Microsoft's Android royalties in danger as German court invalidates FAT patent

The Federal Patent Court of Germany has invalidated Microsoft's FAT patent which has been extensively used by the company against Android device manufacturers to gather royalties and impose sales bans over the last few years.

Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court of Germany, BPatG) held an invalidation trial on Thursday at the end of which it was declared by Judge Vivian Sredl that the patent is completely invalid and does not satisfy the technicity requirement of European patent law.

FOSS Patents posted that:

"..common name space for long and short filenames" is invalid in its entirety (including Microsoft's proposed amendments) because the court found that all of the elements distinguishing the patented invention from the prior art (which includes a Linus Torvalds post to a mailing list) did not satisfy the technicity requirement under European patent law.

Microsoft is expected to appeal the decision as this patent has been one of the most important factors in imposing sales ban on Motorola devices in Germany and has helped many more injunctions till now.

In the past the same patent has been invalidated and reinstated, which was used against Linux at that time. Since Android uses the Linux kernel, Microsoft has used the patent to form litigation against the device manufacturers to gain sales bans in Germany and the United States.

The outcome of the ruling will affect Microsoft in all member states of the European Union as uniform laws exist across the EU.

Source: FOSS Patents via Forbes

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung to launch Lite variants of Note 3, Grand and Tab 3

Next Story

Samsung tries to silence user whose S4 caught fire, it doesn't go over well

109 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

They could, but MS probably wouldn't support it in their OS, and SD cards with that file system wouldn't be interoperable with other devices. This wouldn't be the ideal end user experience, you see. A filesystem addon might not be installable on the Surface RT for example, so there's another limitation.

Because Microsoft wouldn't support it, and not having the support of Windows makes it very hard to sell to the majority of users. And having to install custom drivers and applications just to read an SD card is going to turn users off.

And Microsoft has a lot of sway with the SD group, so they basically get to dictate what filesystems are used (New cards require exFAT, etc.)

deadonthefloor said,

There are countless ways to automate this process on Windows 8.
Sure, but the SD cards need to work in other devices too, people expect SD cards to be interchangeable. So you format your SD card to work in that special device, windows 8 might read it with an install, but how does your TV, printer at walmart, camera, tablet and other devices deal with it when you try to pop it in there? See the problem?

Good!!!

Maybe now MS will come out with a competitive product instead of something no one is interested in

The chances of this ruling surviving appeal are less than zero. They've been through this before and the Appellate court have ruled on this exact same issue once before. Even if it did succeed it would only affect the EU and not Asia where the handset manufacturers and the market are,

Major_Plonquer said,
Even if it did succeed it would only affect the EU and not Asia where the handset manufacturers and the market are,

But nothing stopped the Asian countries to use the German ruling as a precedent to make similar decision, especially if they thought it would mean less money goes to the U.S companies ...

With regard to the Neowin Article...

The FAT patent is NOT the only patent, nor is it even 'always' used for Android and Linux licensing agreements.

Microsoft has a fairly extensive patent portfolio, with the FAT patent being a tiny one.

You might want to rethink your emphasis about how this will affect Android and Linux licensing with Microsoft. You are also conflating Android's patent licensing with Linux; as Android violates additional patents that Linux does not.

Here is a factual tip that you can use to start your research to confirm it is not the ONLY patent used against Linux or Android:
The FAT patent itself only costs Android and Linux vendors $0.25 per unit.

Mobius Enigma said,
With regard to the Neowin Article...

The FAT patent is NOT the only patent, nor is it even 'always' used for Android and Linux licensing agreements.

Yup. Not every Android device even has a microSD slot.

spy beef said,
Only $0.25 per unit comes to $250,000 for 1 million units.

Yep, but it is still a tiny percentage. Microsoft makes billions off their patent portfolio, and it isn't just FAT that Linux and Android violate.

Mobius Enigma said,
With regard to the Neowin Article...

The FAT patent is NOT the only patent, nor is it even 'always' used for Android and Linux licensing agreements.


source to back your statements ?

Torolol said,
source to back your statements ?

A quick Google search does wonders, here's a sampling as I'm not doing homework for people. these are a few that have allegedly been infringed upon by various third parties using Android:
Patent numbers 5,579,517 5,758,352 6,621,746 6,826,762 6,909,910 7,644,376 6,578,054 6,370,566 5,778,372 6,339,780 5,889,522 6,891,551 6,957,233... there's probably more but not really interested in looking. Only two of those have to do with FAT and how filenames are stored though.

