Fat File System Licensing?

[MrBlais]

I'm sick of gov't

 

[sabrecheeky]

Don't tell me this after I have spent ages fighting with bloody vista to format an external 1TB drive in FAT32 so it can be read by my (hopefully future) pandora and PS3.

Since XP, microsoft want you to use NTFS, probably because they can charge bigger licensing fees for it. So FAT32 is limited to 32GB if you format using a MS system. For no reason at all other than microsoft being bastards. So microsoft bricked my drive, for not formatting it the way they want. (This will be my last machine with an MS OS on it)

So every sd card, memory stick, cf card, usb stick, mp3 player I have bought has paid a 25USC tax to microsoft?

Every day I hate them more.

 

[lulzfish]

So every sd card, memory stick, cf card, usb stick, mp3 player I have bought has paid a 25USC tax to microsoft?

Yep, that's how software patents work. Developers make something cool, get paid their salary, and the company enjoys the rewards of their once-off invention for ages to come, hindering progress and ruining the ability to produce free technology.

Like I said, software patents are cool like that.

edit: The Pandora will be able to read the ext and reiser formats, I assume you formatted your drive as fat for the PS3's sake?
And how did that manage to brick it? It was my understanding that the filesystem was a layer above any hardware issues like that.

 

[neko]

So every sd card, memory stick, cf card, usb stick, mp3 player I have bought has paid a 25USC tax to microsoft?

Nobody actually pays Microsoft for this, but they most likely did pay an mp3 tax to Fraunhoffer, and a fee to the SD card association.

 

[sabrecheeky]

@lulzfish

I may have used the word 'brick' a bit over emotionally! (It has really annoyed me) It left it unrecognised except for 'you must format this!' as NTFS or... NTFS! woohoo! or 'exfat' if you want no machine on the whole bloody planet to read your drive.

Using DOS prompt, it took 18 hours to format it... *then* it told me the drive was too big.

Found a nice little dos command that works under vista... so it was only really bricked for a few minutes... hehehehe... sorry!

For the record... CODE
http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm


I wanted FAT32 so other machines could use it, and was thinking of both the PS3 and Pandora... Thinking ahead! Or so I thought...

 

[Karel Jansens]

I'm extremely uncomfortable with that, even for 25 cents.
It's 25 cents they get, for no effort, just because the government recognized them as doing something first.
25 cents of money spents on something that has no cost for copying, that other people have implemented on their own.

That´s how patents work. Then again, it´s a system that´s only annoying to those who never think of something first.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

so now i'm wondering, what about NTFS-3G? there are no patents like this long filename stuff, or am i wrong?

@sabregolly: it would've been easier to just use a partitioning tool without running windows to format the drive, e.g. with the GParted (Linux) LiveCD (or any other Live distro containing a similar partitioning editor with NTFS tools). if the BIOS supports USB storage devices you can even use the good 6 year old Partition Magic from PowerQuest in a bootable DOS environment.

 

[sabrecheeky]

so now i'm wondering, what about NTFS-3G? there are no patents like this long filename stuff, or am i wrong?

@sabregolly: it would've been easier to just use a partitioning tool without running windows to format the drive, e.g. with the GParted (Linux) LiveCD (or any other Live distro containing a similar partitioning editor with NTFS tools). if the BIOS supports USB storage devices you can even use the good 6 year old Partition Magic from PowerQuest in a bootable DOS environment.

That was the next option on my list... the unnecessary difficulty of formatting a drive using a *microsoft* file system on a *microsoft* operating system took me by surprise! ;-)

 

[Monk]

I keep wondering about the apparent IP profiting hate - is it all profiting from IP that people hate, or just big companies, or just Microsoft?

How would we feel about, say, a Chinese company producing knock-off Pandoras? Would that be cool, or would it be unfair to OP? What if it was the company who actually made the motherboards for OP making the motherboard for the Chinese clone? (this happened to Micro$oft a few years back - a company who manufactured Micro$oft Mice for M$ manufactured some for themselves too, and sold them cheaper...)

How about if the company making the custom analogue nubs started selling them to other (competing) console manufacturers without even acknowledging OP?

Would OP deserve credit/compansation for the Nub designs... or only DaveC? And so on.

 

[lulzfish]

I don't know much about hardware patents, but I think patenting a software technique isn't really fair.

Certainly, you shouldn't be allowed to steal source code that hasn't been released, but if you can reverse-engineer something like the filesystem, I think you should be allowed to use the reverse-engineered version.

The problem, really, is that the thing they've patented has become a standard filesystem, the way Flash Video has come to dominate web video.

There's something I don't quite like about it, but I don't think I know enough to really debate it.

 

[Monk]

I don't know much about hardware patents, but I think patenting a software technique isn't really fair.

Certainly, you shouldn't be allowed to steal source code that hasn't been released, but if you can reverse-engineer something like the filesystem, I think you should be allowed to use the reverse-engineered version.

I don't really see tha tmuch difference between software and hardware, except that it hurts more if you kick hardware.

