5 ms·

Does anyone know what patents are claimed by Microsoft on Android? Is it one for FAT16/32? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't FAT16/32 Microsoft's proprietary f

by nivla 13y ago

Does anyone know what patents are claimed by Microsoft on Android? Is it one for FAT16/32? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't FAT16/32 Microsoft's proprietary format? So why is it wrong for them to put a claim on it? Wouldn't Apple do the same?

beagle3 13y ago
FAT goes back to CPM, maybe even farther (long before Microsoft, and any patents on the original would have expired 20 years ago, and there weren't software patents back then). The extension from FAT12 to FAT16 and FAT32 is trivial.
- nivla 13y ago
  I thought FAT came from DOS, which was Microsoft owned. If FAT wasn't Microsoft's original design, then I think its very unfair that they got the patent for it in the first place, let alone enforcing it.
  - beagle3 13y ago
    The fat patents Microsoft holds describe encoding names that are not 8.3 format like dos/cpm
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      >Common name space for long and short filenames https://www.google.com/patents/US5758352 https://www.google.com/patents/US5758352
- Someone 13y ago
  IIRC, CP/M had 8.3 file names, ctrl-Z terminated text files, and drive letters, but its on-disk structures where totally different. That certainly was the case when comparing it to FAT versions that allow for subdirectories (CP/M did not have subdirectories)
  - beagle3 13y ago
    I had used, in 1984, a CP/M version that had FAT, so I assumed it went to the origins of CP/M. It doesn't, and credit for the original design does go to Microsoft in 1977. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evol... The point still stands though: any patent protection for the original implementation would have expired before 1997, which is more than 15 years ago. And it shouldn't have received (in fact, didn't receive) patent protection.
- beagle3 13y ago
  (replying to myself because it is too late to edit) I was mistaken above; FAT is actually a Microsoft design, although it predates MS DOS - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evol... The point still stands though: any patent protection for the original implementation would have expired before 1997, which is more than 15 years ago. And it shouldn't have received (in fact, didn't receive) patent protection.
ralfn 13y ago
Its an inferior filesystem (a data layout convention, nothing more) that Android supports to be compatible with windows systems. Imagine BMW patenting the shape of the hole you use to fuel your car, and then sending invoices to every fuel station.
- nivla 13y ago
  I agree, FAT is very old and an inferior filesystem especially when compared to EXT. >Imagine BMW patenting the shape of the hole you use to fuel your car, and then sending invoices to every fuel station. That is an unfair comparison. I would have agreed to that statement if the patent was vague but it is very specific to implementation. >Android supports to be compatible with windows systems. Neither do I see any other reason to stick with FAT16/32 unless it is somehow required on booting.
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    You should not be able to patent data exchange formats; getting money from said patents makes one take a huge karma hit. I made a sabbatical in hating Microsoft for a few years but now I see why it is important for me to resume doing so.
    - nivla 13y ago
      >You should not be able to patent data exchange formats; I fully agree. I despise patents on anything that stifles interoperability. However this wasn't anything new. Din't we grow up with patents on GIF? Isn't Apple doing the same with patents on NFC sessions? [1] Or Google with their proprietary file system[2]? Don't even get me started on the bucket load of patents IBM has collected over the decade. Then why single out Microsoft? Patent wars between corporations is nothing new. (However, I would develop a deep hatred if they went after non-profit org like Linux with this.) The point I am trying to make is, it was/is common for corporations to file patents on most trivial things. I find the Patent Office at fault here. [1]http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apple-files-new-patent-for-establishing-nfc-sessions.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apple-fi... [2]http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/06/google-file-system-patent.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/06/google-file-system-...
felipeko 13y ago
It's way worse than that. Microsoft uses FUD tatics to sign patent licenses. You can check Microsft vs B&N case, in which B&N showed the kind of patents [1] Microsoft is using against Android. (By the way, Microsoft had to invest in B&N to end this case. This is how strong good these patents are) It's obvious that Microsoft is using IBM's old playbook on patents[2], where it's cheaper to license than fight. [1] http://www.geekwire.com/2011/barnes-nobles-29page-slide-deck-calls-bs-microsofts-android-patent-campaign/ http://www.geekwire.com/2011/barnes-nobles-29page-slide-deck... [2] http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
mtgx 13y ago
What I'm more surprised is that the OEM's aren't using the open source alternative instead. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI3OTQ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI3OTQ
jkn 13y ago
This is how a Microsoft exec described the patents when they filed suit against B&N [1] (see [2,3] for details) The Microsoft-created features protected by the patents infringed by the Nook and Nook Color tablet are core to the user experience. For example, the patents we asserted today protect innovations that: • Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs; • Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster; • Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content; • Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and • Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document. And here's a list of patents from a lawsuit against Mororola [4] (the first two concern FAT16 I believe): 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames (yes, again) 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations 6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device As for your questions: So why is it wrong for them to put a claim on it? Wouldn't Apple do the same? It's not like Apple gets a free pass when they sue Android manufacturers for patent infringement... [1] http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/21/android-patent-infringement-licensing-is-the-solution.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... [2] http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-android-patents-in-detail-20111114/ http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-... [3] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296 [4] http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-patent-complaint-against-motorolaandroid/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-p...
- devcpp 13y ago
  Thanks. I'll spare you from the obligatory rant on how obvious most of these patents are.
zanny 13y ago
fat16/32 are the only recognized file system formats of EFI system partitions in the UEFI firmware standard. If they are patent encumbered, that is worse than the secure boot nonsense. It would mean you can't format a drive for booting on a system using UEFI firmware unless you had windows software to create and write into that partition.
- pgeorgi 13y ago
  The patents cover long file names (which are embedded in the directory using "illegal" directory entries). UEFI users (as in: OS installer) could restrain themselves to FAT16 with 8.3 names (FAT16 since the boot partition is usually tiny), and I haven't seen any longer file names yet.
  - zanny 13y ago
    One thing to note is Windows 7 won't recognize a FAT16 formatted UEFI partition, but Windows 8 works fine. I use fat16 for my uefi partitions because I only ever add in memtest and Arch. Good job MS!

