Slashdot: "Microsoft to Charge for FAT File System"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by patrick0brien, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #1
    Article

    -All

    For those who are familiar with the SCO comedy, this differs in several key points.

    1. It is confirmed that MS owns active, and enforceable patents here.

    2. This is not a litigation.

    3. Due to patent ownership, MS has the perfect right to file a civil action for those who use the FAT system and don't pay, again, harkening to the legitimate patents laid out on paper.

    What is my point then?

    This is why Monopolies are illegal. The problems of Monopolies isn't in the here and now, it is in the future when they begin to squeeze.

    So, I say to this legitimate, but low, action by MS: "And so it begins"

    This is why I specifically avoid WMV and WMA files.
     
  2. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #2
    The thing is, Microsoft is going to spin this in such a way so that the MS users feel grateful for having used it for free for however many years, and will gladly bend over, get ass ****ed and shell out the money. :mad: :mad:

    This **** makes me want to scream!!
     
  3. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #3
    M$ has been searching heavily to improve revenue since upgrades are not selling as well as they used to.

    So I am not surprised. I really thought that they were going to step up RIAA like attacks to increase revenue. They might still, but they also might see that the RIAA isn't making friends.

    But the important thing....

    Will this affect apple, since we can read fat formatted devices?
     
  4. patrick0brien thread starter macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #4
    -Stelliform

    I would like to read the patents on this. The answer would be in there. The patent surely supports the format of the media itself, however, I strongly doubt that it would cover the ability to read/write to the media.

    But again, I'd like to read the patents to see for sure.
     
  5. arn macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #5
    after reading through the slashdot comments and the page...

    it's not clear if this definitely affects all manufacturers or not.

    arn
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
  7. psxndc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    #7
    nitpicky correction...

    Nitpicky correction (and I give you points for getting the idea right): Monolpolies are not illegal. Microsoft could in fact be the only producer of OS's in town and it would not be illegal. Using your monopoly power to harm competition is what violates the Sherman Anti-trust act and is illegal. You have the policy right, I just wanted to clarify your first point.

    That being said, I don't see this as a monopoly issue. Vendors are free to use whatever filesystem they choose and MS isn't punishing them if they do not AFAIK. They are simply licensing their patented technology. It's slimey they're doing it after everyone has adopted it, but it's not a monopolistic issue.

    -p
     
  8. jettredmont macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #8
    Re: nitpicky correction...

    They are free to use whatever format they desire, except that Windows (ie, 95%+ of all desktops) will not read their drives without requiring the user to install additional software drivers.

    Especially as many computers are "locked down" in a corporate setting, how many flash-key devices do you think would sell if you had to install a driver on the machine prior to using it?

    THAT is where the monopoly comes in: the monopoly OS ONLY recognizes patented and expensively-licensed file systems which are manufactured by the OS maker itself.

    This is GIF profit strategy redux, except that there's little chance that an industry-wide switch to an "alternative" FS will save the day (as JPG/PNG in concert allowed many companies to just drop GIF support until the patents lapsed).
     
  9. wymer100 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    #9
    Good point about the legalities of monopolies. They aren't illegal until they start to exploit their power.

    This issue actually sounds less like SCO and more like the soap opera of the Rambus lawsuits involving SDRAM. If I remember correctly, Rambus conveniently "forgot" about its patent portfolio until everyone adopted SDRAM and then they tried to collect royalties. Just a thought.
     
  10. patrick0brien thread starter macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #10
    Re: nitpicky correction...

    -psxndc

    Yeah, you're right. I didn't want too technically legal about the happenings, forgive me for tying the layman's term of Monopoly to formal antitrust in that regard.

    -wymer100

    Absolutely. This is what is known among IP attorneys as Ambush Enforcement.
     
  11. psxndc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    #11
    Re: Re: nitpicky correction...

    You're making two different arguments:

    On one hand you're saying moving forward (because all existing ones will still work regardless if they are in violation of the license) that all flash-key drives will be made to either be incompatible or the company will have to pay a license fee. You feel this is wrong because keychain makers theoretically HAVE to pay the fee since Windows is on so many desktops. The result is somewhat unfair and I will concede this point.

    And on the other hand, you're saying that it will cause a detriment to keychain makers because Windows only recognizes FAT file systems. Following that though, to be fair to the keychain makers, you're saying that Windows should support all existing extfs2, ReiserFS, XFS, ad naseum because to do otherwise would be unfair since keychain makers that do decide to switch have to have their drives be compatible somehow? I don't buy this. Windows can interface with whatever it wants and does not have to support a single product that people think it should but doesn't. It's a product that people choose to buy. If it does not have the features you want, or connect to the peripherals you have, don't buy it. People have the option not to and MS shouldn't be bound to implement features in it's products that it doesn't want to.

    -p
     
  12. Hes Nikke macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    #12
    Re: Re: Re: nitpicky correction...

    now look at the other side of the coin.

    name any OS that is in use today not made by Microsoft that only supports it's native filesystem.

    i find it sickening that MS pretends that it is the only game in town by ignoring the rest of the market and doing things their way :p (at least Word and Excel know how to read files in other formats, to bad windows doesn't do the same for other filesystems)
     
  13. tbdavis macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    #13
    Re: Re: Re: Re: nitpicky correction...

    Actually, Microsoft does support the use of non-native file systems. Windows NT, 2000, and XP all allow for Installable File Systems. It would be possible for Apple to write an IFS driver so that Windows could access drives formatted to use HFS+. And for devices like the iPod which come with so much other software anyway, what's one more driver?

