousands) X 0.25c = 125,000.00$~
every Portable digital audio players (which is way more than hundreds million units,Edit:oh sorry i didnt include china market which should be around 500 millions of MP3 alone) X 0.25c = 250,000,000.00$~
every Portable digital video players (hmm PSP any one?! and other stuff, tens of millions for sure) X 0.25c = 12,500,000.00$~
every Portable digital audio and video players (this is strange as i think all video players does play audio
every Multifunction printers (a hundred thousands maybe) X 0.25c = 125,000.00$~
every Electronic photo frames (a few not counting them)
every Electronic musical instruments (a few not counting them)
every Standard televisions (a few not counting them)
every removable solid state media that comes loaded ( i think its a small percentage of the total flash mems sold, so eh, lets say millions) X 0.25c = 2,500,000.00$~
TOTAL = 280,125,000.00$~atleast..
and refer to the license link before you argue they will not take royalties
Oh, and you can't get royalties restrospectively, however much you may want to, so it'sonly new units that will be liable (if they decide to enforce it) . It's also the manufacturers who are liable (Unisys's GIF patent [now expired worldwide] applied to Adobe for Photoshop, not the Photoshop user who made one), so the cost @ 0.25c/unit will be absorbed into the final price. I doubt you as an end user would notice it.
But just think how many memory, camera, music, etc etc device makers are out there sending out things pre-formatted with the FAT file system? As usual, a move done to make things easier for the consumer by various companies gets left for years to develop to the stage its at now before Microsoft decides to act on it.
It just makes me so angry. But also angry with the patent office. Microsoft should have concentrated on licensing its newer technology - not ****ing off people who sell the products that work on their OS!
As the current royalty licensing scheme stands it is quite generous and very cheap. 0.25c on each FAT16 device with a cap of $250,000 per manufacturer is very cheap. One reason, suposedly, for the patent grant was for MS to make sure that the FAT16 Standard was adhered to and correct on all FAT16 devices.
Oh.. how kind of Microsoft. So it wasn't about recieving nice little $250,000 bonuses from all the flash memory, mp3 player, and (amongst others) digital camera makers out there? It was about ensuring that companies were able to format their memory cards up correctly?
Gimmie a break!
But what is not correct is to have it 'unpatented' or something for tons of years and then start asking for royalties. .. Anyway, isn't FAT kinda outdated?
Yup.. its woefully out of date. But as long as Microsoft makes the most popular OS on the market, and as long as they refuse to bundle in support for any of the royalty free file systems that have been developed over the years, FAT is the most convenient and well supported on many platforms.
Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
File Allocation Table (FAT) is a patented file system that was developed by Microsoft for MS-DOS
The FAT filesystem was invented by Bill Gates and Marc McDonald in 1977 for managing disks in Microsoft Disk BASIC and was incorporated by Tim Paterson in August 1980 to his 86-DOS operating system for the S-100 8086 CPU boards; the filesystem was the main difference between 86-DOS and CP/M, of which 86-DOS was otherwise mostly a clone.
doesnt get any more MS than that
And for those of you claiming Microsoft isn't doing this for profit, are living in fantasy land.