The Patent Office’s recent review of Microsoft’s file system could put Linux and other GPL-licensed products at risk warn industry figures.
FAT Patent Review May Threaten Linux Foundation
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
FUD.
nothing more, nothing less.
samba implements SMB and CIFS, not a diskbased filesystem a la FAT.
and what has a filesystem driver to do with the linux core ?
nothing at all.
delete the fat and fat32 modules, and the threat is gone.
it’s just FUD.
roger
You´re totally right..
You´re totally right…
Microsoft is the only one to fear the FAT patent review and is doing the only thing that does right .. spreading FUD!!
I whish poeple would read a bit more and not post flame-Eugenia!!!, they said quite the oposite in the article : That the review (and subsequent voiding of patent) would _secure_ free use. Stop being so jumpy people!!!
I don’t think people are flaming. The article seems to consider both the (in)validity of said review.
In order to mount my digital camera, I need to use FAT support. So yes, patenting FAT filesystem could make linux incompatible with it …
The FAT file system is also used by the open-source Samba software that lets Linux and Unix computers exchange data with Windows computers…
Yeah. And my cat is actually the one who whispers the code i write at work.
http://theinquirer.net/?article=16697
The Inquirer reporter seems to think that FAT is the native filesystem of linux.
Any company that sells Linux distributions can remove the FAT FS from their source repository and ship without it, if it becomes a problem. It’s not a big deal, the users can just download another kernel (free) and then use the FAT FS that comes with that one.
This is how we all got around the GIF patent. The only problem I see is with MP3 players; why they decided to use the crappy FAT is beyond me.
Luke.
Hopefully this whole FAT pattent thing will be a wakeup call for the people who make these devices that using FAT underneath is not a good idea. I don’t know if there are open source filesystems that have the same level of remarkable simplicity as FAT does which works so well with little embeded devices like cameras and MP3 players (it’s hard to believe you can patent anything in something so basic, no less get 5 patents on it.) I was very much surprised when I found out all this stuff was using FAT and not some open standard agreed upon between manufacturers. When are these manufacturers going to take Linux seriously and insist that their stuff all support it?
I am tired of the media jumping on stupid things like this. There is no “magic bullet” that Microsoft will pull out to make all of this work that people have done over the years go away. Every week it’s some other fool saying “Linux might die!!” It’s not happening people, get used to it. Plus, nobody has hit on how MS is really planning to kill Linux, by putting an XBox style bios into all desktops making them only run OS’s MS signs. (grin)
It’s also embarrasing that the US government so blatently helps Microsoft, but it’s understandable given the vast flow of money that they bring from other countries into ours.
Microsoft has the FAT patent but no way of making cash off the patent…
If Microsoft decides to charge a fee for use of FAT, this would make peripheral manufactures pay for rights to use it in their products. If they don’t pay, then they will be incompatible…
Now if you look at it like this, a company decides NOT to pay for the rights to use FAT, and Microsoft declares them IMCOMPATIBLE… This will look like Microsoft controlling their monopoly. This would be a very bad thing for them if it went to court.
Also, Linux FAT filesystem… I think it is a FAT COMPATIBLE filesystem, not a FAT copy.
And lastly, SAMBA uses FAT… hahahahahahaa retard journos
I mean, FAT isn’t exactly the sharpest stick of the bunch (unless it’s sticking in your eye). How about a journaled, attributed, modern file system? Something open? Oh, hey there’s a bunch of those, aren’t there?
Come on industry, Move Forward! 😉
i like articles like this. it reassures me that those out to damage open, free and alternative software are not really a threat at all!
The filing of ludicrous patents and then their selective enforcement after wide spread and acknowledged free use is getting quite tiresome. It’s also getting quite tiresome to the thousands of businesses who are being affected by the outlandish abuse of the patent process. The end result will be what happens whenever abuse gets too the stinking threshold point–the abused system is dismantled. The abuse of the patent system will be the same thing. If the patent office and the companies who abuse these practices don’t get their act together, there probably won’t be much act left in the next few decades. I don’t believe that is an entirely good thing, but it may be better than the lawyer envisioned dream of patent and charge for every little thing.
I have been following this patent issue from the beginning.
There appears to be only one question with regards to the entire story.
Did Microsoft create the FAT file system?
If that is in fact the case; This patent will stand.
