5 ms·

Its an inferior filesystem (a data layout convention, nothing more) that Android supports to be compatible with windows systems. Imagine BMW patenting the shap

by 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-...
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      GIF patent is our measure of Evil. We measure Evil in GIF patent fractions. One thing is to patent, the other thing is to enforce a bogus patent/"license" it and collect money. The latter has no excuses for a product company.
    - myko 13y ago
      Has Google gone after anyone over their file system patents?
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Because it is cool to hate Microsoft while making a blind eye to all the other corporations that behave the same way.
      - guard-of-terra 13y ago
        Guess what, you are arrogant and wrong.
        nickstinemates 13y ago
        Personal attacks? really?
        guard-of-terra 13y ago
        "Because it is cool to hate Microsoft" is a personal attack by itself.
    - jkn 13y ago
      Your position seems most inconsistent to me. FAT is a prime example of a technology that is essential for interoperability (yet trivial compared to modern alternatives). Good luck exchanging files using a USB thumb drive formatted with EXT4. Or getting the pictures from your camera SD card without supporting FAT32. FAT16/32 are the only filesystems that work seamlessly in Windows, OS X and Linux. It's not about filing patents. Patents are routinely filed for defensive purpose and it's hard to blame the companies that do it, especially in light of the abuse by e.g. Microsoft. It's what companies do with the patents. Like getting Motorola phones banned in Germany due to FAT16 patent infringement [1]. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-android-devices-banned-in-germany-in-microsoft-fat-spat-7000001715/ http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-android-devices-banned-in-germ...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- zanny 13y ago
  > Neither do I see any other reason to stick with FAT16/32 unless it is somehow required on booting. It is required under UEFI. Fat16 and 32 are the only recognized file system formats used by UEFI firmware, so you have to have a UEFI system partition using that filesystem. If Microsoft can patent troll people over it, technically that means there is no way to prepare a system for UEFI booting unless running Microsoft software to create a fat partition, and write to it. Which would be stupendous bullshit.
bluedino 13y ago
What about ExFAT, could Android had implemented that? Is it royalty-free? Does Apple have to pay Microsoft for the ability to access FAT partitions?
- Anechoic 13y ago
  Does Apple have to pay Microsoft for the ability to access FAT partitions? Apple & MS have a cross-licensing agreement dating back to 1997 that has been renewed at once (and probably more than once). FAT patents are presumably included under this.

by ralfn 13y ago

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-...
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    GIF patent is our measure of Evil. We measure Evil in GIF patent fractions. One thing is to patent, the other thing is to enforce a bogus patent/"license" it and collect money. The latter has no excuses for a product company.
  - myko 13y ago
    Has Google gone after anyone over their file system patents?
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Because it is cool to hate Microsoft while making a blind eye to all the other corporations that behave the same way.
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      Guess what, you are arrogant and wrong.
      - nickstinemates 13y ago
        Personal attacks? really?
        guard-of-terra 13y ago
        "Because it is cool to hate Microsoft" is a personal attack by itself.
  - jkn 13y ago
    Your position seems most inconsistent to me. FAT is a prime example of a technology that is essential for interoperability (yet trivial compared to modern alternatives). Good luck exchanging files using a USB thumb drive formatted with EXT4. Or getting the pictures from your camera SD card without supporting FAT32. FAT16/32 are the only filesystems that work seamlessly in Windows, OS X and Linux. It's not about filing patents. Patents are routinely filed for defensive purpose and it's hard to blame the companies that do it, especially in light of the abuse by e.g. Microsoft. It's what companies do with the patents. Like getting Motorola phones banned in Germany due to FAT16 patent infringement [1]. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-android-devices-banned-in-germany-in-microsoft-fat-spat-7000001715/ http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-android-devices-banned-in-germ...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
zanny 13y ago
> Neither do I see any other reason to stick with FAT16/32 unless it is somehow required on booting. It is required under UEFI. Fat16 and 32 are the only recognized file system formats used by UEFI firmware, so you have to have a UEFI system partition using that filesystem. If Microsoft can patent troll people over it, technically that means there is no way to prepare a system for UEFI booting unless running Microsoft software to create a fat partition, and write to it. Which would be stupendous bullshit.

bluedino 13y ago

What about ExFAT, could Android had implemented that? Is it royalty-free? Does Apple have to pay Microsoft for the ability to access FAT partitions?

Anechoic 13y ago
Does Apple have to pay Microsoft for the ability to access FAT partitions? Apple & MS have a cross-licensing agreement dating back to 1997 that has been renewed at once (and probably more than once). FAT patents are presumably included under this.