More on FAT file system patent discussion

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:34:01 -0800
From: Tim O'Reilly <tim () oreilly com>
Subject: More on FAT file system patent discussion
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>

Dave, I forwarded the original IP discussion of this issue to Jason
Matusow over at Microsoft (he's their shared source evangelist), and
got the following response.  I'm not sure what trade secrets Microsoft
is revealing under this licensing program, but his point that they
aren't just licensing patents is a good one.  A lot of people thinking
about patents forget that, at least in theory, the idea behind patents
is that you give up trade secrets via patent disclosure, in return for
the legal protection.

Of course, his answer still skirts the question of whether this was a
submarine patent situation in the first place.  Would the FAT file
system have been adopted were it known there were patents associated
with it?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Jason Matusow" <jasonma () windows microsoft com>
> Date: January 5, 2004 11:19:48 AM PST
> To: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim () oreilly com>
> Subject: RE: [IP] more on Fat file patent
>
> Tim, I hope this mail finds you well.
>
> Feel free to forward this -
>
> A couple of thoughts come to mind which might prove useful.  The first
> thought relates to why we're providing this license in the first place.
> It is important to recognize that despite the broad use of FAT systems
> today, compatibility problems still arise between devices and systems.
> We've heard this from consumers and from companies that sell products
> that are intended to work well with Windows (eg: digital cameras).  To
> address this issue, our licensing program provides rights to patents
> and
> trade secrets.  The trade secret rights relate to sample source code,
> Microsoft's FAT file system specification and other documentation. This
> information can enhance compatibility.  Many people have not focused on
> the trade secret elements of the license, but the licensing discussions
> we've had with companies so far lead us to believe that licensees
> associate a good deal of value to these trade secrets.
>
> The second point I'd highlight is that the licensing program today is
> structure primarily to respond to interest from solid state memory
> device manufacturers and consumer electronics companies, so these
> companies clearly do see value in this information. There might be
> interest beyond these sectors, but that's the focus today.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim O'Reilly [mailto:tim () oreilly com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 1:01 PM
> To: Jason Matusow; Martin Taylor; Brad Smith (LCA)
> Subject: Fwd: [IP] more on Fat file patent
>
> Any comment?  If you have one, you might want to respond to Dave, since
>
> his list is read by a lot of influential people.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > Date: December 27, 2003 12:34:38 PM PST
> > To: ip () v2 listbox com
> > Subject: [IP] more on Fat file patent
> > Reply-To: dave () farber net
> >
> >
> > Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
> > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:50:24 +0100
> > From: Marcel Waldvogel <marcel () wanda ch>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Fat file patent
> > To: dave () farber net, Bob Webster <bob () upperspace com>
> >
> > Dave, Bob,
> >
> > The patents listed on the MS site only seem to relate to the addition
>
> > of "long file names" to the FAT "8.3" file naming scheme:
> >
> > U.S. Patent #5,745,902 "Method and system for accessing a file using
> > file names having different file name formats" (filed 1992)
> > U.S. Patent #5,579,517 "Common name space for long and short
> > filenames" (filed 1995)
> > U.S. Patent #5,758,352 "Common name space for long and short
> > filenames" (filed 1996)
> > U.S. Patent #6,286,013 "Method and system for providing a common name
>
> > space for long and short file names in an operating system" (filed
> > 1997)
> >
> > Thus it does not seem to apply to the "basic" FAT/FAT32 technology of
>
> > naming files ("8.3") and allocating/finding the disk blocks occupied
> > by these files. Since the FAT file system has been in use since the
> > early 80s, the existence of any patents preceding that date should be
>
> > known by Microsoft or other entities.
> >
> > Based on this information, the following two conclusions can be drawn:
> >
> > - As the formatting/initialization of the disk/flash card/... does not
>
> > determine whether long file names can be stored on it, the case for
> > royalties for preformatted but otherwise blank media seems to be very
>
> > weak, based on the evidence listed by Microsoft. Microsoft's FAT
> > "Pricing and Licensing" section is ambiguous on that anyway.
> >
> > - The licensing for electronic devices capable of reading FAT media is
>
> > interesting. While the 25 cent may be acceptable to camera
> > manufacturers, it is certainly deadly for free operating systems
> > (*BSD, Linux, ...), as putting up any charging infrastructure will
> > incur significant additional expenses. Given Microsoft's history and
> > interest in fighting free operating systems, this may be deliberate.
> > (Other companies with large patent portfolio often license based on a
>
> > percentage of revenue, which would be better for free/open-source
> > products. Also note that they do not state any prices for personal
> > computer or airplane licenses, just consumer electronics.)
> >
> > As the consumer electronics devices with storage I know (selected
> > digital cameras and MP3 players) support only "8.3" naming, there may
>
> > not be much income (now) from this part, nor from the storage media
> > manufacturers. The only remaining goal seems to be to kill the
> > efficiency with which open-source/free operating systems can be
> > distributed.
> >
> > -Marcel
> > http://marcel.wanda.ch
> > (this is not legal advice; other standard disclaimers apply)
> >
> > Dave Farber schrieb:
> >
> > > From: Bob Webster <bob () upperspace com>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Patent
> > >
> > > Compact flash cards (and other flash cards) are really handy in
> > > cameras and computers, because you can treat them like little hard
> > > drives. Or big hard drives, if you consider half a billion a big
> > > number. You can plug in a compact flash card and read or write just
> > > like a hard drive. This is because it uses a standard format, the FAT
>
> > > or FAT32 format.
> > >
> > > FAT stands for (or stood for once) File Access Table. It's a standard
>
> > > layout for a file directory and pointers to the files. Microsoft
> > > started using the FAT format for hard and floppy drives with MSDOS.
> > > It's a pretty simple format, with several similarities to CP/M and
> > > Unix formats.
> > >
> > > Now Microsoft has decided they own FAT. They are going to start
> > > charging manufacturers about $0.25 for each compact flash card sold.
>
> > > Well, those that use the FAT file format, which amounts to almost
> > > every card being sold. Our PC12 uses a nonstandard compact flash card
>
> > > to record engine data. I guess that saved us 25 cents in the purchase
>
> > > of the airplane.
> > >
> > >         http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
---------------
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-827-7000
http://www.oreilly.com (company), http://tim.oreilly.com (personal)


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/