Max Norris said,

A quick Google search does wonders, here's a sampling as I'm not doing homework for people. these are a few that have allegedly been infringed upon by various third parties using Android:
Patent numbers 5,579,517 5,758,352 6,621,746 6,826,762 6,909,910 7,644,376 6,578,054 6,370,566 5,778,372 6,339,780 5,889,522 6,891,551 6,957,233... there's probably more but not really interested in looking. Only two of those have to do with FAT and how filenames are stored though.

Thank you for taking the time to do this...

People need to realize that when a lot of us are providing information, it can be from various sources we studied or read years ago, which makes looking up the original sources just as easy for them.

If I was quoting information directly from a source I was reading today, I would have already cited it.

Thanks again.

sorry android fans, but Microsoft has an arsenal of patents that they are exerting on OEMs. heres one that got banned Motorola phone imports into the U.S, for example

"A method and system are described for a computer system for retrieving and presenting a set of commands in the form of a pop up context menu for a selected object. The context menu is displayed in the proximity of the selected object and is determined primarily by the class of the selected object and secondarily by the particular container in which the selected object resides at the time of selection. The context menu displays a number of useful features which enable the user to quickly and easily invoke commands upon the selected object. "

farmeunit said,
This is what's wrong with the patent system...

You can't just read the abstract and pretend the patent is invalid.

vcfan said,
"A method and system are described for a computer system for retrieving and presenting a set of commands in the form of a pop up context menu for a selected object. The context menu is displayed in the proximity of the selected object and is determined primarily by the class of the selected object and secondarily by the particular container in which the selected object resides at the time of selection. The context menu displays a number of useful features which enable the user to quickly and easily invoke commands upon the selected object. "

so... right-click menus?

thenotavenger said,
so... right-click menus?

That's one implementation.
Another would be the Accelerators in IE.
In a touch environment tap and hold.
Can't remember the name of the Office implementation.

Here's the sixty-four euro question - did a company sue to invalidate, or did a government or judge bring the matter up directly?

"The court and Google's Motorola, which brought the nullity complaint that led to today's decision and lost an infringement case over this one in Mannheim last year, said that new prior art presented in the current proceeding raised a new set of issues with respect to novelty and non-obviousness."
http://www.fosspatents.com/201...atent-court-of-germany.html
----
Sounds like it was prompted via another complaint from Google (Motorola).

PGHammer said,
Here's the sixty-four euro question - did a company sue to invalidate, or did a government or judge bring the matter up directly?

I'm going out on limb here...

I estimate that the EU courts follow the English Common Law tradition where they are barred from issuing ruling on matters that have not come before the bench. Meaning, a judge can't rule unless a case is brought before the court.

This is good. Microsoft should have tried to attack android by making WP a superior product but instead we've had 3 years of them sitting on their hands and not doing anything because they thought this approach would work. I hope all their anti android patents get invalidated and they finally realize they need to make a competitive product to actually compete. Bunch of idiots.

Mobius Enigma said,

Pretty sure they meant the 'faster than Android', 'more stable than Android' and '100% malware free' - WP.

I never used an Android based device therefore I cannot comment about it; WP superior to WM? No way; It is a long way to Tipperary.......

Fritzly said,

I never used an Android based device therefore I cannot comment about it; WP superior to WM? No way; It is a long way to Tipperary.......


I have used both; currently on a WP device. I prefer Android.

Fritzly said,

I never used an Android based device therefore I cannot comment about it; WP superior to WM? No way; It is a long way to Tipperary.......

WM has it's upsides, but there is no question that WP is a more enjoyable experience.

rfirth said,

WM has it's upsides, but there is no question that WP is a more enjoyable experience.

Visually I agree, it is more enjoyable although, for example, I am not crazy about the use of a single, vertical list for the installed programs: MS "Honeycomb" was by far superior to the iPhone grid; they could have either used that or implemented a way to "group" programs in the actual one.
Functionalities wise WP is still way behind. Regrettably when MS decided to ditch Photon they threw away the baby with the dirty water....
I have high hopes for WP 8.1, maybe too high........ :-)

spenser.d said,
WP is a superior product...

