Licensing on FAT16

Is it true, as I understand from wikipedia, that only the implementation of long filename support is commercially restricted when using FAT16?

We would like to add a compact flash card interface to an ARM7 product we have. It would be nice if the card used a format that we could easily read on a PC.

Reply to
s0lstice
Loading thread data ...

you can use FAT16 with short file name support. it is really not commercially restricted. you can also find many sample codes and libraries which are realted with that.

Reply to
ömerkaraküçük

Un bel giorno ömerkaraküçük digitò:

Are you implying that every open source VFAT implementation with long filenames (Linux, *BSD, and so on) violate some license?

--
emboliaschizoide.splinder.com
Reply to
dalai lamah

They appear to violate some patents

--

John Devereux
Reply to
John Devereux

According to my reading of that web page, all the patents in question are for mixing short and long filenames on FAT, which was necessary for older DOS and Win16 programs to be able to work with files with longer file names. To my knowledge, every other FAT implementation is on a system that is either happy with 8.3 file names (typically good enough for embedded systems, cameras, etc.), or where programs can work properly with consistent long names (such as any *nix system). Without having read either the patents, or the Linux (or *BSD, etc.) source code, I'd be surprised if there are infringements.

It's also worth remembering that there are interested parties who *have* read the patents, the legal rulings on the patents, and the source code for the OS'es in question. Both Linux and the BSD's development teams make a specific point of avoiding patent issues whenever they know about them (occasionally *nix code is only available from sources outside the USA, because of such nonsense as silly software patents and DCMA that does not apply in the free world). You can be sure that the FAT code maintainers are aware of such high-profile patents, and that they make sure there is no infringement.

And even if there *were* an infringement, MS would have a very hard time suing anyone over it. Linux developers and supporting companies have repeatedly asked the for details of any know patent infringements so that the issues can be sorted out. There is no court anywhere that would believe MS if they "suddenly" found out that Linux infringed their FAT patents. Patents don't "expire" like trademarks if you don't defend them, but it would certainly count badly against them in court. Add to that the likelihood that these patents, and many others that MS licenses to commercial third parties, would quickly be ruled invalid, and the risks involved in starting a patent war, and you can be very sure MS will not take action against Linux over these patents.

Reply to
David Brown

"David Brown" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news: snipped-for-privacy@lyse.net... [....]

Let's not forget about the little footnotes commonly found in many of Microsoft's patents, stating that they claim a patent to avoid being sued by somebody who DOES try to collect cash for this matter. In case of industry majors like Sun or Microsoft, it oftentimes pays to read their statements regarding the patent; in no small number of cases, they explicily grant the right to use that stuff free of charge to anybody interested - while still maintaining the right to the patent (simply covering their own a**).

I did not check on this one specifically, but if patent infringement fears are of concern in the project in question, it probably would ease things to simply read Microsoft's take on it.

After all - Microsoft's patent on passing an implicit 'this' pointer to a subroutine otherwise would have wreaked havoc on the software industry at large (this is kind of the base object oriented software is sitting on).

My wishes are with you,

Stefan

Reply to
Stefan Carter

While some patents (perhaps even the majority of software patents) are purely defensive, MS sell licenses to use their FAT32-related patents. I don't know the wording of these licenses, but it looks like MS uses these patents actively.

Someone who is genuinely concerned about patent infringement should, of course, talk to a lawyer rather than relying on advice in a newsgroup!

Reply to
David Brown

Well the answer is definiately YES, or definately NO depending on who you ask. I have asked lots of people.

The following document

formatting link
details FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32, read the first few paragraphs of the license on this page then see if you are any the wiser.

--
Regards,
Richard.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
FreeRTOS.org

Un bel giorno John Devereux digitò:

Wow. I won't never stop to be surprised on how stupid a patent can be. And patent offices accept them, and sometimes courts of law enforce them! Amazing.

--
emboliaschizoide.splinder.com
Reply to
dalai lamah

are/fatgen.mspxdetails

his

It is clear that none of us here speak the language that the license above is written in (or care to learn). It looks like I have to decide whether to risk the wrath of MS, or pay someone to read it for me. (Is it possible to download the source for a lawyer ;-> )

Reply to
s0lstice

document

formatting link

The question is will MS even notice you? First, the currently valid patents seem to be only on the long file name extensions. You don't need to read the MS licensing stuff, you just need to read the patents. So if you aren't using long filenames, I don't think you have to worry. Second, if your widget is going to be attached in

*any* way to a PC running a MS OS (even if that "attachment" is through an SD card) I think MS won't care.

