10.12.12
Samsung May Be Trying to Reduce Microsoft Patent Tax With F2FS
Picking oneself up from the mud
Summary: The purpose of F2FS is analysed in light of the patent litigation mess that has hit Samsung
The Germany-endorsed FAT tax which Samsung has paid Microsoft for years did not upset Google enough to halt partnerships.
In fact, Samsung seems eager to get rid of FAT. To quote one news article: “The most prolific and “universal” file systems (i.e. FAT16, FAT32) are also archaic ones, predating today’s enormously spacious, rewritable flash devices. In fact, most file systems aren’t perfectly suited for flash media, although many have been trying. Some alternatives are encumbered by potential patent time-bombs or royalties (e.g. exFAT), so F2FS may be Samsung’s attempt at giving industry players a free (and safe) way to navigate the field.”
In our daily links we’ve included many articles such as this — pieces that mention it without touching the patent question. incidentally, Samsung swings back at ban attempts that Groklaw covered while Apple and Microsoft liaise in FUD (FRAND style) over Google patents.
“Google spoke privately to Samsung about the subject of patents.”Samsung betrayed Linux some years ago, but let us hope that flash memory ambitions [1, 2] can reverse this trend. At the moment, Samsung does fight for Android in the court room. Motorola does that also (Google bought to inherit the lawsuits) and “Injunctions by Apple and Microsoft appear to have persuaded Motorola Mobility to pull all of its Android phones and tablets from the German market,” says Charles Arthur. This author quotes Microsoft lobbyist Florian Müller to spoil the article, calling him “patents blogger” rather than lobbyist. Groklaw says: “The judge in the Seattle Microsoft v. Motorola litigation, the Hon. James L. Robart, has ruled on Motorola’s motion for summary judgment with a summary No. This judge wants to help Microsoft out, it seems, and so he will. I do believe, however, after reading this ruling, that on appeal it will be a different story, once Motorola gets out of Microsoft’s home court.”
They should tune into Posner’s verdict [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. He compared Apple to an animal due to its litigation against Android. The trial is just harassment, it should be dismissed. Here is what Google’s CEO recently had to say. As an introduction, “Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is in Seoul attending the launch of the Nexus 7 in Korea Thursday, and he’s been very talkative on a number of topics, as he was in Tokyo earlier in the week. This time around, he spoke out about patent problems, the search giant’s relationship with Apple, and Samsung…”
Google spoke privately to Samsung about the subject of patents. Hopefully they can fight on this front together. Samsung has one of the biggest patent portfolios or patenting pace in Europe and the United States, so it is an asset for defence. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
mcinsand said,
October 12, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Paul Maritz may have been onto something, with the idea of ‘cutting off their oxygen supply,’ and it would be a good strategy for FOSS to start using. MS is a dying brand, and they have managed to keep themselves funded by extorting companies like Samsung and LG. Until we can get rid of software patents, we need to address their profitability. What can we do to help with F2FS’ adoption? Let’s work to get rid of one more MS extortionary revenue stream!
Also, as tough as it is to believe, not all lobbyists are bad, which is why I have an issue with calling Flo a ‘lobbyist.’ ‘Shill’ would be better, although ‘internet prostitute’ would probably be most accurate. Calling him something that might have positive connotations would be almost as reality-distorting as calling Apple innovative
NotZed said,
October 12, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Well it’s not like they don’t have plenty of filesystems to choose from; why it’s taken this long for someone to do something about it (if that’s what they are doing) is a bit of a mystery.
NotZed said,
October 12, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Lobbyists are all bad because they subvert democracy. i.e. more money, more influence – making ‘one vote one value’ nothing but a cruel joke for pacifying the proles.
They are all ‘shills’ by definition (they try to influence people for money), even if they are shilling for a cause you agree with.
mcinsand said,
October 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm
I think we need to switch NotZed to decaff, but let’s make a couple of corrections first. The problem with the system that allows for lobbyists is that it sets up elected officials to put themselves up for sale. To say that all lobbyists subvert democracy is just as false as the assertion that all lobbyists are shills. We have more than our share of corrupt lobbyists, and the corrupt lobbyists are more than reason enough to criminalize lobbying. However, here in the US, there are at least a few that lobby for civil rights, medical diseases, and for some groups that just don’t have the ability to make themselves heard unless they band together.
No, lobbyists are not all ‘shills by definition,’ although many, if not most, are shills. They are *advocates* by definition, and that includes both shills and those that are working to advance an honest position.
These might seem like fine points to NotZed, and I will not disagree with NotZed on whether our lobbying system is far more of a problem than a solution, but definitions are still worth keeping straight.
Regards