No it isn't. It's a "far, far superior product" in ever respect. It's real software not some hacked together Java kiddie-software.

Major_Plonquer said,
No it isn't. It's a "far, far superior product" in ever respect. It's real software not some hacked together Java kiddie-software.

Android has more features, supports more hardware architectures, is more customizable, and deemed secure enough for the government and military.

so if Android is "some hacked together Java kiddie-software" by your standards, then what does that make WP? i shudder at the thought!

I find it funny when we're arguing who is "superior" or which OS is "real." Since at the end of the day, you're definitely thinking about how superior the OS is over what's going through your head when texting or taking photos or playing whatever game.

thenotavenger said,

Android has more features, supports more hardware architectures, is more customizable, and deemed secure enough for the government and military.

so if Android is "some hacked together Java kiddie-software" by your standards, then what does that make WP? i shudder at the thought!

Skipping over your 'opinion', the items you state as fact are not correct.

Android only has limited government certification on very specific hardware.

As for WP...
http://blogs.windows.com/windo...security-certification.aspx

So for now, WP has the most extensive and comprehensive government security certifications that is not hardware locked.


However, why do you think this has anything to do with the op claims that Android is a just a patchwork JVM, because it is?

The way Android is designed, it doesn't even use or take advantage of features in its on Linux kernel, bypassing memory management, scheduling, process management, and on and on.

Thus making it a bad JAVA VM running on a crippled kernel. (Some could call it a JAVA kiddie software, as it is cumbersome, slow, insecure, and unstable.)

Note the last three items in that list (slow, insecure, unstable) - these are not descriptions you will ever find used to reference WP.


thenotavenger said,

Android has more features, supports more hardware architectures, is more customizable, and deemed secure enough for the government and military.

so if Android is "some hacked together Java kiddie-software" by your standards, then what does that make WP? i shudder at the thought!

Shudder all you want.
Android is a Java platform.
Dalvik, the platform upon which all Android apps run is based on Java.

If the patent is ruled invalid, what happens to past royalties paid? Surely those royalties are ill-gained for every handset sold in the EU if the patent is later ruled invalid?

Majesticmerc said,
If the patent is ruled invalid, what happens to past royalties paid? Surely those royalties are ill-gained for every handset sold in the EU if the patent is later ruled invalid?

No. The licensees who entered into an agreement to license the patent did so because at the time, they believed they were receiving something of value from the licensor. They would simply stop paying once the patent becomes invalidated. If they didn't believe it were valid, they should have sued to invalidate it instead of agreeing to license it.

Edited by AWilliams87, Dec 7 2013, 3:29pm :

AWilliams87 said,

No. The licensees who entered into an agreement to license the patent did so because at the time, they believed they were receiving something of value from the licensor. They would simply stop paying once the patent becomes invalidated. If they didn't believe it were valid, they should have sued to invalidate it instead of agreeing to license it.

Ahh that makes sense! Thanks

AWilliams87 said,

They would simply stop paying once the patent becomes invalidated. If they didn't believe it were valid, they should have sued to invalidate it instead of agreeing to license it.

Yeah, right. That would happen. It's much cheaper and less time consuming to be extorted than have sales bans and be potentially bankrupted through the courts by those who have a vested interest in screwing over any competition, no matter how nebulous.

I completely understand protecting your interests, but imposing sales bans is very telling in what MS was really trying to do and this was the right decision. Should they continue to be paid for every device that uses FAT? arguable but different than outright bans.

From what I know, I believe sales bans are never permitted without showing reasonable attempts to collect a reasonable amount for said patent. You can't just ban without proof that they refused to pay for your intellectual property.

Hahaiah said,
I completely understand protecting your interests, but imposing sales bans is very telling in what MS was really trying to do and this was the right decision. Should they continue to be paid for every device that uses FAT? arguable but different than outright bans.

This patent concerns long file names being stored along with short file names. A workaround for a FAT limitation.

torrentthief said,
Is this the only patent microsoft has that it has been charging phone manufacturers $5 per phone? If so this is a huge deal.

No, there's others, this is just the most common one.

torrentthief said,
Is this the only patent microsoft has that it has been charging phone manufacturers $5 per phone? If so this is a huge deal.

The FAT patent is only $0.25 of any patent licensing deal.

