7 ms·

What's the patent status of exFAT?

by regularfry 13y ago

drdaeman 13y ago
Patent-encumbered. In particular: US2009164440, US2009164539.
- pwg 13y ago
  Those numbers are publication numbers not patent numbers. Only one of the above two actually has become a patent. US20090164440 is patent 8,321,439. You can view the patent here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,321,439.PN.&OS=PN/8,321,439&RS=PN/8,321,439 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... The other one is still an application, and so it does not yet patent encumber anything.
  - ioquatix 13y ago
    How the hell did that become a patent? "File system methods and systems enabling efficient detection that a filename exists, by executing a hash function on the file name to reduce the overall computational complexity of determining that a directory entry might match the target filename, prior to performing the string comparison to determine the entry does match the target filename. A cross-device extensible means of providing a conversion function, such as uppercasing the filename, occurs prior to the hash. Methods of creating, deleting, and modifying the directory entries is further provided, as well as details of an embodiment of the file system described."
    - pwg 13y ago
      What became a patent is actually this text: "1. A first one or more computer readable storage media having computer executable instructions that, when executed on at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform a method of detecting if a target file name exists on a second one or more computer readable storage media, the method comprising: (A) determining a name hash from the target name; (B) determining if the name hash corresponds to a directory entry set name hash value, the directory entry set name hash value corresponding to one of a plurality of directory entry sets, each of the plurality of directory entry sets stored on the second one or more computer readable storage media; (C) determining if the target name matches a directory entry set name corresponding to the one of the plurality of directory entry sets after step (B) determines the name hash corresponds to the directory entry set name hash value; and (D) indicating that the target name exists after step (C) determines the target name matches the directory entry set name, the step (A) comprising: determining the target name corresponds to one of a predetermined set of names, the predetermined set of names having a common portion; initializing a temporary value to a predetermined start value, the predetermined start value corresponding to a pre-computed partial hash value corresponding to the common portion; for each character of the target name other than the common portion: rotating the temporary value right by at least one bit; converting the character from a first value to a second value based upon a conversion table; and adding the second value to the temporary value; and using the temporary value as the name hash." Not defending it, just pointing out that what's "covered" by a patent is what is in the claims, not the abstract.
      - makomk 13y ago
        Which is to say that it's a patent on hashing directory names using a particular (and by the sounds of it not very efficient ) hash function, then using the hash to find them in an on-disc directory index in the usual fashion, translated into patentese to make it sound more complicated and innovative than it actually is.
        josephlord 13y ago
        But that's kind of OK because if you implement something that doesn't practice all the parts of the claim ( e.g. not doing the bit wise operation as described) you are not infringing.
    - zeckalpha 13y ago
      How to read patents: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-in-60-second/ http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-...
mbreese 13y ago
I thought it was clear that Microsoft was still asserting patents on exFAT. Link stolen from wikipedia: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exFATFileSystem.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IP... So, GPL or not, it doesn't do Linux a whole lot of good, since it can never be properly included.
- 0x0 13y ago
  Is this patent US only? Could one take this code to produce a "EuroLinux" or "AsiaLinux"? Kind of like the "non-US" sections that used to be in Debian?
  - tephra 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protec...
    - 0x0 13y ago
      But http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/313/are-us-software-patents-enforceable-in-the-uk http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/313/are-us-softwa... ? (I thought software was considered unpatentable in many areas?)
    - gsnedders 13y ago
      > enjoy in all the other countries of the Union, the advantages that their respective laws grant to nationals This implies that if a patent is filed in one place, then it is effectively filed in all countries of the Union, but one is still bound by the their respective laws, and therefore if they do not recognize your patent as valid then it is not valid in that country.
  - mariuolo 13y ago
    I suppose the module could safely be hosted on non-US repositories.
zokier 13y ago
Unclear. GPLv2 has implicit patent grant (see Section 7), so if Samsung has a patent license from MS then that Samsung is required to extend that license to all recipients (direct and indirect) of the code. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents
- 0x0 13y ago
  Which of course is no guarantee that they are able to grant, and then you can get in trouble for patent infringement while samsung gets in trouble for distributing software against the terms of the gpl.
  - zmmmmm 13y ago
    Would be fascinating to know how the GPL operates in this case. The way I see it, it can't be that a distributor is liable for patents they do not own on code they distribute. Otherwise the GPL becomes almost non-viable since even the mere act of distributing code under it puts you into the chain of liability. It can only be that you are granting an implicit license for patents you actually own or have the right to re-license.
    - 0x0 13y ago
      Interesting question. Obviously the people behind the LAME MP3 encoder cannot extend you any patent rights on MP3 encoding, you would have to go to MPEG-LA for that. On the other hand, if you take that MP3 encoder and embed it in a device you start selling, you'll most certainly put yourself in the chain of liability, no?
    - belorn 13y ago
      In section 7, it says that distribution is banned if the distributor has patent obligations preventing the recipient from having the four freedoms The distributor is not liable for patents they do not own, but they can loose distribution permission depending on the situation. Same is actually true for anything GPL say. The worst case scenario is always that the distributor loose the permission to distribution, and thus become liable under copyright infringement if they distribute while violating the license.
rwmj 13y ago
We have loads of great filesystems already. Use one instead of exFAT. (Yes, I know there exist OSes / devices which only use exFAT, although I've yet to actually use one)
- regularfry 13y ago
  If you can point me at one that's read/writable out of the box on Windows, OS X and Linux, that'd be grand. last I looked there wasn't one, although UDF came close.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
jwilliams 13y ago
Microsoft is quite pro-active in tracking and licensing exFAT. They're generally quite polite about it, but insistent (as is their right). I've heard different anecdotes on the price, but it's not cheap. An Ars article from 2009 places the flat fee at $300k[1], although I've heard of niche device manufacturers paying $100k. [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/12/microsoft-licenses-out-exfat-file-system/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/12/micros...

