Thursday, December 4, 2003 |
11:11 - Big FAT Hairy Deal
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
|
(top) |
Don't companies normally wait until they're dying before they start enforcing royalties on their previously public-domain, license-free technologies?
I mean, Unisys waited until they were all but bankrupt before they started bumping chests with everybody and saying that LZW-based GIF was theirs to charge fees for (at least, until they found a bed-buddy in Microsoft). That working group that developed the JPEG format waited until last year before suddenly, out of the blue, claiming prima nocte on everybody's JPEGs. Even SCO waited until just this year before they started their own Samson maneuver, stamping their little feet and saying they owned Linux, collecting multimillion-dollar "donations" from Microsoft and Sun so they can show a pro forma profit for two more consecutive quarters so their execs can cash out their stock options before the company finally implodes.
So what's Microsoft doing, suddenly charging royalties for the FAT filesystem?
Today, the FAT File system has become the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices. The FAT file system is now supported by a wide variety of operating systems running on all sizes of computers, from servers to personal digital assistants. In addition, many digital devices such as still and video cameras, audio recorders, video game systems, scanners, and printers make use of FAT file system technology.
Microsoft is offering to license its FAT file system specification and associated intellectual property. With this license, other companies have the opportunity to standardize the FAT file system implementation in their products, and to improve file system compatibility across a range of computing and consumer electronics devices.
Ahh. In other words, now that everything from CompactFlash cards to digital cameras to game consoles to routers uses FAT, the time is ripe for Microsoft to flip the little "We were just kidding all along when we said non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable license. Ha ha haaaa! Foooled you, didn't we?" switch and collect a cool quarter for every single such device sold, up to $250,000 per company. On a case-by-case basis. How much do you neeeeeed FAT? they'll ask. Care to express that in terms of a number followed by a long series of zeroes?
They know nobody can afford to go to an alternative. They know FAT is the de facto standard. What are people gonna do-- switch to UFS or Ext3FS? Hah. We're Microsoft. They'll all just pay up.
If every company in the tech sector banded together and stood up to Microsoft, maybe they could get them to back down; maybe throngs of suited-and-tied finance officers will gather outside One Microsoft Way and wave banners, topple giant Bill Gates puppets, and sing "Kumbaya" until the company relents. But I don't expect that'll happen. The last twenty years are an unending litany of Microsoft's demands being met and appeased with nary a whisper of complaint. Best to give the devil his due, eh, as long as he keeps delivering the goods?
Apple may have slowed acceptance of FireWire by charging royalties for it during the first few years of its life, before dropping them later-- but they didn't start out saying it was free, then wait until everybody was locked into it and then start charging.
I suppose it's Microsoft's business prerogative to revoke the royalty-free license and suddenly start charging fees. Nothing in the law against it. But damn, it's slimy.
Thanks to Chris for the links and the rundown.
|
|