For whatever crazy reason, the Neowin author seems to think it is the only patent Microsoft has in their portfolio again Linux and Android.

Mobius Enigma said,
The FAT patent is only $0.25 of any patent licensing deal.

i would really like to believe some random guy on the internet, but i'll need to see some links first.

torrentthief said,
Is this the only patent microsoft has that it has been charging phone manufacturers $5 per phone? If so this is a huge deal.

Absolutely not. In fact, the Linux kernel itself violates Microsoft patents. People seem to forget that Microsoft were the first company to actually pay a license fee to AT&T (Bell Labs) for a commercial Unix license. They then managed to get Unix running on three different microprocessors, the 8086, Z8000 and 68000. They called it Xenix. Later they were forced to sell Xenix to SCO as part of the contract with IBM to develop their next generation OS (now called Windows). They did all this long before Linus Torvald stopped wearing short trousers. Linux is nothing more than a Xenix copy and Microsoft did all the work, hold all the patents and can play all the cards. When Linux was made "open source" Microsoft graciously agreed not to prosecute their patent rights as a nod to the good intentions of the software community. But they still own these patents and can prosecute wherever their rights are being abrogated for non open source purposes (like Android).

In short, Linux, Android, BSD, Ubuntu and all the other Xenix clones all owe their existence to the work done by Gordon Letwin and his team at Microsoft in 1979-80. There are literally thousand of patents that these systems breach.

Major_Plonquer said,
Linux is nothing more than a Xenix copy and Microsoft did all the work, hold all the patents and can play all the cards. When Linux was made "open source" Microsoft graciously agreed not to prosecute their patent rights as a nod to the good intentions of the software community.

Major_Plonquer said,
In short, Linux, Android, BSD, Ubuntu and all the other Xenix clones all owe their existence to the work done by Gordon Letwin and his team at Microsoft in 1979-80. There are literally thousand of patents that these systems breach.

OMG!. LOL. hilarious! not even Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates believes that. have you considered stand-up?

Some of what you say is correct, but the rest is not. BSD branches from UNIX 5 while UNIX 7 was what AT&T used and built upon. Linux and Xenix share no common code base what so ever.

Major_Plonquer said,

Absolutely not. In fact, the Linux kernel itself violates Microsoft patents. People seem to forget that Microsoft were the first company to actually pay a license fee to AT&T (Bell Labs) for a commercial Unix license. They then managed to get Unix running on three different microprocessors, the 8086, Z8000 and 68000. They called it Xenix. Later they were forced to sell Xenix to SCO as part of the contract with IBM to develop their next generation OS (now called Windows). They did all this long before Linus Torvald stopped wearing short trousers. Linux is nothing more than a Xenix copy and Microsoft did all the work, hold all the patents and can play all the cards. When Linux was made "open source" Microsoft graciously agreed not to prosecute their patent rights as a nod to the good intentions of the software community. But they still own these patents and can prosecute wherever their rights are being abrogated for non open source purposes (like Android).

In short, Linux, Android, BSD, Ubuntu and all the other Xenix clones all owe their existence to the work done by Gordon Letwin and his team at Microsoft in 1979-80. There are literally thousand of patents that these systems breach.

This is why the patent system is broken.
Why should one company (or a small conglomerate) that thought about something several decades ago should maintain a monopoly over some abstract concepts?

thenotavenger said,

i would really like to believe some random guy on the internet, but i'll need to see some links first.

I was just writing what I remembered from a FAT patent ruling from a few years ago.

You do realize you can Google/Bing this information yourself, right?

Since you seem a bit condescending, here is the first result in the Bing search I just did. I'm sure there are far more sources out there, but I will let you research them.

http://www.internetnews.com/bu...softs+FAT+Patent+Upheld.htm

thenotavenger said,

OMG!. LOL. hilarious! not even Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates believes that. have you considered stand-up?

Why not correct him with the facts, other than just trolling?
If you're just commenting, stay away...

FAT is the reason why I can plug a USB drive into a Mac, PC, and Linux box and have them all read and write to it. You may not like it, but it's quite useful.

greenwizard88 said,
FAT is the reason why I can plug a USB drive into a Mac, PC, and Linux box and have them all read and write to it. You may not like it, but it's quite useful.

