Does anyone know what patents are claimed by Microsoft on Android? Is it one for FAT16/32? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't FAT16/32 Microsoft's proprietary format? So why is it wrong for them to put a claim on it? Wouldn't Apple do the same?
The Microsoft-created features protected by the patents infringed by the Nook and Nook Color tablet are core to the user experience. For example, the patents we asserted today protect innovations that:
• Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;
• Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
• Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;
• Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and
• Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document.
And here's a list of patents from a lawsuit against Mororola [4] (the first two concern FAT16 I believe):
5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames
5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames (yes, again)
6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations
6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer
6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database
7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes
5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior
6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information
6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
As for your questions: So why is it wrong for them to put a claim on it? Wouldn't Apple do the same? It's not like Apple gets a free pass when they sue Android manufacturers for patent infringement...
[1] http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
[2] http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-...
[3] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296
[4] http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-p...
[1] http://www.geekwire.com/2011/barnes-nobles-29page-slide-deck...
Imagine BMW patenting the shape of the hole you use to fuel your car, and then sending invoices to every fuel station.
>Imagine BMW patenting the shape of the hole you use to fuel your car, and then sending invoices to every fuel station.
That is an unfair comparison. I would have agreed to that statement if the patent was vague but it is very specific to implementation.
>Android supports to be compatible with windows systems.
Neither do I see any other reason to stick with FAT16/32 unless it is somehow required on booting.
I made a sabbatical in hating Microsoft for a few years but now I see why it is important for me to resume doing so.
I fully agree. I despise patents on anything that stifles interoperability. However this wasn't anything new. Din't we grow up with patents on GIF? Isn't Apple doing the same with patents on NFC sessions? [1] Or Google with their proprietary file system[2]? Don't even get me started on the bucket load of patents IBM has collected over the decade. Then why single out Microsoft? Patent wars between corporations is nothing new. (However, I would develop a deep hatred if they went after non-profit org like Linux with this.)
The point I am trying to make is, it was/is common for corporations to file patents on most trivial things. I find the Patent Office at fault here.
[1]http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/05/apple-fi...
[2]http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/06/google-file-system-...
One thing is to patent, the other thing is to enforce a bogus patent/"license" it and collect money. The latter has no excuses for a product company.
It's not about filing patents. Patents are routinely filed for defensive purpose and it's hard to blame the companies that do it, especially in light of the abuse by e.g. Microsoft. It's what companies do with the patents. Like getting Motorola phones banned in Germany due to FAT16 patent infringement [1].
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/motorola-android-devices-banned-in-germ...
It is required under UEFI. Fat16 and 32 are the only recognized file system formats used by UEFI firmware, so you have to have a UEFI system partition using that filesystem. If Microsoft can patent troll people over it, technically that means there is no way to prepare a system for UEFI booting unless running Microsoft software to create a fat partition, and write to it.
Which would be stupendous bullshit.
Apple & MS have a cross-licensing agreement dating back to 1997 that has been renewed at once (and probably more than once). FAT patents are presumably included under this.
If they are patent encumbered, that is worse than the secure boot nonsense. It would mean you can't format a drive for booting on a system using UEFI firmware unless you had windows software to create and write into that partition.
UEFI users (as in: OS installer) could restrain themselves to FAT16 with 8.3 names (FAT16 since the boot partition is usually tiny), and I haven't seen any longer file names yet.
The point still stands though: any patent protection for the original implementation would have expired before 1997, which is more than 15 years ago. And it shouldn't have received (in fact, didn't receive) patent protection.
I was mistaken above; FAT is actually a Microsoft design, although it predates MS DOS - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Historical_evol...
The point still stands though: any patent protection for the original implementation would have expired before 1997, which is more than 15 years ago. And it shouldn't have received (in fact, didn't receive) patent protection.