by nivla 13y ago

beagle3 13y ago

FAT goes back to CPM, maybe even farther (long before Microsoft, and any patents on the original would have expired 20 years ago, and there weren't software patents back then). The extension from FAT12 to FAT16 and FAT32 is trivial.

nivla 13y ago
I thought FAT came from DOS, which was Microsoft owned. If FAT wasn't Microsoft's original design, then I think its very unfair that they got the patent for it in the first place, let alone enforcing it.
- beagle3 13y ago
  The fat patents Microsoft holds describe encoding names that are not 8.3 format like dos/cpm
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >Common name space for long and short filenames https://www.google.com/patents/US5758352 https://www.google.com/patents/US5758352
Someone 13y ago
IIRC, CP/M had 8.3 file names, ctrl-Z terminated text files, and drive letters, but its on-disk structures where totally different. That certainly was the case when comparing it to FAT versions that allow for subdirectories (CP/M did not have subdirectories)
- beagle3 13y ago
  I had used, in 1984, a CP/M version that had FAT, so I assumed it went to the origins of CP/M. It doesn't, and credit for the original design does go to Microsoft in 1977. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evol... The point still stands though: any patent protection for the original implementation would have expired before 1997, which is more than 15 years ago. And it shouldn't have received (in fact, didn't receive) patent protection.
beagle3 13y ago
(replying to myself because it is too late to edit) I was mistaken above; FAT is actually a Microsoft design, although it predates MS DOS - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evol... The point still stands though: any patent protection for the original implementation would have expired before 1997, which is more than 15 years ago. And it shouldn't have received (in fact, didn't receive) patent protection.

ralfn 13y ago

Its an inferior filesystem (a data layout convention, nothing more) that Android supports to be compatible with windows systems. Imagine BMW patenting the shape of the hole you use to fuel your car, and then sending invoices to every fuel station.