Yes it is convenient but it is only this way because Microsoft has refused to support other file systems for external media. FAT is the reason I can't carry a >4GB file around on my 1TB external HDD which is crazy. It has no security. No error handling. It is god awful and just makes things harder than it should be.

InTheSwiss said,
Yes it is convenient but it is only this way because Microsoft has refused to support other file systems for external media. FAT is the reason I can't carry a >4GB file around on my 1TB external HDD which is crazy.

Weird, I have several USB devices formatted as NTFS.

InTheSwiss said,
FAT needs to just die already. The sooner it is dumped from Android the better.

In my experience, FAT is far easier to use than the current alternative. MTP is crap for everything except MP3 players, and it's half-arsed implementation in Linux leaves a lot to be desired.

Max Norris said,

Weird, I have several USB devices formatted as NTFS.

Just make sure to NOT format USB flash drives with NTFS. AFAIK It'll reduce their lifespan. Use exFAT.
NTFS is for HDDs and also SSDs if you're using windows 7 or higher.

Max Norris said,

Weird, I have several USB devices formatted as NTFS.

Yeah there is nothing to stop you formatting your USB drive to NTFS however you then lose the ability for some other systems to use it. Some version of OS X and some Linux distros might only read and not be able to write to the device.

InTheSwiss said,
Yeah there is nothing to stop you formatting your USB drive to NTFS however you then lose the ability for some other systems to use it.

Well yes, but that's not Microsoft refusing to use other file systems either. Sounds like poor implementations of NTFS-3G or whatever on the other OS's, not exactly Microsoft's fault and nobody's forcing you to use it either.

FAT is the only filesystem that works OOTB on Windows/OSX/Linux. Using NTFS is adquate if you don't need to work with OSX. But if Microsoft and Apple would support ext3/ext4, then one could opt for that filesystem.

Max Norris said,

Well yes, but that's not Microsoft refusing to use other file systems either. Sounds like poor implementations of NTFS-3G or whatever on the other OS's, not exactly Microsoft's fault and nobody's forcing you to use it either.

Not Microsoft refusing to use other file systems? Never saw them adding official EXT2/3/4 support, which would be usable on almost anything with it's source code available.

m-p{3} said,
Not Microsoft refusing to use other file systems? Never saw them adding official EXT2/3/4 support.

Why should they? I'm not saying one is better than the other, but why should Microsoft be forced into making their desktop OS support a file system from competing products, ones with a very small market share at that? Rather unrealistic expectation. Besides, you *can* access EXT2-4 and HFS partitions in Windows, just not out of the box, never mind this is completely off topic.

seeprime said,
Since SSD's are flash based the statement that NTFS shortens flash drive life would also apply to them. In general SSD's have superior algorithms and better chips than USB flash drives, and are expected to last longer.

Apparently windows treats SSDs and flash drives differently, hence the reason NTFS can be used with the former (on windows 7 and up), but is not recommended for the latter.

Max Norris said,

Why should they? I'm not saying one is better than the other, but why should Microsoft be forced into making their desktop OS support a file system from competing products, ones with a very small market share at that? Rather unrealistic expectation. Besides, you *can* access EXT2-4 and HFS partitions in Windows, just not out of the box, never mind this is completely off topic.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect MS to support a universal file system for external media that is cross platform and without patent issues. Microsoft chooses not to do this and instead hampers the entire industry.

There is no positive way to spin this one...

Patents havea shelf life if I am not mistaken. I could see this as valid "IF" MS were still using FAT. But they are not. So all I see is MS sitting there like Oliver twist saying, "please sir, may I have more?" FAT is way past the patents life I'm sure... Microsoft always wants free money from somewhere.

LogicalApex said,
It is perfectly reasonable to expect MS to support a universal file system for external media that is cross platform and without patent issues. Microsoft chooses not to do this and instead hampers the entire industry.

So you're expecting a company that's in the software business to dump what they've been using for decades and switch to an entirely different thing, not only losing money and causing all sorts of compatibility issues with existing systems and products, but also essentially bending over backwards to satisfy their competitors? Talk about "hampering..." It's really simple. Use proprietary tech, you pay for it, doesn't matter if it's Microsoft or Google or Motorola or whoever. That's how a free market works. Choice is great until somebody comes along and shoves it down your throat...

Here's a novel idea. How about all the Android manufacturer's stop using it, come up with another standard, forcing the rest of the world to work with it? If it's popular, Microsoft will have to pick it up. Hell they could even patent the thing and make Microsoft pay for a change.