I tend to think of it a bit like... if it is easier to reverse-engineer someone else's work than to do your own from scratch, then there is some benefit being derrived from the original workers work. Basically, the reverse-engineer is "taking profit" (where progit is not defined, so not restricted to $) from someone else's work. Now, if the oriignal work is licensed for free use that's one thing, but if it is not I do not understand how/why it would be right to benefit from it anyway, especially not to the extent of vilifying the originator*. I'm genuinely curious about the degree of upset that SEEMS to exist over the concept of people wanting remuneration for their IP.

*note that I realise that Microsoft, among many others, paid people less to produce their IP than they earn - but that's how business works. People accept salaries and do stuff for their pay - if the business can earn more from their work than they are paid then they can always leave and start up their own endevour. In the meantime they work to a contract, and the IP "belongs" to the employer. Unless the writer works for Hollywood, apparently.

 

[conso]

I keep wondering about the apparent IP profiting hate - is it all profiting from IP that people hate, or just big companies, or just Microsoft?

How would we feel about, say, a Chinese company producing knock-off Pandoras? Would that be cool, or would it be unfair to OP? What if it was the company who actually made the motherboards for OP making the motherboard for the Chinese clone? (this happened to Micro$oft a few years back - a company who manufactured Micro$oft Mice for M$ manufactured some for themselves too, and sold them cheaper...)

How about if the company making the custom analogue nubs started selling them to other (competing) console manufacturers without even acknowledging OP?

Would OP deserve credit/compansation for the Nub designs... or only DaveC? And so on.

I'm pretty sure that the company making the analog nubs for pandora doesn't exclusivly make analog nubs for pandora. That's normal business, like pretty much all big players in notebook-business (acer, hp, toshiba, appe and some others) actually let their notebooks produce by the same company.
Wtf shouldn't a company producing mice for microsoft make mice for other companies?

And the FAT-case is something very special, since it's very hard to implement custom filesystems into windows and ntfs isn't an adequate fs for flash-media, Nobody uses vfat for it's superior technology but only for compatibility.with an operating system controlling the market.
It's obvious that whenever microsoft missed a new technology and some other companies control the market as a group (cloud computing for example), they screem interoperability, but when other companies try to make their systems compatible with windows, they take out some trivial patents.

One thing I thought about: maybe the pandora could act as an standard usb-network device and share the storage devices (formated with ext2 or some other non-journal fs) via samba. Afaik, samba is protected from patent-claims by ms.

 

[lulzfish]

I suppose that patents are some sort of useful, but they seem very childish in nature. To enforce a patent says, "I had that idea first, you are magically not allowed to do it"

It helps the business that holds the IP, but it keeps their customers from getting anything better from someone else, especially for huge companies that can afford to fight for their patents.

And at some point, whoever is selling licenses is making money off of something for which all the thinking has already been paid for.

I don't know how much Microsoft invested in its employees before they hacked long filenames into FAT, but it's possible that the license has already paid for the development of the technique, and now they're just making money because they happened to use the technique first.

But more importantly, we aren't supposed to be arguing about the nature of patents in this thread, and it's a waste of time for me as I'm hardly in charge of issuing them.

 

[Xanas]

It's unfortunate TomTom caved, because based on other decisions I had read they were unlikely to lose that case. I think the problem is they were also unlikely to end up paying less in court fees even had the won, because the court would not have awarded them the fees for Microsoft's losing case.

We really need a loser pays system for more of these patent cases. It at least gives the possibility those who believe they are right will stick to it, and those who aren't sure will back down. It doesn't ensure justice, but it at least prevents caving to entirely unjustified attacks like those relating to FAT.

QUOTE

I'm genuinely curious about the degree of upset that SEEMS to exist over the concept of people wanting remuneration for their IP.



Renumeration for what? It's not as though Microsoft made this FAT extension out of some event of sheer unmatched brilliance. Linux kernel developers had done this without any Microsoft code.

The only things worth patenting are those things that require enough money and resources that to not allow them to be patented is a travesty and would cause it to never have been possible to develop. That simply does not apply the FAT patents. There have been multiple better file systems developed since then without any use of the FAT code. If it's so easy to just remake it, was it special enough to really deserve many years of protection?

Patents in this day and age are a total farce due to the ease of getting them. If it's something anyone can easily come up with on their own without reference, it's no more admirable than winning the lottery, and if it's developed by a corporation, then it entirely losses "little guy wins" appeal.

QUOTE

if it is easier to reverse-engineer someone else's work than to do your own from scratch



Yes, because FAT Is the ultimate filesystem and people who run Linux actually use it for their main file storage...um.. ? They only had to reverse-engineer it to remain compatible because Microsoft has a habit of using these patents to lock people out. They did it with FAT, NTFS, DirectX, etc. None of these "technologies" were at their inception more advanced than their peers but they practically bribe others and continue to extend, and to lock-out others to maintain dominance and now they beat people with that same stick using patent lawsuits. You defend them and say they are justified because they deserve renumeration. I think your position is the definition of "genuinely curious."

 

[Prometheus]

I'm genuinely curious about the degree of upset that SEEMS to exist over the concept of people wanting remuneration for their IP.

