Slashdot Mirror
PUBPAT Challenges Microsoft's FAT Patent
An anonymous reader writes "The Public Patent Foundation filed a formal request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office today to revoke Microsoft Corporation's patent on the FAT File System, touted by Microsoft as being 'the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices.' In its filing, PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art showing the patent, which issued in November 1996 and is not otherwise due to expire until 2013, was obvious and, as such, should have never been granted."
... somebody did this. FAT's been around and is now somewhat of a standard. Maybe some of MS's other patents can be challenged as well.
Why not earlier, if they had this prior art?
I for one am sick of this patenting frenzy. What will they do when there is nothing left to patent? ...oh, hold on, i know - they'll start suing.
Would this patent affect anything that remotely interacts with FAT even just reading, or just things that write and creat FAT file systems.
. . . bought off PUBAT yet? Given M$' track record with the EU and Sun, I figured they'd throw some money at the problem until it shut up.
IIRC the FAT file system "borrowed" was from some other prexisting system.
If you're a lawyer-type interested in technology, send them an email.
They have several interesting projects on patent re-examination, commentary on the patent process, etc.
until now, but I love what I see as the idea behind the work they are doing: Fighting unwarranted, unfounded and/or improperly sworn/filed patents
Go get 'em!
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Microsoft has annouced it's purchase of United States Patent and Trademark Office.....SCO has been issued a patent for unix....the RIAA has been issued a patent for sound .....the MPAA has been issued a patent for light.....
But doesn't this just validate that the patent system albeit a little broken generally works.
Surely everyone has to realise that patent officers can't be geniuses in their respective fields, because the genuieses are off inventing and discovering things.
Hence the onus should be on making it easy to revoke granted patents the minute prior art is discovered. Otherwise it could take patent officers years to validate each patent.
Funtage Factor: Purple
This only weakens the concept of intellectual property. Why invent if you're just going to have to fight legal battles for the length of your patent?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Like really... I mean, parts of the human genome are "obvious" and therefore shouldn't be patented.... no wait...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
And my name is Rick James, bitchhhhhh
MY SECRET DIARIES
The ubiquitous format for exchanging mediums between computers? What about CD-ROMS? *coughISO-9960cough*
It can't be a MS format, otherwise all my Microsoft-approved CDs from 10+ years ago wouldn't work in my new Microsoft CD-ROM drive with my Microsoft operating system.
If you don't have a problem to solve, then please don't invent. Save me some work. Sheesh.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
even if the paten would not get revoked altogh it should there are pleant of file systems that major company's can standardize on...it will be a pain it the ass for a little but cmon...pick one of the many better filesystems...write a driver for oses and devices and microsoft can go screw itself...
Don't forget to donate!
One down, hundreds to go!
The patent process has become a hindrance to software development in many cases and it should definitely be much harder to get patent of this kind. Hopefully more patents in the U.S. and worldwide get challenged and discarded.
How about a law that says a typical individual trained in the relevant art cannot reinvent the patented material in less than an hour? Just because you thought of it first does not make it original.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
I'm not too up on Windows but isn't FAT depricated?
IIRC it's all about NTFS these days and FAT is mainly used for dual-boot linux situations or where you need backward compatabilty. So if correct, this dispute shouldn't be monumental, but still interesting. Good to see some one's out there trying to kill off as many bogus patents as possible, though I'm sure no one envies that job.
Also I'm still surprised no ones show up with archaeological evidence showing that Windows was first used in earthen hovels eons ago.
Microsoft's patent on SUGAR and PROTEIN also being reviewed after a mysterious figure known only as 'god' claimed to invent them...
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
On one hand, no patents means that inventing something immediately gets stolen, evil corporation profits millions of dollars, joe inventor gets squat.
However, too many patents means that when joe inventor makes something, evil corporation sues him for violating patent 284958390*pi^12, "Use of energy to propell machine," and steals his work anyway, making millions of dollars while give the original invetor squat.
It has been quite frustrating to see companies not bother to take these steps. Corporations with significant IP portfolios tend to let it slide knowing that they can just exchange usage of their own silly patent rights if there was ever friction. In the end only the new players (aka innovators!) are victims.
Is it possible to make patent approvals open-source? Which is to say, volunteers (preferably, whole teams thereof) would do the work done now by individual patent clerks (Patent reviewers? Whatever they're called), with all decisions publicly reviewable and modifiable.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
They key word being yet. This will turn into some type of out of court settlement rather quickly. M$ doesn't follow by the legal system's rules, it writes them.