Max Norris said,

So you're expecting a company that's in the software business to dump what they've been using for decades and switch to an entirely different thing, not only losing money and causing all sorts of compatibility issues with existing systems and products, but also essentially bending over backwards to satisfy their competitors? Talk about "hampering..." It's really simple. Use proprietary tech, you pay for it, doesn't matter if it's Microsoft or Google or Motorola or whoever. That's how a free market works. Choice is great until somebody comes along and shoves it down your throat...

Here's a novel idea. How about all the Android manufacturer's stop using it, come up with another standard, forcing the rest of the world to work with it? If it's popular, Microsoft will have to pick it up. Hell they could even patent the thing and make Microsoft pay for a change.

These are not mutually exclusive choices... Microsoft can, and does, support multiple file systems. Adding another doesn't remove NTFS, FAT, ExFAT, or any other file system from Windows.

The technology space is full of open standards that enhance, not detract from, market adoption. We could look at the web, which you are on now, which thrives from open standards like HTML, HTTP, and TCP/IP; among others. The same is true for Wi-Fi devices where they adhere to industry accepted standards that enhance market adoption. We could also throw in USB, SATA, ATX Power, and a host of others.

A major hamper to any universal file system standard would be support by Windows. After all, that is the OS that the vast majority of users use on their computers. If you can't get your new USB flash drive recognized when you plug it into your PC I don't think you'd be happy. As a result, to act as if MS' strong arming isn't to the determent of the industry makes no sense.

LogicalApex said,
These are not mutually exclusive choices... Microsoft can, and does, support multiple file systems. Adding another doesn't remove NTFS, FAT, ExFAT, or any other file system from Windows.

And there it is.. so like I said, they (the other manufacturers) should stop using something that they have to pay for, come up with their own and make Microsoft implement it due to popularity... or implement it themselves. There are file system drivers out there by third parties for the various EXT systems, HFS, etc. It's not like Microsoft makes it impossible to do.

LogicalApex said,
A major hamper to any universal file system standard would be support by Windows. After all, that is the OS that the vast majority of users use on their computers. If you can't get your new USB flash drive recognized when you plug it into your PC I don't think you'd be happy.

See above. If Microsoft doesn't include support then they can do it themselves. "Install this driver to use your new product." Once and done. Even better if Microsoft doesn't do it as then all versions of the OS will get it, even the ones that are out of support, namely XP. If the industry doesn't like the FAT system then they can stop using it and pay for the development themsevles.. strong-arming goes two ways. Instead of just standing around and making somebody else do the work, they should do it themselves.

This is the way I see MS. MS is all for playing nice with "others" as long as it is to MS's standard. This is to say MS is all for playing nice with others as long as MS has the upper hand or say. This ordeal with FAT and Android is proof in the pudding.

SO MS has 1 year left on the FAT patent.. here in the US.. so this German issue might stand...
unfortunately, yours truly found info on patents term of life.. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...patent_in_the_United_States [/URL]

LogicalApex said,

These are not mutually exclusive choices... Microsoft can, and does, support multiple file systems. Adding another doesn't remove NTFS, FAT, ExFAT, or any other file system from Windows.

The technology space is full of open standards that enhance, not detract from, market adoption. We could look at the web, which you are on now, which thrives from open standards like HTML, HTTP, and TCP/IP; among others. The same is true for Wi-Fi devices where they adhere to industry accepted standards that enhance market adoption. We could also throw in USB, SATA, ATX Power, and a host of others.

A major hamper to any universal file system standard would be support by Windows. After all, that is the OS that the vast majority of users use on their computers. If you can't get your new USB flash drive recognized when you plug it into your PC I don't think you'd be happy. As a result, to act as if MS' strong arming isn't to the determent of the industry makes no sense.

You are proving your own answer...

As you state, NT supports installable files systems. There is NOTHING preventing 3rd party or OSS from providing FS support whatever FS you 'think' should be available.

The reason NTFS has been kept and is used by external storage companies is that it is fast and extremely reliable on Windows (with upper level NTFS services), and is 'usable enough' on other platforms.

Microsoft hasn't killed Linux or OSX's ability to use the basic features of NTFS, and they could have.