I just want to make clear here (as the above quote hadn't actually occurred to me when I wrote my earlier post ), that there's none from me - I'm fine with that, as long as the systems for doing so aren't misused to prevent fair competition.

What makes me uncomfortable is the notion of money (any amount, even if it's just a tiny one) I've paid for a product I want, going to a company whose products and inventions I don't want, don't use, don't want to use, and will not be using, who had no involvement in the creation of the product I chose to buy. It irks me in a way I can't seem to find the words for at this moment. :lol:

 

[WizardStan]

I keep wondering about the apparent IP profiting hate - is it all profiting from IP that people hate, or just big companies, or just Microsoft?

I have no problems with companies patenting their algorithms and benefiting from them. What I have problems with is the unlimited nature of the software patents. Consider this Microsoft case: they released their FAT32 into the wild, let it basically become an all pervasive standard, and then said "oh, now that we control such a large portion of the market, we're going to start charging."
That just doesn't sit right with me, that they can do that and get away with it. But that's the hand we're dealt, and we have to play by the rules until someone realizes that the rules are stupid.

 

[Chip]

The problem people have with MS now trying to sue for money for FAT licensing is that it is at best disingenuous, and at worst extortion.

• The reason we need FAT32 is because that is the file system that all SD cards use.
• The reason FAT32 was chosen for SD cards is because it is universally readable by all modern computers.
• The reason it is universally readable is because it was the default standard on the vast majority of computers for a long time (Windows PCs), and it has always been free.

Had it not been "free", it never would have become standardized, and it never would have been chosen as the standard file system for flash media. If MS had tried to charge this tax from day one, they would be the only ones using it, and flash media would have adopted a free file system instead.

Instead they give it away for a decade (and aggressively pushed device manufacturers to institutionalize it) and then, once everybody is using it, they start demanding money. That's like inviting everybody over to your house for a pool party and then charging admission on their way out of the pool. You can't tell (in this case, practically beg) everybody to do something and not mention until afterward that "Oh by the way, you owe me money for that."

The software patent system in the US is extremely broken by any standards, but whether you feel their patent should be valid or not, nobody can make the argument that they should be able to go back and retroactively charge people for using a standard that they've been actively pushing (and not charging for) for years. As I said, that is at best disingenuous, and at worst extortion.

 

[Xanas]

This should tell us all to stay away from Mono or Silverlight or DirectX or any other "standards" Microsoft pushes. They may not come for anyone now, but give them 10 years and they'll have changed their minds despite preaching that they desire interoperability.

One of the main reasons I have supported this project even despite it's delays being so huge is that it does use Linux and I desire to use as little Microsoft-based technology as possible. If FAT has to be dumped so be it. ext2ifs driver is simple to install and freely available.

 

[God Ginrai]

This should tell us all to stay away from Mono or Silverlight or DirectX or any other "standards" Microsoft pushes. They may not come for anyone now, but give them 10 years and they'll have changed their minds despite preaching that they desire interoperability.

One of the main reasons I have supported this project even despite it's delays being so huge is that it does use Linux and I desire to use as little Microsoft-based technology as possible. If FAT has to be dumped so be it. ext2ifs driver is simple to install and freely available.

Microsoft won't start charging for Silverlight unless they have muscled their way into holding a majority over Flash, IMHO.

-God Ginrai

 

[hedwards]

Besides, while I"m not familiar with the implementation of the FAT filesystems in Linux, I"m not necessarily sure that they can be enforced. I believe that reverse engineering them is legitimate providing that it is done in an approved way.

You seem to confuse copyright with patent law. The former applies to code, whilst the later to the format (in this case).

EDIT: added clarification

That's not quite correct. Patents can be reverse engineered around provided one is doing so for an approved reason. And interoperability is considered legitimate in the US. That admittedly may vary from nation to nation. But it's definitely legitimate.

Also it's worth noting that since the FAT patents don't involve a machine or anything physical it is definitely questionable as to whether they could be enforced at present. Which is moot for OP as trying to litigate it out would cost way more than it would be worth, even if successful. Paying the fee if applicable would be a much better idea.

I keep wondering about the apparent IP profiting hate - is it all profiting from IP that people hate, or just big companies, or just Microsoft?

How would we feel about, say, a Chinese company producing knock-off Pandoras? Would that be cool, or would it be unfair to OP? What if it was the company who actually made the motherboards for OP making the motherboard for the Chinese clone? (this happened to Micro$oft a few years back - a company who manufactured Micro$oft Mice for M$ manufactured some for themselves too, and sold them cheaper...)

The issue isn't IP itself. It's how the IP is used and whether there's a reasonable alternative. Companies that engage in this sort of patent trollery don't deserve any protections at all. If you dominate your way into a industry leading position it shouldn't be allowed to use that position to force the adoption of your patented work. Especially if you haven't been enforcing it for a long period of time.

IP was created as an incentive to innovate and create things which benefited society but couldn't be profited by sufficiently to guarantee production. IP law in the US at present has gone off the deep end and not by a small amount either.