Did you know that Einstein was working as a patent clerk while he was developing his theory of Special Relativity? Apparently he had some time on his hands, but imagine what some of his contemporaries might have thought about "that upstart clerk" ;)
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
got posted earlier today... er... yesterday now I guess.
Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
Microsoft has actively participated in various forums to get the world hooked on FAT. Now they're wanting to charge for it.... Part of how they got there was by exerting their power over the desktops (which smells of anti-trust). For example FAT is part of the SmartMedia spec and has got incorporated into SmartMedia cards and hence the peripherals. I bet Microsoft would have refused to get involved with a non-FAT file system and essentiually the camera etc vendors had to choose between some other standard and being able to hook their cameras to Windows PCs.
Now there are a lot of other flash file systems out there that work with SmartMedia cards etc, but they are not supported by MS and never will be.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I remember file systems based around the ideas of FAT at least back to the Apple II+. And if I'm not mistaken, Apple's literature referred to it as "FAT" (I wish now I hadn't given all that old stuff away a few years ago).
I don't see how this patent could possibly be held valid...well...wait a minute...this is the US Patent Office we're talking about here. We should be afraid.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Well, there was this guy named Einstein, ever heard of him? ;)
Einstein: What is it you would like to patent? ... *ruffles through the pages, knocks Smith unconscious, and runs off with the papers*
Smith: I call it Smith's Theory of Relativity.
Einstein:
Nyo nyo, the Neko Boy has spoken.
Was not Linux merely a hacked version of unix?
Yes, yes, I know they are not the same. But neither is 32mb and 2gb.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Ooooops! I mean innovate!
Free Firefox news reader.
If you go to their "Activities" page and read the request itself, they are talking about:
5,579,517
which covers the "long file names" stuff Windows 95 introduced, and they site two patents:
5,307,494 to Yasumatsu et al., and
5,367,671 to Feigenbaum et al.
as new prior art.
Did anyone else read "PUBPAT" and instantly think pubic? What a name!
In their original FAT patent announcement, they mentioned that they weren't trying to enforce it against software.
Not that it should exist at all, of course...
But let's give them credit when they only score a 5 on the evil scale instead of their normal 8 or 9.
Before, the patent (on browser plugins) being challenged belonged to an individual who was suing Microsoft and even managed to get an injunction (can't remember whether they actually ordered Microsoft to pay or not).
That patent was quickly challenged and nullified. While the w3c and other groups initiated the challenge, I think the reason the patent was nullified was that it belonged to someone who was being used to (successfully) target Microsoft.
Now the patent being challenged belongs to Microsoft, and is being challenged by some small-time nobody (as far as Big Business is concerned).
My prediction is that either the challenge itself will be rejected, or the patent office will "review" the patent and find it "valid". Not because of any merits the patent may have, but because of who owns it. The guys running the patent office know who butters their bread, and it ain't organizations like PUBPAT.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Microsoft's 'FAT' patents do not patent FAT... specifically, they patent the VFAT extensions to FAT. And, as was previously mentioned on slashdot, there's much prior art to using long file names on FAT as well.
So don't call them 'FAT' patents, because they aren't. Call them VFAT patents. Or call them by their names, which also makes it obvious.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
True story.
Here's the arithmetic: 2013 - 1996 = 17 - the standard patent lifespan (unless you're a pharmaceutical company, but that's another story for another day).
FAT was in use well before 1996 but 1996 is when the patent was approved|awarded (which is what everyone needs to pay attention to when they scream bloody murder in other postings.
Now, you have to wonder how long a business has to sit on material before they submit it to the patent office. This is generally one year. Even in spite of this, that's 1995. That's still much later than when FAT was first used.
I know we all like to see Micro$oft get slapped around, but I think this is another case of jay walking and faking being hit by car to file a law suit. If this [even] gets past the preliminaries, it'll be settled out of courts for a reasonably small, undisclosed sum of money.
I wish Slashdot would stop posting stories like this, I don't know what to think when the evil Microsoft runs afoul of patents. Maybe the editors could put something in the summary so we wouldn't have to think these things through. I shudder at the mere suggestion of doing so!
Didn't 4DOS support long filenames on top of FAT long before VFAT (Windows 95) did?
I'm pretty sure I remember using 4DOS around the DOS 3.3 to DOS 5.0 days.
My other first post is car post.
