Reading mode: Light Dark

Microsoft FAT (b*st*d) charges..

Go to last post
S

ShootingD60

Senior Member
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
0
Location
Manchester, UK
Now that MS has decided to cash in on FAT charges, why don't BT (Britiish Telecom) charge everyone in the whole wide world for using packet switching. (They own the patent for that you know !!) Unless everyone doesn't know, it's the basis for all internet traffic. I have a better idea.... just charge MS for the Internet explorer software for each packet sent/received... that way BT bankrupts MS and saves everyone a load of grief....

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)
 
Please keep this whining in the News or Open Talk forums.

Teski
Gordon S Walker said:
Now that MS has decided to cash in on FAT charges, why don't BT
(Britiish Telecom) charge everyone in the whole wide world for
using packet switching. (They own the patent for that you know !!)
Unless everyone doesn't know, it's the basis for all internet
traffic. I have a better idea.... just charge MS for the Internet
explorer software for each packet sent/received... that way BT
bankrupts MS and saves everyone a load of grief....

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)
Click to expand...
 
microsoft owns the intellectual property
they want to get compensated for it

Isn't that the same for photographers too?
Gordon S Walker said:
Now that MS has decided to cash in on FAT charges, why don't BT
(Britiish Telecom) charge everyone in the whole wide world for
using packet switching. (They own the patent for that you know !!)
Unless everyone doesn't know, it's the basis for all internet
traffic. I have a better idea.... just charge MS for the Internet
explorer software for each packet sent/received... that way BT
bankrupts MS and saves everyone a load of grief....

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)
Click to expand...
 
A Photo Fan said:
microsoft owns the intellectual property
they want to get compensated for it

Isn't that the same for photographers too?
Click to expand...
At least your client has a choice of using another photographer. What choice do we have?
 
MS is going after the wrong people. In all fairness, the CF card people are simply running a format command on a device prior to shipping it. They have (I bet) bought the version of windows that allows you to format a device (and to copy it and so on) and there are NO restrictions in giving out formatted media in your Windows Licensing agreement. In short, the card manufactures are not distributing ANY MS tech that violates the licensing agreement that came with your (or their) PC. The CF card has NO intrinsic knowledge of the FAT file system. It can be USF, HFS+ (it does work, just not in a camera) or any other FS.

Nikon, Canon, Olympus et all, on the other had are. They are running code that knows how to format a device and write files to a device in a methodology that MS owns a patent on.

So, IMO, MS is barking up the wrong tree, it is just the camera makers have lots lots more $$$$ and would never give in to MS.

Steven
A Photo Fan said:
Isn't that the same for photographers too?
Gordon S Walker said:
Now that MS has decided to cash in on FAT charges, why don't BT
(Britiish Telecom) charge everyone in the whole wide world for
using packet switching. (They own the patent for that you know !!)
Unless everyone doesn't know, it's the basis for all internet
traffic. I have a better idea.... just charge MS for the Internet
explorer software for each packet sent/received... that way BT
bankrupts MS and saves everyone a load of grief....

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
 
Steven Noyes said:
Nikon, Canon, Olympus et all, on the other had are. They are
running code that knows how to format a device and write files to a
device in a methodology that MS owns a patent on.
Click to expand...
Note that the patents do not cover everything that is FAT. Only relatively recent stuff. The worst case scenario here is that manufacturers decline to support any of the newer FAT features, such as > 2GB filesystems. At least in certain products. (E.g. you can't take your 4GB microdrive from a 1Ds to use in a Canon S55 (hypothetical model) 'cause Canon decided few people use such large media in the consumer cameras and declined to pay the price on that product.)

Though looking at the licensing fee structure, I'd expect a company like Canon to pay the blanket license and either forget about it, or look to move towards open royalty free technologies in the future.

-Z-
 
Flash memory is just media... just like a floppy disk, zip disk or hard disk. So why isn't MS charging for FAT on all pre-formated media ?

Better yet, have the flash makers leave the media blank.
Gordon S Walker said:
Now that MS has decided to cash in on FAT charges, why don't BT
(Britiish Telecom) charge everyone in the whole wide world for
using packet switching. (They own the patent for that you know !!)
Unless everyone doesn't know, it's the basis for all internet
traffic. I have a better idea.... just charge MS for the Internet
explorer software for each packet sent/received... that way BT
bankrupts MS and saves everyone a load of grief....

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)
Click to expand...
 
I seem to recall some instance where BT actually did try that. I could be mistaken though. It's mot MS's fault that digital media manufacturers wanted to use FAT32 instead of devising their own format.
Gordon S Walker said:
Now that MS has decided to cash in on FAT charges, why don't BT
(Britiish Telecom) charge everyone in the whole wide world for
using packet switching. (They own the patent for that you know !!)
Unless everyone doesn't know, it's the basis for all internet
traffic. I have a better idea.... just charge MS for the Internet
explorer software for each packet sent/received... that way BT
bankrupts MS and saves everyone a load of grief....

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)
Click to expand...
--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.
 
The problem with this is that the patent you are refering to is used by the routers and switches throughout the system and not by Internet explorer directly. What you are proposing would be like gas companies charging automobile makers for using fuel that a car owner puts in his vehicle.

I hold several patents, I have worked with several IP attorneys to understand how the system works. Microsoft probably has a similar patent to the one you are refering to which protects it against the patent you are refering to in your post.

Also if you think that backrupting MS would actually save you greif you should simply stop using their software. The fact of the matter is that even though you complain about them (because you wish you were in their shoes is my guess) you still continue to buy and use the software they produce. If the licensing terms are truly outragous then the manufactures will invent something on their own to replace it.

Personally Microsoft software supports my standard of living in a very direct way. I will continue to buy and use their software as long as it is useful to me. Every dollar I have spent on Microsoft software has returned to me with profit by using the software.
Gordon S Walker said:
Now that MS has decided to cash in on FAT charges, why don't BT
(Britiish Telecom) charge everyone in the whole wide world for
using packet switching. (They own the patent for that you know !!)
Unless everyone doesn't know, it's the basis for all internet
traffic. I have a better idea.... just charge MS for the Internet
explorer software for each packet sent/received... that way BT
bankrupts MS and saves everyone a load of grief....

--
I have a white lens (thanks to Tippex !)
Click to expand...
 
http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1999_05/FireWire.html

I have no problem with MS charging the camera/MP3 player makers but I do with them charging the CF card makers.

Steven
mark currier said:
A Photo Fan said:
microsoft owns the intellectual property
they want to get compensated for it

Isn't that the same for photographers too?
Click to expand...
That's cool. I hope Apple then starts charging for FireWire (or
IEEE-1394) which they invented, yet Sony, Philips and others
Click to expand...
--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top