Learn to use cron, and you too can help bring down MS

[Sepero]

According to Microsoft, they have (illegally?) patented the code surrounding the FAT32 specification. This could eventually mean that your Linux programs that access FAT32 drives could become illegal unless you purchase a license from Microsoft. :(

Here is the source of this information:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp

The email address to purchase your license is:
fatspec@microsoft.com



My recommendation:
Create a cron job that sends one email per day to this email address. In the email express how you feel about this patent. Remember to be very descriptive. We have over 50 thousand members at JustLinux. If everybody sends just 1 email per day... just imagine the chaos.

P.S.
If you're feeling really, Really strongly about this, attach a picture that shows your true emotions. (more for them to download, store, delete, etc...)

[andycrofts]

..IMHO, if Microsoft developed the FAT system, they're entitled to licence it.
Prices seem to be very reasonable.

Now, surely if I access a FAT device (say, the Windows 'half' of a dual-boot system) then Microsoft already licenced me to access it (in the Windows licence).

Seems it's not the accessing that's licenceable, but the use of the FAT format in devices I make.
As ext2, etc3, reiserfs don't use it, there's no problem.
Only grey area is the "mtools" suite, which can write to a DOS diskette, presumably using FAT. Reading shouldn't be a problem

-Andy

[Bowtie]

Why would anyone patent a piece of crap like that? I'm sure once they patent the NTFS system there will be a change in the infamous "EULA" that states that the file system can only be accessed by said installed operating system. Just wait and see.

[Stween]

Originally posted by Bowtie
Why would anyone patent a piece of crap like that?

The FAT file system is a nice, simple filesystem that is used as standard to this day on many PC's, and (more often now) in portable devices like digital cameras, mp3 players etc. It's no piece of crap, it does everything that's required of it.

I don't think that this affects Linux though, since Linux doesn't use FAT in any form (though it can access partitions using the FAT format).

[gofigr]

Originally posted by Stween
The FAT file system is a nice, simple filesystem that is used as standard to this day on many PC's, and (more often now) in portable devices like digital cameras, mp3 players etc. It's no piece of crap, it does everything that's required of it.

I don't think that this affects Linux though, since Linux doesn't use FAT in any form (though it can access partitions using the FAT format). i've always found that the fat filesystem has much less overhead than their other attempts. having your os installed on a fat partition makes it run quicker than if it's on ntfs.

[bandwidth_pig]

I had thought perhaps this was more in reference to "appliances" such as MP3 players. If you have a Windows OS, you have the license be default. Now, if they were to try and charge additional fees for other Operating Systems accessing that FAT filesystem, that would be another matter. But isn't that kinda what they already do with their server platforms?

[AnonyPuss]

You're assuming that the patent is valid; first look for prior art. Just because someone has a patent does not mean that the patent is valid. In fact, when a patent fight reaches court, it is quite common for the patent to be overturned.

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

Originally posted by bandwidth_pig
I had thought perhaps this was more in reference to "appliances" such as MP3 players. If you have a Windows OS, you have the license be default. Now, if they were to try and charge additional fees for other Operating Systems accessing that FAT filesystem, that would be another matter. But isn't that kinda what they already do with their server platforms?

After reading the link, that's what it appears to me. When they say "solid state" and "consumer electronics" manufacturers, it looks like they'd charge on a per-unit basis for each device they've formatted to FAT. So, the end-user would pay in terms of added cost for the device, but they needn't worry about actually having a license.

Personally, I feel Microsoft has every right to patent FAT if they developed it. But, what's to stop manufacturers from using another filesystem standard? Imagine this: manufacturers start to use ext2 for their MP3 players, flash drives, and other devices. Next thing you know, there will be a native driver for Windows to support ext2/3, a bonus for us Linux users...

[jrbishop79]

will this effect VFAT?

seems like FUD to me...

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

Originally posted by jrbishop79
will this effect VFAT?

seems like FUD to me...

Again, let's not blow this out of proportion. Right now, this licensing is for the producers of the technology, not the consumers. As I read it, this doesn't say anything about what you as a consumer do with the filesystem once you've got it. Also, I'm thinking this won't affect software like mkdosfs because it's a tool, just like the DOS FORMAT command, that allows users to make FAT filesystems.

[EnigmaOne]

Originally posted by AnonyPuss
You're assuming that the patent is valid; first look for prior art. Just because someone has a patent does not mean that the patent is valid. In fact, when a patent fight reaches court, it is quite common for the patent to be overturned.

Not to mention that FAT32 was a mere extension of a preexisting, standard filesystem spec; and ms hasn't bothered enforcing any supposed patent rights for something like 8 years now.

Funny that ms and sco seem to be running such similar strategies....isn't it.

OK, not really funny, but....