These patents are not for the FAT file system. IANAL. The Microsoft one is for long file name support that goes on top of the FAT file system. The "prior art" one (5307494) describes some sort of long file name support augmenting a specific file system, but does not state which file system from what I can tell.
I just gave them the $72.38 I had sitting in my PayPal account. Stupid software patents have cost me a lot more than that in time reading Slashdot articles alone. Give till it hurts.
The "Online" link on this page will take you straight to PayPal.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
As you may have read in a prior Slashdot article, no ordinary fine is going to stop Microsoft from changing its anticompetitive ways. But suppose the next time Microsoft was fined, the fine was this: "All your patents are hereby revoked, and you will never be granted another! Furthermore, the next time your actions are brought before this Court and found to be illegal, all your copyrights will be revoked!"
I bet THAT would get Microsoft's attention!
Remember, MS Cortislim isn't for everyone - only those who want to lose 10, 20, 30 megs of data or more should use MS Cortislim.
Call now and you'll receive an extra 1 month license for every 2 months you purchase!
Gonna have to choke a bitch?
someone did this! hopefully they will win so we could start challenge all these stupid software patents that people gets...
The human genome does not, or any other living creatures genome for that matter contitute an invention! Perhaps if one could prove beyound doubt that your the Supreme being or whatever you would call your god, perhaps then and only then. Basically granting patents on existing beings genomes is not right. Modifications maybe, but my and your genes haven't been invented by anyone, especially not by greedy coprorations and companies.
From what I understand, the patent is on a way of storing long filenames with the FAT filesystem. This first came out with Windows 95 and is implemented in a backward compatible manner.
Basically the issue is this... in FAT there are a fixed number of bytes to each file entry in the directory. It is only enough for 8+3 character filename. They could not just expand on this data structure because it would not be backward compatible. What they realized is that if you created a filename with the system, hidden and some other attributes set, the old versions of dos would never display the filename. So what they do to store a long filename is create multiple file entries each storing a few bytes of the long filename plus some additional data to piece it together. Basically in a old version of dos, these extra file entries would never be displayed but in windows 95 or newer, it would read and maintain both the short filename entry and the long filename entries.
/.: ??? Slashdot's colon, is that where all the shit comes from?
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Microsoft's FAT patent?
I didn't know Microsoft patented Ballmer.
Shouldn't they not be issued a patent on this if they allowed people to use their filesystem method? It seems like it's in such common use by many devices now...
Some other posts have indicated that the patent only covers the storage of long filenames associated with the FAT filenames for use by Windows...if this is true, isn't that an obvious invention (i.e. database relating short names to long names)? You can't patent a relational database based on purpose, can you? If so, I will be submitting my patent for databases that store telephone numbers in relation to adressee names within a matter of days, and get rich of the phone companies alone...
I wonder if HFS could be considered prior art...each file as I understand it, is given a unique ID with which is can be referenced by, regardless of path. This (as I am to understand) is how Mac apps can still save to any file if it is moved while opened. Could the ID number be considered a short name? Then again, FAT came before HFS, but HFS came before long Windows filenames...
IAONAL, anyone with definitive answers is more than welcome to correct me.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Anyone remember the DOS Device names exploit in Windows? C:\con\con or C:\con\clock$ crashed the DOS filesystem driver in Windows. Could you imagine PubPat sending MS a malicious email with that exploit and someone with an unpatched version of Windows 98 opening it? Subject Line: DOS patent infringement. *click* A fatal exception 0E has occurred in VxD VFAT...
How can a workaround/extension of a filesystem to implement a feature that was in other filesystems for decades be not obvious? Despite what this AC might think, long filenames weren't invented by Microsoft.
Playing catch-up with the competition and implementing their features is the most obvious thing you can do.
This blind Microsoft loyality is really amazing. I don't say that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to get ideas from others, everybody does it - but getting a patent for an extension for a feature the competition had decades before? That's just ridiculous.
they allowed longer files names under the 8.3 system. big woop. Other systems have been doing this for years before them.
Wait a minute? what linux one of them?
Great, so now do we have to pay royalties to God in order to do gentic engineering?
Nyo nyo, the Neko Boy has spoken.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's not about the FAT file system. It's not about an idea of having long file names, that would after a certain point be exceedingly trivial. It's about the particular hack, and it was a hack, that Microsoft patented to get them within the constraints of their chosen filesystem. You could have a bunch of competing long filename solutions, just like we have competing browsers and media players. Microsoft created one, patented their particular method, and now seeks some compensation from flash memory makers who use their implimentation.