Has anyone heard of MS suing over these patents?

Rick

Reply to
rickman

Yes.

AFAIK, IANAL etc The patents are only over long file names. Not the

8.3 which was in use on several systems prior to MS. MS only patented the LFN (Long file names) and at one time there was a license application from on the MS web site. I can no longer find it. I needed it for s couple of customers (we are a tool distributor) who bought a file system with LFN

You can buy a file system with LFN but it is up to you to license it yourself.

As I said I can't find the license form that was there and MS could not point me to the new one.

As for suing AFAIK MS only sued 2 companies (large ones) for roughly the cost of the legal fees and the licenses. This was to set the precedent for the patent. I think you have to show that you not only hold it but defend it. IANAL

That said thousands of companies are producing things (MPS players? ) with a file system and I doubt most of them are licensed. However as I said it is only the Long file names not the 8.3 Fat 16 compatible system

SO IMHO, IANAL, the chances of MS suing are minimal to non-existent unless you piss them off or have something they want.

From what I recall the cost was something silly like 5cents per unit

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chris H

document

formatting link

As your NNTP Posting Host Header Entry points to the UK please note that the software patents behind this documentation are unenforcable in Europe anyways.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Frank-Christian Krügel

Reply to
Frank-Christian Kruegel

In message , Frank-Christian Kruegel writes

This is true. However should you ever want to travel to the US, sell your goods in the US, have an office in the US etc....

Though as I said the chances of MS wanting to enforce it are negligible to zero unless you piss them off or have something they want. It which case they could make things a bit awkward.

Though from the Wiki page cited above it seems that even in the US there have been appeals and reversals so it is not a done deal even in the US.

IANAL but I would be not that worried about using long file names.

Appeal As there was widespread call for these patents to be re-examined, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) submitted evidence to the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) disputing the validity of these patents, including prior art references from Xerox and IBM. The USPTO acknowledged that the evidence raised "substantial new question[s] of patentability," and opened an investigation into the validity of Microsoft's FAT patents.[33]

On 2004-09-30 the USPTO rejected all claims of U.S. Patent 5,579,517 , based primarily on evidence provided by PUBPAT. Dan Ravicher, the foundation's executive director, said, "The Patent Office has simply confirmed what we already knew for some time now, Microsoft's FAT patent is bogus."

According to the PUBPAT press release, "Microsoft still has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection. Typically, third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time."

On 2005-10-05 the Patent Office announced that, following the re-examination process, it had again rejected all claims of patent

5,579,517, and it additionally found U.S. Patent 5,758,352 invalid on the grounds that the patent had incorrect assignees.

Finally, on 2006-01-10 the Patent Office ruled that features of Microsoft's implementation of the FAT system were "novel and non-obvious", reversing both earlier non-final decisions.[34]

[edit] See also
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chris H

on this

Hi Everyone,

I've been investigating this, because I need to find an implementation of FAT driver with LFN's for Embedded Systems.

It's always important to check what Microsoft states about such patents! See:

formatting link

Essentially, they will not bring any lawsuit against anyone implementing fat, with or without LFN's as long as the specification isn't changed or altered. I.e. Conform to their spec, and you're ok. No royalties need to be paid.

The reason why they hold such a patent, is so that another company can't claim a patent on this portion of the FAT filesystem, and then make a claim against Microsoft for using it in Windows. They're covering their bottom lines, and it makes sense really.

Anyway, I'm looking at DosFS over the next few weeks, and i'm either going to implement long file names into it, or I will write my own FAT driver with all the features DosFS provides, with LFN's in a threadsafe way, thats fast and efficient, with optional caching.

For my current system I need a really really fast FAT16/32 driver for the BlackFin family.

Please email me james at worm dot me dot uk for more information. I'll publish the FS Library on my website when complete on worm.me.uk

James

Reply to
james.walmsley

We developed the compatible FAT16/32 filesystem for BlackFin with POSIX (SUSV3) interface and RTOS abstraction layer. It is optimized for speed. It is a commertical product.

Our filesystem is NOT opensource or GPL. My contact is at the web site.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

formatting link

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.