Perhaps MS is testing the waters with this FAT patent guff. The next assault might be the patenting of their APIs (which probably already are) and then extorting royalties from developers of the applications that users run. Worse yet, MS is probably try to figure out how to do this by requiring a live internet connection to use an application so that they can track usage in real-time and then tax the developer somehow–assuming that they can’t successfully convince the users to pay for a “software service”.
Sounds far-fetched?
Consider that MS is already squeezing the consumer as much as possible and yet fear that their bread-and-butter revenues are in jeopardy. With most desktops still running windoze, I am sure they would love to see it work like the game consoles where they charge royalties on every game.
Although they might be able to crank some short-term revenue out of the bloodletting that would ensue, in the long term it would just help to drive developers–and thus users–into free software/open source alternatives.
This is not about FAT, it’s about VFAT which is FAT+some hacks to get long filenames without breaking backwards compatability. Essentially, spare space in directory tables is used to store the extra characters.
Despite prior art (Geos and others), Microsoft managed to get a patent on this hack.
FAT originated with QDOS, a derivative of CPM (which also had a FAT like filesystem). Microsoft bought non exclusive rights to QDOS… and the rest is history. Microsoft have no exclusive rights to plain old FAT.
I don’t see why Microsoft care about this really, NTFS is a far better filesystem, so the only benefits to them are in stifling competition and disrupting compatability. Wait a minute….
Detailed page on FAT and these issues:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/FAT-32
The “prior art” arguement will hold with the patent office only if the person/company that demonstrated the “prior art” chooses to appeal, and has a boatload of documentation to offer as proof.
History of U.S. patents will show it isn’t about who really invented/developed a product; it’s more about who made an application for a patent. Broadcasting related patents are the first to come to mind.
”
Did Microsoft create the FAT file system?
If that is in fact the case; This patent will stand.”
really?. thats not so simple
A few people have said this is Microsoft spreading FUD. It most certainally isn’t. Microsoft didn’t bring this suit against themselves. People who are fans of free software brought the suit. If Microsoft’s patent is valid, Microsoft could demand that free software remove their ability to read FAT formatted filesystems. That can be done, but it limits a lot of the functionality of free software – specifically, I’m thinking of how Linux can read the files on my digital camera.
It won’t be the end of Linux, but it could be the end of Linux being able to do certain things.
The only reason I read this article is because of the provocative claim by Eugenia that the patent review somehow endangers linux. Follow that up with the first sentence of the article which states that the linux community and Microsoft are now bedfellows and I was intrigued. However, the article only lays out the familiar argument of PubPat and Moglen that the patent review is a pre-emptive strike against Microsoft before they can start demanding licenses. How does that make MS and linux users bedfellows? More like bitter enemies. That means the writer, Peter Galli, is either an idiot or just manipulative, trying to write a first sentence that interests you enough to read the rest of the article only to realize that you’ve been tricked. Why Eugenia chose to mirror that claim in her description, I can’t figure out.
I dual boot, and store my music on a fat32 partition. If I suddenly have no vfat module to use I’ll just have to format it as ext3 or reiser, and then I will have no music in windows.
Actually it would suck for linux users. Because for example I am going to be purchasing a usb memory pen, and fat32 is really the only widely compatible filesystem I can use on it. If wanna use it anywhere it’s gotta be fat32, because people aren’t going to just let you install ext2 progs to use your memory pen….
Not a huge loss, more an annoyance. Microsoft needs to quit trying so hard to be incompatible. One of these days they won’t have a majority market share and they’ll lose the rest over lack of compatibility. Nobody stays on top forever guys, and you’re making too many enemies.
In our European fight against software patents, we found something interesting.
The TRIPs treaty forbids patentability of software. On the website of the WTO, article 10.0 of TRIPs says:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm :
‘The obligation to protect computer programs as literary works means e.g. that only those limitations that are applicable to literary works may be applied to computer programs.’
There is no patentability for literary works, so there shouldn’t be any for computer programs either.
On top of that, the WIPO copyright treaty says in article
10:
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/distrib/94dc.htm :
‘(1) Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate of the author.’
The normal exploitation of a computer program means using and selling it. Both can be banned by software patents if a third pary owns a software patent a program breaches.
Therefore, software patents are in conflict with both the TRIPS and the WIPO copyright treaties.
Thought you should know.
“Did Microsoft create the FAT file system?
If that is in fact the case; This patent will stand.”
“really?. thats not so simple”
No it’s not simple at all, and I certainly never said that it was.
