Microsoft to start charging for FAT format used in flash cards etc..
I know i know... but this is one is interesting.
quoted after www.dpreview.com
Thanks!
What a bunch of mo
quoted after www.dpreview.com
Quote:
Microsoft will soon be charging manufacturers of flash memory card devices and those which use them $0.25 per unit or up to $250,000 to use the FAT filesystem. For those who are unaware the FAT file system was developed by Microsoft back in 1976 and has become the standard file system for all digital still cameras. Microsoft owns patents to the FAT File System but for many years hasn't even hinted that it may one day decide to charge for it. These new licenses appear to come into effect immediately and specifically make mention of 'compact flash memory cards' and 'portable digital still cameras'. What a great way for Microsoft to cash in on the most popular consumer products (as if they don't make enough money already).
Microsoft will soon be charging manufacturers of flash memory card devices and those which use them $0.25 per unit or up to $250,000 to use the FAT filesystem. For those who are unaware the FAT file system was developed by Microsoft back in 1976 and has become the standard file system for all digital still cameras. Microsoft owns patents to the FAT File System but for many years hasn't even hinted that it may one day decide to charge for it. These new licenses appear to come into effect immediately and specifically make mention of 'compact flash memory cards' and 'portable digital still cameras'. What a great way for Microsoft to cash in on the most popular consumer products (as if they don't make enough money already).
Thanks!
What a bunch of mo
Comments
This probably won't work out well for MS. Remember the hooplah caused when Unisys said that they were going to enforce their patent on GIF? People started using more jpegs. Besides, MS patented FAT in 1976, so they don't have many years left on the patent.
Oh, and do remember that Apple charges hardware manufacturers for firewire technology. It is common industry practise to do this, the only debatable aspect is waiting many years to enforce the patent, but that just means that people have gotten away without royalties for a long time.
And heck, even legally it's a grey area, IMHO... take a look at *physical* property rights. If someone squats on your land with your knowledge (but not permission), and you take no action to boot them off, after a certain amount of time, they *OWN* it.
Too bad something like that doesn't apply here. "Your honor, we've been using that for 17 years, and they've never once cried foul." "Right. MS? Get outta here."
Originally posted by Kickaha
While *legally* true, *ethically* its another matter. (Edit: no, really, it's not - it's perfectly within their power to do so, and their rights, and while I find it slimy to wait until everyone's locked into the format before milking the hell out of it, it's also everyone else's fault for *using* the damned thing in the first place.)
And heck, even legally it's a grey area, IMHO... take a look at *physical* property rights. If someone squats on your land with your knowledge (but not permission), and you take no action to boot them off, after a certain amount of time, they *OWN* it.
Too bad something like that doesn't apply here. "Your honor, we've been using that for 17 years, and they've never once cried foul." "Right. MS? Get outta here."
For copyrights, you are correct. Failure to protect one's copyright is understood to imply forfeiture of the copyright. IP is legally different.
I really don't think that it makes that much of a difference. The patent won't last that much longer, the royalties are pretty low, and this will just fuel a desire for an open source file format (which would be a good thing to have for such devices). People are hardly locked into this format. New formats come and go and this will simply spur a new format that is royalty free. No big deal here.
Besides, that $0.25 gets you quite a bit- a standardized file format to store your data in. That is actually quite useful and MS can charge for it because it does add genuine value to various products.
Is it slimy? A bit. Really slimy would be charging something like $5 per item. Truly evil would be installing MS DRM into the file system and tracking everyone's content.
Imagine you own that patent, for years you sit quietly watching it become de facto standard, without saying a word, then when it's commonly used you decide to charge for it, NOW, without any notices, PAY ME NOW!
Manufacturers are using FW, but knew all along that they had to pay for it, and they did.
You know what Micro can do next? Why not charge them for all these years they were using FAT ?
Sue them, and MS will probably win that, as they have the patent, plus they couldn't care less, to MS FAT is dead, they have NTFS, moving to Longhorn now with WinFS or whatever the name is...
Originally posted by piwozniak
Sure they can do it. and that's their right, but for the love of god....
Imagine you own that patent, for years you sit quietly watching it become de facto standard, without saying a word, then when it's commonly used you decide to charge for it, NOW, without any notices, PAY ME NOW!
Manufacturers are using FW, but knew all along that they had to pay for it, and they did.
You know what Micro can do next? Why not charge them for all these years they were using FAT ?
Sue them, and MS will probably win that, as they have the patent, plus they couldn't care less, to MS FAT is dead, they have NTFS, moving to Longhorn now with WinFS or whatever the name is...
And they would completely alienate hardware manufacturers from their standards. That would be a good way to try to scorch the earth. MS could try it, but the end result would be that in a few years, nobody would be using MS pay standards.