What's the patent status of exFAT?

drdaeman 13y ago

Patent-encumbered. In particular: US2009164440, US2009164539.

pwg 13y ago
Those numbers are publication numbers not patent numbers. Only one of the above two actually has become a patent. US20090164440 is patent 8,321,439. You can view the patent here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,321,439.PN.&OS=PN/8,321,439&RS=PN/8,321,439 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... The other one is still an application, and so it does not yet patent encumber anything.
- ioquatix 13y ago
  How the hell did that become a patent? "File system methods and systems enabling efficient detection that a filename exists, by executing a hash function on the file name to reduce the overall computational complexity of determining that a directory entry might match the target filename, prior to performing the string comparison to determine the entry does match the target filename. A cross-device extensible means of providing a conversion function, such as uppercasing the filename, occurs prior to the hash. Methods of creating, deleting, and modifying the directory entries is further provided, as well as details of an embodiment of the file system described."
  - pwg 13y ago
    What became a patent is actually this text: "1. A first one or more computer readable storage media having computer executable instructions that, when executed on at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to perform a method of detecting if a target file name exists on a second one or more computer readable storage media, the method comprising: (A) determining a name hash from the target name; (B) determining if the name hash corresponds to a directory entry set name hash value, the directory entry set name hash value corresponding to one of a plurality of directory entry sets, each of the plurality of directory entry sets stored on the second one or more computer readable storage media; (C) determining if the target name matches a directory entry set name corresponding to the one of the plurality of directory entry sets after step (B) determines the name hash corresponds to the directory entry set name hash value; and (D) indicating that the target name exists after step (C) determines the target name matches the directory entry set name, the step (A) comprising: determining the target name corresponds to one of a predetermined set of names, the predetermined set of names having a common portion; initializing a temporary value to a predetermined start value, the predetermined start value corresponding to a pre-computed partial hash value corresponding to the common portion; for each character of the target name other than the common portion: rotating the temporary value right by at least one bit; converting the character from a first value to a second value based upon a conversion table; and adding the second value to the temporary value; and using the temporary value as the name hash." Not defending it, just pointing out that what's "covered" by a patent is what is in the claims, not the abstract.
    - makomk 13y ago
      Which is to say that it's a patent on hashing directory names using a particular (and by the sounds of it not very efficient ) hash function, then using the hash to find them in an on-disc directory index in the usual fashion, translated into patentese to make it sound more complicated and innovative than it actually is.
      - josephlord 13y ago
        But that's kind of OK because if you implement something that doesn't practice all the parts of the claim ( e.g. not doing the bit wise operation as described) you are not infringing.
  - zeckalpha 13y ago
    How to read patents: http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-in-60-second/ http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-...