It is the only real question when it comes to the patent/patent review. The review is to decide if MS was entitled to the original patent assignment.
Obviously people are considering damage/ramifications etc.,
however the patent office isn’t a body who makes determinations based on ramifications. Their position is to decide if and only if the basis for patent itself are valid.
In itself this might not be nearly a complex as many would believe. No doubt there is a ton of documentation being collected by MS, and the other side as well.
” No it’s not simple at all, and I certainly never said that it was.
It is the only real question when it comes to the patent/patent review.”
wrong. totally wrong. patent office doesnt get to decide the validity of the patent. the court does and patent depends on documented prior art not whether FAT is created by MS or not but whether a system or metholodogy that they claim to be unique in FAT is undeniably so.
for example an api can be patented trivially but enforcing it not so easy.
“wrong. totally wrong. patent office doesnt get to decide the validity of the patent. the court does and patent depends on documented prior art not whether FAT is created by MS or not but whether a system or metholodogy that they claim to be unique in FAT is undeniably so.”
Patent history in the U.S. tells a very different story.
These people are more familiar with patents dealing with mousetraps than software. They get it wrong a LOT.
We’ll have to wait to see how it plays out, but I bet it’s going to be a real eyeopener.
“These people are more familiar with patents dealing with mousetraps than software.
”
actually the patent office doesnt have either the time or expertise. so in general it just grants the patent.
whether it will hold up on court will be more important. lets see
I don’t like FAT at all. Why are people still using it? I don’t think microsoft even uses it anymore, do they? im more of a unix man
Oh yeah, I really doubt the FAT patent can ‘harm’ open source software. There are 2 sides to the software patent issue ofcourse… I’m more in the middle ground. Most software patents are stupid though.
“Oh yeah, I really doubt the FAT patent can ‘harm’ open source software. There are 2 sides to the software patent issue ofcourse… I’m more in the middle ground. Most software patents are stupid though.”
FAT is a very simple filesystem and is being used by a lot of digital devices like cameras which would become incompatible with linux if the fat patent is established well. dont under estimate the power of obsolete technology.
Where do you get the idea this is a court matter?
There is no court involved. It doesn’t work like that.
You need to read a LOT more about this.
The appeal “process” is more or less the final word.
Taking it to court after the appeal (if they will hear it)is unlikely.
1. Microsoft does really well in court.
2. Who is going to pay to file and lead the suit?
Hint: Those patent defender folks are of extremely limited means.
3. Perhaps MS really has a right to the patent.
4. See #1
“Where do you get the idea this is a court matter?
There is no court involved. It doesn’t work like that. ”
of course currently it isnt. if the appeal fails it will become court manner.
“1. Microsoft does really well in court. ”
nope. it has lost several cases before.
“2. Who is going to pay to file and lead the suit? ”
everyone interested. same as any open community thing.
“Hint: Those patent defender folks are of extremely limited means. ”
dont underestimate it.
“3. Perhaps MS really has a right to the patent. ”
perhaps it doesnt
“4. See #1 ”
redundant
Where do you get the idea this is a court matter?
There is no court involved. It doesn’t work like that. ”
of course currently it isnt. if the appeal fails it will become court manner.
Not likely… and not likely for a lot of reasons.
“1. Microsoft does really well in court. ”
nope. it has lost several cases before.
Sure they have lost. Don’t look at the percentages of won vs lost. It will make you ill.
“2. Who is going to pay to file and lead the suit? ”
everyone interested. same as any open community thing.
Yeah, I bet that has them shaking big in Redmond.
“Hint: Those patent defender folks are of extremely limited means. ”
dont underestimate it.
I don’t, many will, those that matter probably don’t give a damn.
It would likely be cheaper for many of the corporate folks to pay any yet undetermined “fee” than attempt to support a lawsuit they could a: loose, b: screw up future relations with MS.
“3. Perhaps MS really has a right to the patent. ”
perhaps it doesnt
Yet to be determined. No jury involved.
“4. See #1 ”
redundant
Key to the deal, and puts the fear of God in anyone who attempts it. Ask the Justice Dept.
I still stand to this position because patenting software will only benefit big corporation by taking taxpayer moneys for their own personal need. How many algorithm were found before corporation know about its? Think about it. IMO, FAT should not be patented.
“dont under estimate the power of obsolete technology. ”
LOL!! I gotcha thanks 😉