From: "Jason Matusow" <jasonma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: January 5, 2004 11:19:48 AM PST
To: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Fat file patent
Tim, I hope this mail finds you well.
Feel free to forward this -
A couple of thoughts come to mind which might prove useful. The first
thought relates to why we're providing this license in the first place.
It is important to recognize that despite the broad use of FAT systems
today, compatibility problems still arise between devices and systems.
We've heard this from consumers and from companies that sell products
that are intended to work well with Windows (eg: digital cameras). To
address this issue, our licensing program provides rights to patents
and
trade secrets. The trade secret rights relate to sample source code,
Microsoft's FAT file system specification and other documentation. This
information can enhance compatibility. Many people have not focused on
the trade secret elements of the license, but the licensing discussions
we've had with companies so far lead us to believe that licensees
associate a good deal of value to these trade secrets.
The second point I'd highlight is that the licensing program today is
structure primarily to respond to interest from solid state memory
device manufacturers and consumer electronics companies, so these
companies clearly do see value in this information. There might be
interest beyond these sectors, but that's the focus today.
I hope this helps.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Reilly [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Jason Matusow; Martin Taylor; Brad Smith (LCA)
Subject: Fwd: [IP] more on Fat file patent
Any comment? If you have one, you might want to respond to Dave, since
his list is read by a lot of influential people.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 27, 2003 12:34:38 PM PST
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] more on Fat file patent
Reply-To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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