As for supporting taking time to support some OSS FS, Microsoft has no incentive, especially considering the extra R&D to make things like ext3/4 less crappy. Microsoft can't afford to provide enterprise level support of FS technologies that are more error prone, less secure, with less features.

If you think (Insert FS Here) should be in Windows, write it and the drivers and distribute it.

LogicalApex said,

It is perfectly reasonable to expect MS to support a universal file system for external media that is cross platform and without patent issues. Microsoft chooses not to do this and instead hampers the entire industry.

Given Apple or Linux's market share what makes HFS or EXT "universal"? Also, no FS is inherently cross-platform. Any decent OS with the requisite drivers can handle any FS. Linux with 3rd party i.e. NTFS-3G support can handle NTFS reasonably well, and similarly Windows with 3rd party support can handle HFS/EXT reasonably well. Better drivers at both ends will certainly help matters further, but no party is "hampering" the other.

eddman said,

Apparently windows treats SSDs and flash drives differently, hence the reason NTFS can be used with the former (on windows 7 and up), but is not recommended for the latter.

You keep repeating this, but it is total nonsense...

As for Flash Drives, internal or external, Windows can tell if they are a HDD or a Flash based device and subsequently treats them with the proper writing technology no matter what FS they are using.

This applies to both internal an external devices and SSD gets additional SSD features enabled like TRIM.

If you don't believe me, just go read the whitepapers on Win7/8 Flash & SSD support.

(If you need more proof, go look up a technology called ReadyBoost that uses the same OS detection of the type of media, so that it doesn't wear out a Flash drive. Also note it doesn't care what FS is in use.)

Majesticmerc said,
it's half-arsed implementation in Linux leaves a lot to be desired.
What's wrong with gMTP and mtp-fuse/simple-mtpfs?

Mobius Enigma said,

If you don't believe me, just go read the whitepapers on Win7/8 Flash & SSD support.

How about you post some links to those whitepapers.

Geezy said,
What's wrong with gMTP and mtp-fuse/simple-mtpfs?

Admittedly it's been a while since I used MTP in Linux, but it was always the case that your device's VID/PID combination had to be recognised to provide access. For people who got their devices hot off the first batch (i.e. me with the HTC One X) it required you to either add to the list manually, or download an alternative implementation that was more up to date. Either way, it's hardly "plug and play" the same way that it's been in Windows.

eddman said,

How about you post some links to those whitepapers.

No.

The things you were saying about NTFS on Flash media was SPECIFIC to Windows XP and journaling features of NTFS being used with poorly identified media.

With the introduction of Vista and how media is identified, it no longer pertains.

There are times Windows 7/8 will NOT allow NTFS formatting of a Flash device, but only if it fails to meet fairly old specifications from around 2004/2005.

For the majority of Flash devices, the default FS for removable media devices larger than 2gb is NTFS, with a fallback to FAT32 and then exFAT depending on the size.

With that said, I am NOT here to teach you about the interface driver stacks and how they work on Windows. I also am going to assume you are not a child that needs help with searches on Google/Bing/Microsoft's Site.

Look up Interface, Storage, File System Drivers on Microsoft's site and start from there,

Some of the stuff you can find are really brilliant things that Windows does with handling storage mediums.

Things like the way Flash I/O is handled that was introduced with Vista which made things like Readyboost possible. These same technologies were even adapted by USB Flash and SSD manufacturers for their own internal algorithms.

Mobius Enigma said,

No.

I'm not a developer and I certainly haven't contributed to the ISS project. At least have the decency to point me to a single document to start from; I can do the rest, but no, you just had to act like any other arrogant intellectual I know.

Thanks for nothing.

P.S. and English isn't my first language, so it doesn't make things easier. No one helped me learning it, and I never took any classes, outside of what we learned in school. I thought myself. I'm not a "just give it to me, plain and simple" person, but in this case I need some help, which you refused.

Edited by eddman, Dec 7 2013, 11:23pm :

chrisj1968 said,
Microsoft always wants free money from somewhere.

I agree 100%. I mean they didn't even bother to do the design work, write the code, test it and spend ten years making it a global standard, did they. No, they just magicked the code out of Bill Gates' butt. So why should they get paid for that?

recursive said,
Looks like MSFT has bigger problems to worry about than just the FAT patent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...t-year-heres-why-it-should/

As does every other company that had ever applied for and been granted a software patent. If they rule to abolish software patents it will be a momentous day indeed, but somehow given pretty much _every_ company will be up in arms about this I don't quite see this happening.