nivla 13y ago
I agree, FAT is very old and an inferior filesystem especially when compared to EXT. >Imagine BMW patenting the shape of the hole you use to fuel your car, and then sending invoices to every fuel station. That is an unfair comparison. I would have agreed to that statement if the patent was vague but it is very specific to implementation. >Android supports to be compatible with windows systems. Neither do I see any other reason to stick with FAT16/32 unless it is somehow required on booting.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  You should not be able to patent data exchange formats; getting money from said patents makes one take a huge karma hit. I made a sabbatical in hating Microsoft for a few years but now I see why it is important for me to resume doing so.
  - nivla 13y ago
    >You should not be able to patent data exchange formats; I fully agree. I despise patents on anything that stifles interoperability. However this wasn't anything new. Din't we grow up with patents on GIF? Isn't Apple doing the same with patents on NFC sessions? [1] Or Google with their proprietary file system[2]? Don't even get me started on the bucket load of patents IBM has collected over the decade. Then why single out Microsoft? Patent wars between corporations is nothing new. (However, I would develop a deep hatred if they went after non-profit org like Linux with this.) The point I am trying to make is, it was/is common for corporations to file patents on most trivial things. I find the Patent Office at fault here. [1]http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apple-files-new-patent-for-establishing-nfc-sessions.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apple-fi... [2]http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/06/google-file-system-patent.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/06/google-file-system-...

felipeko 13y ago

It's way worse than that. Microsoft uses FUD tatics to sign patent licenses. You can check Microsft vs B&N case, in which B&N showed the kind of patents [1] Microsoft is using against Android. (By the way, Microsoft had to invest in B&N to end this case. This is how strong good these patents are) It's obvious that Microsoft is using IBM's old playbook on patents[2], where it's cheaper to license than fight. [1] http://www.geekwire.com/2011/barnes-nobles-29page-slide-deck-calls-bs-microsofts-android-patent-campaign/ http://www.geekwire.com/2011/barnes-nobles-29page-slide-deck... [2] http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

mtgx 13y ago

What I'm more surprised is that the OEM's aren't using the open source alternative instead. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI3OTQ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI3OTQ

jkn 13y ago

This is how a Microsoft exec described the patents when they filed suit against B&N [1] (see [2,3] for details) The Microsoft-created features protected by the patents infringed by the Nook and Nook Color tablet are core to the user experience. For example, the patents we asserted today protect innovations that: • Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs; • Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster; • Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content; • Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and • Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document. And here's a list of patents from a lawsuit against Mororola [4] (the first two concern FAT16 I believe): 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames (yes, again) 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations 6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device As for your questions: So why is it wrong for them to put a claim on it? Wouldn't Apple do the same? It's not like Apple gets a free pass when they sue Android manufacturers for patent infringement... [1] http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/21/android-patent-infringement-licensing-is-the-solution.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... [2] http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-android-patents-in-detail-20111114/ http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-... [3] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296 [4] http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-patent-complaint-against-motorolaandroid/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-p...

devcpp 13y ago
Thanks. I'll spare you from the obligatory rant on how obvious most of these patents are.

zanny 13y ago

fat16/32 are the only recognized file system formats of EFI system partitions in the UEFI firmware standard. If they are patent encumbered, that is worse than the secure boot nonsense. It would mean you can't format a drive for booting on a system using UEFI firmware unless you had windows software to create and write into that partition.

pgeorgi 13y ago
The patents cover long file names (which are embedded in the directory using "illegal" directory entries). UEFI users (as in: OS installer) could restrain themselves to FAT16 with 8.3 names (FAT16 since the boot partition is usually tiny), and I haven't seen any longer file names yet.
- zanny 13y ago
  One thing to note is Windows 7 won't recognize a FAT16 formatted UEFI partition, but Windows 8 works fine. I use fat16 for my uefi partitions because I only ever add in memtest and Arch. Good job MS!