| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| RIM to pay Microsoft protection money for exFAT patents |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-09-18 21:45:37 |
| Microsoft and RIM have announced that RIM has licensed Redmond's exFAT patents. The press release contains a ridiculous amount of hyperbole nonsense, and if you translate it into regular people speak, it basically comes down to RIM paying Microsoft protection money for stupid nonsensical software patents. Ridiculous articles like like this make it seem as if we're talking about patents on major technological breakthroughs, but don't be fooled: this is because for some inexplicable reason, we're using crappy FAT for SD cards. |
|
| RE[4]: Metadata |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-09-19 12:43:38 |
|
Xbox 360 does not use a Modified Windows NT kernel. > According to Microsoft, it is a common misconception that the Xbox and Xbox 360 use a modified Windows 2000 kernel.[36] They claim that the Xbox operating system was built from scratch but implements a subset of Windows APIs. The idea that it does, indeed, run a modified copy of the Windows kernel still persists in the community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win... Be glad to be able to use FAT 32 because I had to use older filesystems ... Sun Ray Machines don't even recognize FAT32, they only recognise FAT12 and FAT16. Edited 2012-09-19 12:53 UTC |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: Metadata |
| By dsmogor on 2012-09-19 12:49:49 |
| Hey, if that's part of a standard shouldn't patents in question be licensed on RAND terms? |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[4]: Where is the EU? |
| By dsmogor on 2012-09-19 12:52:16 |
| An that's is the crux of the problem. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer |
| By dsmogor on 2012-09-19 12:57:09 |
| That's way too late. You'd have to re-flash billions of gadgets that have FAT support in their guts. |
| - Score: 3 |
| Protection Money Really? |
| By lucas_maximus on 2012-09-19 13:01:38 |
|
> Microsoft Corp. announced today that Microsoft and Research In Motion (RIM) have signed a patent licensing agreement that gives RIM broad access to the latest Extended File Allocation Table (exFAT) for certain BlackBerry devices of RIM. That isn't hyperbole Thom, that is just a statement. The rest might be guff, but that is a pretty clear statement. The conversation probably went like this down RIM: * RIM Engineer - "We want to use exFAT, and that requires a volume license." * RIM Manager - "Well lets get one, then." * RIM Manager to Microsoft - "how much is an exFAT license?" * Microsoft - "It is $X for this number of devices". * RIM Manager - "That is with-in the budget, I will put you in contact with accounts." FFS, This is how businesses normally work. Edited 2012-09-19 13:02 UTC |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer |
| By phoudoin on 2012-09-19 13:19:10 |
|
> FAT at least up to FAT32 is patentfree long filenames are patented, but you don't need to support them in fact i haven't seen a single camera that uses something different than 8.3 naming Today SD cards aren't anymore used to store photos. I'm seeing a pattern where the SD card is becoming to mobile devices what the USB keys are to desktop/laptop computers: removable storage. In that context, it matters more to have better file system features set on the new removable storage support than when it was used only for music and photos. And the only reason why [ex]FAT[32] is still this file system is for out-of-box interoperability with Windows users, and because the main use case was to make a copy of your data stored on your main Windows computer to be able to access (read, mostly) them from a mobile device. This use case is moving toward a less desktop centric storage, via cloud and/or versatile compact storage support like SD cards and where the content can be generated directly from the mobile device. The once mandatory file system seamless integration with Windows thru FAT can now be replaced with a software manager tool, as one could do with tarballs for instance. My point is that even if Microsoft can forbid Windows to support natively all file systems but theirs, it's perfectly possible to use the plain old FAT with 8.3 names as a backend to a far more open, free guest file system that would launch automatically the software manager on a Windows system. A FATPatent-free solution. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer |
| By phoudoin on 2012-09-19 13:25:59 |
|
Why reflash? Publish a software manager with a migration feature that will turn your current FAT content into a FAT-hosted file system. With some tricks, you can possibly make the new hosted file system easy to detect on systems with native support, making it mountable directly. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer |
| By vaette on 2012-09-19 14:10:34 |
|
> Or the open source community to implement it for Windows plateforms. Someone will first have to cover the Windows FS kit cost, though. This happened over a decade ago actually, you can get a fully functional ext2 driver for Windows here: http://www.fs-driver.org/ It is really an excellent piece of work, all features one would expect work: UTF-8 filenames, plugging into Windows disk caching system, you handle the partitions in the normal Windows disk tools, you can have the pagefile on ext2, it supports the more advanced indexing of ext3, and it is in general lightning fast. I always point this driver out when people complain about interfacing with NTFS from Linux, since using ext2 in Windows is really a lot easier. The only issue is the lack of journaling, but to be honest it is not an all that big deal for a desktop PC. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Protection Money Really? |
| By dekernel on 2012-09-19 14:14:08 |
| If I had to guess, I would think you are spot-on. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by marcp |
| By tidux on 2012-09-19 14:26:33 |
| I'd say ext4, really. It's safer than ext2, and actually faster on flash media. It's only a tiny bit slower than FAT32 but can do silly things like hold a 4.7GB DVD iso. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |