Microsoft's patent for the FAT file system - the basis for the company's first salvo in its licensing offensive - is to be reviewed by the US Patent Office, at the request of a free software group. Microsoft introduced its first ever intellectual property licensing program in December, having hired the senior IBM executive responsible for building Big Blue's patent revenue stream from zero in 1985 into what's now a billion dollar business, Marshall Phelps. Redmond calls it "liberalization", and set the royalty payments relatively low for its intended customers, such as camera manufacturers who use the FAT file system for removable storage. But any royalty fee poses an insurmountable obstacle for free software developers, the attorney behind the request told us today.
"Free software is licensed in a way that prohibits royalties - you can't pay Microsoft a license and distribute your software under a free software license," says Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation which has filed the request to invalidate the patent. Although the open source community has been transfixed by the SCO case, Microsoft's threat is far more serious, as it seeks to make distributing patent-encumbered free software illegal. If Microsoft asserts more intellectual property claims under a royalty bearing license, if these claims affect free software, and if Microsoft chooses to uphold its rights and wins, then free software developers would have little option but to stop work under existing open licenses. That's a lot of ifs, but Microsoft has been unsuccessful in impeding the growth of open source software so far, and has shown it has both the means and motive. If successful, today's licenses would eventually become a curious historical footnote for future computer science students.
News source: The Register
"Free software is licensed in a way that prohibits royalties - you can't pay Microsoft a license and distribute your software under a free software license," says Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation which has filed the request to invalidate the patent. Although the open source community has been transfixed by the SCO case, Microsoft's threat is far more serious, as it seeks to make distributing patent-encumbered free software illegal. If Microsoft asserts more intellectual property claims under a royalty bearing license, if these claims affect free software, and if Microsoft chooses to uphold its rights and wins, then free software developers would have little option but to stop work under existing open licenses. That's a lot of ifs, but Microsoft has been unsuccessful in impeding the growth of open source software so far, and has shown it has both the means and motive. If successful, today's licenses would eventually become a curious historical footnote for future computer science students.
News source: The Register
What's New in This Release:
· - Improved print dialog
· - Improved Contact Sheet option
· - New options for Slideshow/Fullscreen
· - New options for Batch conversion/rename
· - New options for HTML export (Slideshow, Templates)
· - New pattern/display options for: Slideshow, Fullscreen, Print, Insert Text,
· Contact Sheet, HTML-Export, Batch Rename (use EXIF/IPTC values)
· - Transparent PNG saving added
· - New option: Canvas size (Create image border) (Image menu and Batch mode)
· - New hotkeys: E = show EXIF info, CTRL+I = show IPTC info,
· F4 = append current file to slideshow
· - Option to start IrfanView in fullscreen mode (Properties->Misc 1)
· - Selection: proportional resize possible (press/hold CTRL key down)
· - New command line option: /multitif=(tifname,file1,...,fileN)
· Example: i_view32 /multitif=(c: est.tif,c: est1.bmp,c:dummy.jpg)
· => Create multipage TIF (test.tif) from 2 other files
· - New command line option: /append=tiffile
· Example: i_view32 c: est.jpg /append=c: est.tif
· => Open 'c: est.jpg' and append it as (TIF) page to 'c: est.tif'
· - New command line options: /hflip and /vflip (horz. and vert. flip)
· Example: i_view32 c: est.jpg /vflip
· => Open 'c: est.jpg' and flip vertically
· - New command line option: /batchscan=(options)
· See "i_options.txt" for an example
· - New command line options: /jpgq=value; /tifc=value
· => Set JPG save quality; set TIF save compression
· - New command line option: /wall=X
· Example: i_view32 c: est.jpg /wall=0
· => Set 'c: est.jpg' as wallpaper (centered)
· - New command line option: /contrast=value
· Example: i_view32 c: est.jpg /contrast=33
· => Open 'c: est.jpg' and apply contrast (value 33)
· - Support for DWF/HPGL formats. PlugIn: http://www.cadsofttools.com (Shareware)
· - CTRL+T can be used for internal control-switch in the Thumbnail window
· - CTRL+A hotkey changed to CTRL+SHIFT+A (File->Acquire)
· - Multiple monitor support added (Slideshow/Fullscreen)
· - ECW saving added to ECW PlugIn
· - New options in Image->Info dialog
· - Option to show a warning on ESC exit (Properties->Misc 1)
· - Added options for silent install and uninstall (Check help FAQs)
· - Most PlugIns are changed/updated, please install the newest versions:
· Download from: http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.html
· - Some minor bugs/features fixed/added
1. You make it.
2. It becomes widely adopted, because there's no patent on it.
3. You patent it, and then start charging for it.
What sense does that make?
how much do they charge for it?
STV
how much do they charge for it?
STV
What's wrong with charging for it is charging for it after you already think it's free
that's like using a drinking fountain in the park and then a city officer coming to you with a request to pay for that water afteer you've used it even though there arn't any signs to say that it's not free. It wouldn't cost you much but it's still the principal that they shouldn't charge you for it like that.
I disagree with this because that would turn rights to innovations to more like something you rent, instead of something you own. Also, it's just 8 years since the patent was supposedely issued in 1996, not "10+ years". The reason I think the creator of the prior art should have a chance to do something about things like this is because if there's prior art, the patent should not have been granted in the first place.
Last edited by 21023 on 16 Apr 2004 - 06:49
Microsoft have a patent on the FAT filing system - probably since the day they invented it (or shortly afterwards). They, to date, appear not to have enforced or licensed this patent to anyone. However, the right still subsists.
All they are doing is, belatedly, licensing their intellectual property. This also, probably as a bonus for them, seems to be causing the open source movement some difficulties.
They did not suddenly just patent it recently - that would not have been possible.
All software companies with patents are only now waking up to the possibilities that patents provide - I suspect we'll be seeing more of this in the future...
If philbarnes is correct (which is how i read it as well) then i don't see MS is doing anything wrong.
If the open source group can get the patent invalidated, then ok... that changes things, but as of now, nothing wrong is being done...
Yea!
Welcome the the "Litigation Economy"
...and there was much rejoice...
i made this bomb, i can do what I want with it.
If that's the case I can see why they are upset.
Also, look to see Microsoft to start to enforce it's patent on "Subpixel Rendering" or more commonly know as "ClearType".
Last edited by 52956 on 16 Apr 2004 - 15:55
Microsoft never paid Eolas a penny the court over ruled it, as they should.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.