[IP] more on Fat file patent
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:50:24 +0100
From: Marcel Waldvogel <marcel@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Fat file patent
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Bob Webster <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dave, Bob,
The patents listed on the MS site only seem to relate to the addition of
"long file names" to the FAT "8.3" file naming scheme:
U.S. Patent #5,745,902 "Method and system for accessing a file using file
names having different file name formats" (filed 1992)
U.S. Patent #5,579,517 "Common name space for long and short filenames"
(filed 1995)
U.S. Patent #5,758,352 "Common name space for long and short filenames"
(filed 1996)
U.S. Patent #6,286,013 "Method and system for providing a common name space
for long and short file names in an operating system" (filed 1997)
Thus it does not seem to apply to the "basic" FAT/FAT32 technology of
naming files ("8.3") and allocating/finding the disk blocks occupied by
these files. Since the FAT file system has been in use since the early 80s,
the existence of any patents preceding that date should be known by
Microsoft or other entities.
Based on this information, the following two conclusions can be drawn:
- As the formatting/initialization of the disk/flash card/... does not
determine whether long file names can be stored on it, the case for
royalties for preformatted but otherwise blank media seems to be very weak,
based on the evidence listed by Microsoft. Microsoft's FAT "Pricing and
Licensing" section is ambiguous on that anyway.
- The licensing for electronic devices capable of reading FAT media is
interesting. While the 25 cent may be acceptable to camera manufacturers,
it is certainly deadly for free operating systems (*BSD, Linux, ...), as
putting up any charging infrastructure will incur significant additional
expenses. Given Microsoft's history and interest in fighting free operating
systems, this may be deliberate. (Other companies with large patent
portfolio often license based on a percentage of revenue, which would be
better for free/open-source products. Also note that they do not state any
prices for personal computer or airplane licenses, just consumer electronics.)
As the consumer electronics devices with storage I know (selected digital
cameras and MP3 players) support only "8.3" naming, there may not be much
income (now) from this part, nor from the storage media manufacturers. The
only remaining goal seems to be to kill the efficiency with which
open-source/free operating systems can be distributed.
-Marcel
http://marcel.wanda.ch
(this is not legal advice; other standard disclaimers apply)
Dave Farber schrieb:
From: Bob Webster <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<snip>
Patent
Compact flash cards (and other flash cards) are really handy in cameras
and computers, because you can treat them like little hard drives. Or big
hard drives, if you consider half a billion a big number. You can plug in
a compact flash card and read or write just like a hard drive. This is
because it uses a standard format, the FAT or FAT32 format.
FAT stands for (or stood for once) File Access Table. It's a standard
layout for a file directory and pointers to the files. Microsoft started
using the FAT format for hard and floppy drives with MSDOS. It's a pretty
simple format, with several similarities to CP/M and Unix formats.
Now Microsoft has decided they own FAT. They are going to start charging
manufacturers about $0.25 for each compact flash card sold. Well, those
that use the FAT file format, which amounts to almost every card being
sold. Our PC12 uses a nonstandard compact flash card to record engine
data. I guess that saved us 25 cents in the purchase of the airplane.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/