EU state rules - Microsoft CAN own patent for FAT long filenames!

[Calum]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/microsoft_german_fat_patent_appeal_upheld/

Basically Microsoft now hold a patent meaning they own the "invention" of implementing long filenames under a FAT or VFAT filesystem! Considering that virtually all operating systems and a huge percentage of handheld devices implement this, and considering the EU is historically not too keen on granting software patents, what does this mean in real terms?

It's not even a case of a technological answer, because a patent means microsoft owns this concept, not the technology used to implement it! Write new code if you want, microsoft are now legally allowed to charge you money for implementing long filenames under FAT regardless of who wrote the code.

Pathetic. That's my opinion anyway.

[yourlife]

Microsoft, Microsoft, What is the best type of punishment to undertake on you?

[worker201]

I was just looking into this a little bit.  It appears that most systems support FAT, but they don't use it themselves.  So the very worst that could happen is that a specific avenue of interoperability would close down.  Which honestly doesn't sound like it would be in Microsoft's best interest.  I could see them going after companies that sell flash cards or USB sticks, but not after Apple and Linux for implementing support.

[Kintaro]

I doubt they would go after the companies that make the hardware Windows uses.

This is a software patent anyway, they can't go after hardware just because of how software formats it. Besides, when they sell an empty flash drive - it isn't using long file names yet until a file is saved with one.

Software patents are pretty silly

[Kintaro]

Microsoft, Microsoft, What is the best type of punishment to undertake on you?

Punishment? It's civil law.

[Lead Head]

Play nicely now guys.

I don't know why most USB drives are formatted with FAT - even straight from the factory. Guess its because windows doesn't support much else, and NTFS support is iffy on other platforms.

[Calum]

historical reasons. VFAT is the de facto standard, just like microsoft wanted.

It's actually the same setup as a protection racket, and microsoft have been doing it since 1975 with all sorts of technology. They basically tell everybody they're screwed if they don't conform to microsoft's rules (which is true because most people fall for it and anybody who doesn't gets left out in the cold by the market) and then they go round shortly afterwards forcing protection money out of you for playing by microsoft's rules. A classic one-two punch combination.

And yes, software patents really suck, because they stifle true innovation, which is exactly what microsoft wants to happen. if the information technology economy starts being more based on innovation and less on marketing, microsoft will be in real trouble. software patents are a godssend for them.

[Kintaro]

No innovation? That is funny because Windows is the system with all the innovation. MacOSX and Linux stay almost exactly the same, my debian desktop looks the same as always and it has its charm.

Personally if Microsoft didn't need to hold defensive patents against faggots like Red-Hat, Novell, IBM, Oracle, Apple, and so on and vise-versa a lot less of the market capitalization would be spent on bullshit intellectual property lawyers a lot more innovation could be done. Yet Microsoft is the only software company that still does innovate, Microsoft are the ones who developed technology so solid-state disks and hard drives can both be used at once for the files that run faster on each. Microsoft are the ones that have the largest and most powerful API, and by far the easiest SDK.

The real worry is that intellectual property leaves a monopoly now for big companies. Smaller software development outfits are severely limited by these coercive intrusions into their business. Not every man with an idea has access to a farm of lawyers. The real criminal here is the Governments that keep a body that was invented by an insane English tyrant King which has no economic sense at all. Get rid of patents, Microsoft is fine, apart from the Blue Screens of Death that everyone with x64 has... and that is what we are talking about, not Microsofts legal necessities.

Microsoft don't need patents, they can buy anyone they want, unless Larry Ellison at Oracle beat them to it. The fact is patents stifle competition and market forces and the computer world is at the whims of every insane patent officer.

You know what I think? I don't think you even know what you are talking about, and add nothing of value to this forum.

[Calum]

No innovation? That is funny because Windows is the system with all the innovation. MacOSX and Linux stay almost exactly the same, my debian desktop looks the same as always and it has its charm.

that's reasonable. i think judging an OS by how your desktop looks is a sound policy.

Personally if Microsoft didn't need to hold defensive patents against faggots like Red-Hat, Novell, IBM, Oracle, Apple, and so on and vise-versa a lot less of the market capitalization would be spent on bullshit intellectual property lawyers a lot more innovation could be done. Yet Microsoft is the only software company that still does innovate, Microsoft are the ones who developed technology so solid-state disks and hard drives can both be used at once for the files that run faster on each. Microsoft are the ones that have the largest and most powerful API, and by far the easiest SDK.

it's an opinion.

The real worry is that intellectual property leaves a monopoly now for big companies. Smaller software development outfits are severely limited by these coercive intrusions into their business. Not every man with an idea has access to a farm of lawyers. The real criminal here is the Governments that keep a body that was invented by an insane English tyrant King which has no economic sense at all. Get rid of patents, Microsoft is fine, apart from the Blue Screens of Death that everyone with x64 has... and that is what we are talking about, not Microsofts legal necessities.

actually i think you make a lot of sense here in all seriousness.

Microsoft don't need patents, they can buy anyone they want, unless Larry Ellison at Oracle beat them to it. The fact is patents stifle competition and market forces and the computer world is at the whims of every insane patent officer.

i know you like to know when i agree with you, i'm pretty much in agreement here.

You know what I think? I don't think you even know what you are talking about, and add nothing of value to this forum.

oh! and it was going so well. Well, we'll let the audience decide shall we?

[Aloone_Jonez]

VFAT is a good system, in that it's simple, easy to implement and in wide use.

This patten still means that everyone will be able to use VFAT, it only affects long file names used by Windows: you can still use short 8.3 file names used by Windows 3.1 and DOS.

I don't know if this patent just covers the MS system, could you invent your own long file name system which is not compatible with Windows and use it instead?

If so, it will just make things harder, although not impossible. If compatibility with Windows is an issue you could write your own driver which will enable Windows to use your own long file name standard.

[yourlife]

Either way Microsoft made a mistake, everyone will use their own systems, making compatibility with Windows almost impossible.

[Calum]

however the vfat filesystem will remain the de facto standard. as aloone jonez says it just means somebody writing a proper windows interface for ext3 or whatever (though will this be harder than for example ntfs support for linux?)  and yet most people get their various storage devices preformatted with vfat, that's the real issue, same as people who get their PC preloaded with ms windows.

so saying this is not an important issue is missing the point. it may not be an important issue for a small minority, but it still is, because if it's an issue for the majority, even if you're not part of it, you still have to live in the society formed by that majority.

[worker201]

As a sidetrip from this topic, what is a good replacement.  I've always formatted my usb sticks as VFAT because it was the most usable format for moving data between my Mac and a Windows computer.  What about between a Mac and a Linux computer?  The Mac is using HFS+ and the Linux computer is using ext4.  For now, VFAT will work, but eventually, the incomplete support from both OSX and Fedora will cause the drive to be cluttered and clogged, unless I can use Windows to clean up or reformat.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I wasn't talking about replacing VFAT, just the long file name convention which is the only thing that's patented, unless it applies to any incomparable method of implementing long file names on VFAT, in which case we need a different system.

I would've thought that ext3 would be too complicated to implement on embedded device with a tiny amount of memory. The file system needs to be simple as possible, no journalling, per user permissions or anything complicated like that, only simple file name, date, time and attributes need to be stored.

[worker201]

I wasn't talking about replacing VFAT...

I was.  I'm serious insofar as I am interested in finding a filesystem that is totally compatible with either my Mac (HFS+) or my Linux (ext4) to use on a thumbdrive that will be transferring data back and forth between the two.  My concern is not that I'm violating a Microsoft patent, but that I won't be able to do comprehensive disk maintenance without Windows nearby.