Majesticmerc said,
Admittedly it's been a while since I used MTP in Linux, but it was always the case that your device's VID/PID combination had to be recognised to provide access.
Just FYI, I got a nexus 7 2013 day one and used it without updating, didn't have any problems, and the ID is different from the prev. model.

Mobius Enigma said,

You are proving your own answer...

As you state, NT supports installable files systems. There is NOTHING preventing 3rd party or OSS from providing FS support whatever FS you 'think' should be available.

The reason NTFS has been kept and is used by external storage companies is that it is fast and extremely reliable on Windows (with upper level NTFS services), and is 'usable enough' on other platforms.

Microsoft hasn't killed Linux or OSX's ability to use the basic features of NTFS, and they could have.

As for supporting taking time to support some OSS FS, Microsoft has no incentive, especially considering the extra R&D to make things like ext3/4 less crappy. Microsoft can't afford to provide enterprise level support of FS technologies that are more error prone, less secure, with less features.

If you think (Insert FS Here) should be in Windows, write it and the drivers and distribute it.

Where did I say MS had to support EXT3 or EXT4? Where did I say either of those are enterprise grade (they are used regularly in these environments, but I digress)?...

I said MS should support a standard universal FS for stuff like removable media that isn't a patent minefield. That means there would be something hashed out with the appropriate standards body. Hell it could be exFat or something completely new. My point wasn't about any specific file system...

Romero said,

Given Apple or Linux's market share what makes HFS or EXT "universal"? Also, no FS is inherently cross-platform. Any decent OS with the requisite drivers can handle any FS. Linux with 3rd party i.e. NTFS-3G support can handle NTFS reasonably well, and similarly Windows with 3rd party support can handle HFS/EXT reasonably well. Better drivers at both ends will certainly help matters further, but no party is "hampering" the other.

Again, where did I say anything about MS needing to support HFS or EXT? Where did I say any of those were "universal"? It could be a completely new file system called "The New File System" for all I care. My point is simply that there should be a universally supported file system for removable media that is patent free (or fairly licensed) and openly available to all.

There is a reason UDF exists for DVD media... Would be silly to need a different file system for the Mac, PC, TV, etc. Obviously, you should be able to chose whatever file system you want on your flash drive (or other removable device), but the default should be universal.

I'm not even sure I understand why this is so controversial a point here. I would have thought a technical audience like us would understand the benefits. Seems I'm mistaken on this... or I'm very poor at communicating my point. I hope it is the latter.

It was a communication mix-up in my case at least. Since you were responding to a comment discussing HFS and EXT I thought either of those was what you were advocating. Sure, if all the OS makers are able to agree on a single new FS that's best of breed and not a result of various compromises, I'm all for it! However given how the existing choices are entrenched in various ways and how the standardization process works in general, I'm not gonna hold my breath and expect to see this miracle occur during my lifetime.

Major_Plonquer said,

I agree 100%. I mean they didn't even bother to do the design work, write the code, test it and spend ten years making it a global standard, did they. No, they just magicked the code out of Bill Gates' butt. So why should they get paid for that?

rolls eyes. probably because in Germany, Statutes for patents last only so long.. that's what I'm taking from this incident

InTheSwiss said,
FAT needs to just die already. The sooner it is dumped from Android the better.

Eventually FAT will be replaced with exFAT but the later still requires royalties paid to Microsoft - I'm unsure what the price is though. From what I understand though: "Pricing for this license is $0.25 per unit with a cap on total royalties of $250,000 per licensee." which means that if you're selling millions of units then $250,000 is pretty trivial in terms of costing.

Major_Plonquer said,

I agree 100%. I mean they didn't even bother to do the design work, write the code, test it and spend ten years making it a global standard, did they. No, they just magicked the code out of Bill Gates' butt. So why should they get paid for that?

Good point. Just like how MSFT never contributed a single line of code, did any of the design work or did any testing on Android, yet claim manufacturers owe them $15 per device, which is the cost of completely licencing any other mobile operating system.

eddman said,

Just make sure to NOT format USB flash drives with NTFS. AFAIK It'll reduce their lifespan.

Source? Or is it just rumors......