MS does not have infinite leverage. Right now, they are facing competition from open source software. OSS can't make real programs with real GUI's, but it sure can make a kernel and a file format.
Flash manufacturer wouldn't have to pay, but camera manufacturer would (and i guess will), then another question, will camera recognize unformatted card....?
etc, etc...
Originally posted by Yevgeny
And they would completely alienate hardware manufacturers from their standards. That would be a good way to try to scorch the earth. MS could try it, but the end result would be that in a few years, nobody would be using MS pay standards.
Sure they would, because just like in this case, they didn't expect to ever have to pay. :P
Originally posted by Yevgeny
For copyrights, you are correct. Failure to protect one's copyright is understood to imply forfeiture of the copyright. IP is legally different.
That hasn't been true in the US since 1976.
You can lose a trademark by failing to take action to enforce it, but, after '76, you can't lose a copyright unless you explicitly sign it away.
Right or wrong, this will probably just move people away from FAT. Which is just fine with me. I can't remember who griped that Microsoft had rolled back twenty years of progress in filesystem design with that implementation, but he was right.
Originally posted by Amorph
That hasn't been true in the US since 1976.
You can lose a trademark by failing to take action to enforce it, but, after '76, you can't lose a copyright unless you explicitly sign it away.
Whoops, I meant to say trademark.
Originally posted by Amorph
[BRight or wrong, this will probably just move people away from FAT. Which is just fine with me. I can't remember who griped that Microsoft had rolled back twenty years of progress in filesystem design with that implementation, but he was right.
Which is also fine with me. If MS tries to squeeze too much juice out of oranges, then people will start drinking apple juice.
Originally posted by ZO
manufacturer response: ship drives etc unformatted. simple. Windows asks to format it. click yes. done.
This completely defeats the purpose of a common standard. The player no longer can assume a common standard and must read possibly multiple file formats, and even then may not be able to read a format (I wonder what Linux does when accessing such storage devices?). That would be very expensive for the player, much more so than $0.25.
Of course if a second standard gained industry acceptance, then you could just expect that standard and be done with it all.
Not anytime soon at least, there are millions of digital devices using FAT.
Over the next few years maybe, and i think MS calculated that, they don't need FAT anymore, what a better way to kill it and make few bucks at the same time?
Pricing and Licensing
Microsoft offers a commercially reasonable, nonexclusive license so that other companies can use the FAT file system in their own products. Currently, Microsoft offers two specific types of licenses:
A license for removable solid state media manufacturers to preformat the media, such as compact flash memory cards, to the Microsoft FAT file system format, and to preload data onto such preformatted media using the Microsoft FAT file system format. Pricing for this license is US$0.25 per unit with a cap on total royalties of $250,000 per manufacturer.
_
A license for manufacturers of certain consumer electronics devices. Pricing for this license is US$0.25 per unit for each of the following types of devices that use removable solid state media to store data: portable digital still cameras; portable digital video cameras; portable digital still/video cameras; portable digital audio players; portable digital video players; portable digital audio/video players; multifunction printers; electronic photo frames; electronic musical instruments; and standard televisions. Pricing for this license is US$0.25 per unit with a cap on total royalties of $250,000 per licensee. Pricing for other device types can be negotiated with Microsoft.
Microsoft's FAT file system license offers limited rights to issued and pending Microsoft patents on FAT file system technology, as well as rights to implement the Microsoft FAT file system specification. In order to ensure interoperability between the licensed media and devices and Microsoft® Windows®-based personal computers and to improve consumer experience, the license requires that licensees' FAT file system implementations in the licensed media and devices be fully compliant with certain required portions of the Microsoft FAT file system specification. To help licensees implement the FAT file system, Microsoft will also provide certain reference source code and test specifications as part of the licensing package in both licenses.
In some cases, companies may wish to negotiate broader or narrower rights than the standard Microsoft license for FAT file systems. In this case, pricing may vary. Microsoft remains flexible to adjust terms to reflect crosslicensing, unit volume, version limitation, geographic scope, and other considerations.
FAT File System?Related Patents
The FAT file system licensing program includes rights to a number of U.S. Patents, including:
U.S. Patent #5,579,517
U.S. Patent #5,745,902
U.S. Patent #5,758,352
U.S. Patent #6,286,013
In addition, the FAT file system licensing package includes rights to FAT file system innovations for which Microsoft has filed a claim for a patent that the U.S. Patent Office has not yet granted. This licensing program also provides licensees rights to Microsoft FAT file system issued and pending patents outside the United States, and to the Microsoft FAT file system specification and certain test specifications.
If MS tries to squeeze too much juice out of oranges, then people will start drinking apple juice.
My new sig.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Oh, and do remember that Apple charges hardware manufacturers for firewire technology.
No they don't - the 1394 LA does.
Originally posted by JLL
No they don't - the 1394 LA does.
apple does get to charge for the firewire name tho