mbreese 13y ago

I thought it was clear that Microsoft was still asserting patents on exFAT. Link stolen from wikipedia: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exFATFileSystem.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IP... So, GPL or not, it doesn't do Linux a whole lot of good, since it can never be properly included.

0x0 13y ago
Is this patent US only? Could one take this code to produce a "EuroLinux" or "AsiaLinux"? Kind of like the "non-US" sections that used to be in Debian?
- tephra 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protec...
  - 0x0 13y ago
    But http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/313/are-us-software-patents-enforceable-in-the-uk http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/313/are-us-softwa... ? (I thought software was considered unpatentable in many areas?)
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    > enjoy in all the other countries of the Union, the advantages that their respective laws grant to nationals This implies that if a patent is filed in one place, then it is effectively filed in all countries of the Union, but one is still bound by the their respective laws, and therefore if they do not recognize your patent as valid then it is not valid in that country.
- mariuolo 13y ago
  I suppose the module could safely be hosted on non-US repositories.

zokier 13y ago

Unclear. GPLv2 has implicit patent grant (see Section 7), so if Samsung has a patent license from MS then that Samsung is required to extend that license to all recipients (direct and indirect) of the code. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents

0x0 13y ago
Which of course is no guarantee that they are able to grant, and then you can get in trouble for patent infringement while samsung gets in trouble for distributing software against the terms of the gpl.
- zmmmmm 13y ago
  Would be fascinating to know how the GPL operates in this case. The way I see it, it can't be that a distributor is liable for patents they do not own on code they distribute. Otherwise the GPL becomes almost non-viable since even the mere act of distributing code under it puts you into the chain of liability. It can only be that you are granting an implicit license for patents you actually own or have the right to re-license.
  - 0x0 13y ago
    Interesting question. Obviously the people behind the LAME MP3 encoder cannot extend you any patent rights on MP3 encoding, you would have to go to MPEG-LA for that. On the other hand, if you take that MP3 encoder and embed it in a device you start selling, you'll most certainly put yourself in the chain of liability, no?
  - belorn 13y ago
    In section 7, it says that distribution is banned if the distributor has patent obligations preventing the recipient from having the four freedoms The distributor is not liable for patents they do not own, but they can loose distribution permission depending on the situation. Same is actually true for anything GPL say. The worst case scenario is always that the distributor loose the permission to distribution, and thus become liable under copyright infringement if they distribute while violating the license.

rwmj 13y ago

We have loads of great filesystems already. Use one instead of exFAT. (Yes, I know there exist OSes / devices which only use exFAT, although I've yet to actually use one)

regularfry 13y ago
If you can point me at one that's read/writable out of the box on Windows, OS X and Linux, that'd be grand. last I looked there wasn't one, although UDF came close.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

jwilliams 13y ago

Microsoft is quite pro-active in tracking and licensing exFAT. They're generally quite polite about it, but insistent (as is their right). I've heard different anecdotes on the price, but it's not cheap. An Ars article from 2009 places the flat fee at $300k[1], although I've heard of niche device manufacturers paying $100k. [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/12/microsoft-licenses-out-exfat-file-system/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/12/micros...