Microsoft and the FAT Patent
I was asked to comment on Microsoft, its lovely patent on the FAT filesystem, and the implications for technologies such as Linux. As I've got a lot to do still before heading off to TOKYO (see, every time I type it I go nuts and put it in all caps *chuckle*) I don't have time to go in-depth, but I asked some fellow folks who cover such topics like Pamela Jones (PJ) from Groklaw and she provided me with the with some pointers to the issue as she's been following it. As others weigh in I'll come back and add more in this post unless it's significant enough to do a separate post on the issue.
Essential organizations such as PubPat.org have already challenged the FAT patent. This challenge resulted in the US Patent Office actually rejecting the patent (here's a second reference for the rejection). However, this rejection was then overturned after Microsoft requested that it be looked at again. This tug of war could go back and forth for a while until one side eventually gives up, or Microsoft actually sues someone for infringement, in which case it would likely also be re-examined yet again.
As for the effects on Linux, I'll take a wait and see approach. Companies like Red Hat and Novell who have good reason to be concerned about being sued will have to decide how they want to handle it, if they will include FAT support or not (and just pay for a license, Red Hat at least doesn't seem to try to fast and loose approach, not to mention the fact that a patented tech is a GPL violation) or leave that to external repositories. It's too bad, really, as FAT is in fact a pretty old technology and it seems to me the tech world should be focusing forward, not backward. But then, I'm not a fan of software patents in the way they have been implemented in the US, I think they've caused a huge mess and seriously damaged the technology sector--frankly, they could be a reason that some companies move overseas. Notice that I say "in the way they've been implemented." I'm not sure I'm 100% against software patents, but the current implementation is a good study in how not to do it.
Other references and thoughts encouraged, this is a complex issue.
Edited 31 Jan 2006 to add:
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has pointed out that it is quite likely, in fact, that this patent will be challenged again. So far I'm agreement with those who aren't particularly worried as yet. It looks like the FAT patent is is far from resolved.
Comments (2)
Microsoft knows that many devices such as cameras and GPS's that use SD cards use FAT and that's a choke point if they move on Linux, excluding use of those devices. This could also hurt the embedded device market which is strong on Linux, though they may find it easy to switch to ext2, but interoperability could suffer. Wrap it up with WinCE and extort companies not basing their products on WinCE. Hopefully bodies such as the EU can demand it be opened up under anti-monopoly laws.
I read some of the articles that Dee posted in her commentary, and I noticed that Microsoft is GENEROUSLY offering use of the file system for $.25. Is that per copy of linux install disk? Is it a one time fee or do you have to pay for a license every year? One of the things I LIKE about my distro is being able to back up my Windows information from my linux desktop by just opening the file manager. But my distro is produced by a linux company Xandros. There are a lot of independent distributions out there who may not be able to afford paying a royalty fee. What happens to them? Do they stop offering support for FAT or FAT32? Then they run the risk of being abandoned by their patrons. Risk being sued? Then they run the risk of being put out of business. Linus, we could use some suggestions here..... Glenn Condrey