    The thing about this that's interesting to me is that Microsoft is going to be abandoning the FAT32 system in the not too distant future. When Longhorn debuts, Windows users will have a new file system called WinFS. This looks to me like Microsoft wants external device manufaturers to look for some other method of accessing their data rather than depending on Microsoft to provide support for FAT32, which they plan to dump.
     
  14. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #14
    Equally, I wonder if IBM would be willing to provide some incentive to Microsoft to pay for MS' use of HPFS, errrr, NTFS. ;)
     
  15. timdorr macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    #15
    Oh darn! Now my iPod's gonna cost $499.25 :rolleyes:
     
  16. TomSmithMacEd macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Location:
    Fargo, ND
  17. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #17
    I read that the licence fee had to be paid if the manufacturer formatted the drive/memory stick with the FAT filesystem. So, you simply sell iPods unformatted, and get the user to format them at their end, probably with a Setup Assistant to get it done easily.
     
  18. illumin8 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    East Coast, US
    #18
    I think Apple is safe on this one. Think about it: The iPod is just a Firewire hard drive. It is formatted by your Windows PC, which already has a license for Fat32. I don't think MS would even try to charge Apple for this. As I recall, the iPod comes unformatted (3G version), and the Software Updater formats it for you when you first install it.
     
  19. ipiloot macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    #19
    Cross-licencing

    I think that there was something about cross-licencing of technologies when M$ bought Apple stock and made the famous 5-year agreement with Steve. Wasn't it?
     
  20. cshander macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    #20
    Open Standards

    I followed the link that takes you to the MS page about the FAT32 licensing, and noticed another link on their page called "citizenship". If you go to this link you will read how Microsoft supports open standards (and how ethical and upstanding they are, etc). So now that FAT32 is basically a standard for storage media (something that really should be an "open standard") Microsoft is going to charge for it at a time when there really is no reasonable alternative - you can either pay them, develop your own filesystem, or stop making storage products. I also remember a quote from a Microsoft executive regarding iTunes for Windows and exclusively working with the iPod, saying that "Microsoft customers want choices".

    Such a reasonable choice. Pay us or stop making storage devices.

    Isn't there something regarding trademarks and patents that if you don't enforce them within a certain time after receiving the trademark or patent you lose rights for royalties?
     
  21. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #21
    Re: Re: Re: nitpicky correction...


    Unfortunately, MS has an overwhelming share in the market, and does everything it can to leave competitors without a leg to stand on. With implementation of .NET in Longhorn, it is possible that Microsoft may even be wrangling in the entire internet. The internet was developed so that anyone could freely access information, but Microsoft seems to have every desire to stifle that freedom. Unfortunately, the alternatives to Microsoft are hardly even known. At my college few people even realize that my Apple laptop is not a Microsoft 'whore' machine. Microsoft is killing choice, not making choice. It is a very dangerous future ahead of us in the computer world. One misstep could lead to a complete MS monopoly and the end of free computing as we know it.
     
  22. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #22
    This was to be expected.

    This was to be expected. Supposedly Microsoft is going to start selling licenses to it "Intellectual Property" (more like stolen property) So companies will have the ability to access the more proprietary side of Windows. This is a good thing when it comes to compatibility but I almost saw the writing on the wall when it comes to industry standards and Microsoft. You are going to see companies pay through the nose for FAT. Right now a general blanket coverage fee is around $$$,$$$ which most larger companies should easily be able to afford but smaller start ups are going to get the cold hard shaft from MS. There needs to be some sort of lawsuit when it comes to a company waiting for a patent to becomes a standard before stepping forward to claim charges. A sort of you snooze you loose claim. They already have such a law on the books for claiming that a someone has stamped on their IP rights but nothing that covers charging for those rights.
    It’s a ****ty thing but its not as if Microsoft is the only company to pull this. What about that company in England that claimed that the hyperlink was their invention. Or how about that some company thought that idea of the PDA was their invention because some moron judge thought there was some merit that their patent covered a small device that stores passwords. Alas Microsoft isn't the only company to pull this crap. Doesn't excuse the fact that they are screwing the entire computer industry over. :mad: But it's Microsoft so you know everyone is going to bend over and lube up. :mad:
     
  23. patrick0brien thread starter macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #23
    Re: This was to be expected.

    -SiliconAddict

    I feel I need to point something out here. If MS were to 'pulled an Apple' and suddenly base itself on industry standards and not its own proprietary formats, well, first off that would be a miracle, but second, they would no longer be able to charge for the use of any standardized (as by a standards body like IEEE, MPEG, JPEG, etc.) format - as it appears it is trying to do with wmv/a.

    And I'm all for standardization of MS format as we get good, and familiar formats, without the costs and fear of costs that would be associated with them.

    How colorful. :D
     
  24. bemayo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    #24
    My first thought was that Apple would be covered under the technology sharing agreement they had years back (the one that was the result of Apple dropping litigation and Microsoft investing in Apple).
     
  25. DeusOmnis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    #25
    They could make a law about having to "always" charge for licences or "never" charge for licences... in fact, it could be part of the patent.

    The patent could even restrict how much the licence pricing can change by percentage. A licence cost cannot be raised by more than 10 percent per year or something like that.

    This sort of law is definately needed since many standardizations are created by independant companies (with patents).
     

Share This Page