Since I'm not sure if you're trolling me.... And if you are, bravo. Seriously, add me to your list, you're good at it, and I consider myself a connoisseur of fine trolling. But I'll add that the only thing worse than blind loyalty is its darker mirror image.
PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art
I mean, who writes this shit?
Yeah, as other posters noted, I was laughing too and saying "what's next, five blades?"
The cartridges are so expensive that I feel like I am using a cadillac to scrape hairs off my face. And that's for the three bladed kind.
What I find interesting is that Wal-Mart has a generic cartridge that fits the sensor razor.
So since they have dozens of patents on the sensor (presumably to stop cartridge knock offs), how are the generics able to be made?
Myself, I'm an Atra man. The dollar store had a ten pack of generic cartridges for a dollar. I filled a large drawer with them.
They don't have the lubra strip on them, but I'm quite happy with the price.
It also seems that the three blade variety do not stay as sharp as long, and clog easier. Which is natural if your profit model is based on people tossing cartridges.
They sent me a free four blade razor in the mail. I think I will save it for special occasions.
Maybe I can get a hot date through slashdot personals.
Me against 10,000 other nerds. I don't know.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
What a crappy acronym.
Yeah but since we all know software should not be subject to patent protection in the first place, I fear they are asserting some form of validity to the vapid lawyer-poo that constitutes a software patent.
PJ's discussing it over on Groklaw.
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that we must "beat them at their own game".
In fact, I suggested something very similar less than a week ago.
I even mailed around an initiative based on this idea to a couple of prominent people in the Open-Source/Free-Software world.
I received a response from Richard Stallman.
He mentioned having considered something like a defensive patent foundation before, to come to the conclusion that it would cost [b]a lot of money[/b] to gain patents, and even more money to enforce them.
Still, I am convined that if enough people would be to join such a foundation, we would still have enough clout to make a difference.
If, like me, you're serious about such an initiative, then please contact me at buison01@REMOVEALLTHECAPITALLETTERSie.hva.nl
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
Hvae they tried to enforce this patent????
Microsoft: All your patent are belong to us.
Microsoft's patent application was originally filed in 1993. So, the question is whether their claims (see below) were novel and nonobvious as of that date.
Claim:
1. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a memory means storing the operating system, a method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by the operating system;
(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for a the file wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file and wherein the second directory entry includes an attributes field which may be set to make the second directory entry invisible to the operating system and the step of storing the second directory entry further comprises the step of setting the attributes field so that the second directory entry is invisible to the operating system, said long filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is permissible by the operating system; and
(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system.
I think that patent on the human Genome is a brilliant idea. I am going to bring out a patent on the use of digits that we use in every day life. A patent for a few Knife and Fork holding techniques and a patent on a few Banjo playing techniques. And why has God not patented these things, I suppose he already has the monopoly on this kind of stuff. We have a licence to use them for up to 100 or so years depending on how we treat them. And he holds the right to take them off us at any time. Now am I talking about God or some higher evolved alien species living in a parallel universe or do I need another pot of mushrooms.....
Maybe the way to address some of these issues would be to have an officiall public review period for patents, with convenient access through a web site.
Imagine something like Slashdot, where each patent application gets posted. Anybody (competitor, script kiddie, whatever) is able to post responses, point to prior art, etc. The patent examiner then can take those discussions into account when making a decision. The discussions would have no legal significance other than being a resource for the patent examiner working on that particular patent (well, they might also constitute published prior art for future patent applications and changes to the patent). If the discussions aren't useful, we are no worse off than now. If they are useful, then the patent examiner can more easily weed out bad patents.
This wouldn't even have to be financed by the PTO. Anybody could set it up outside the PTO and put the published patent applications in there. The only thing that would need to change is that the patent examiners would have to get motivated to look at it before making their decision.
That's called communism. We don't do that here, yet. There is no such entity as 'society', other than a collection of individuals. What you're proposing is that a certain group of individuals has the right to appropriate the efforts of another, typically smaller, group of individuals. This is also known as slavery.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
i thought a patent was so that it would protect an idea until you had a working product based on that idea, not create a working product and then patent it in afterwards (working product as in ready for market, not as in prototype).
so im starting to wonder if patent laws should be rewritten to cover this fact, and at the same time remove any ability to patent software solutions as that is like patenting a painting technique or music style (oh how the riaa would love that idea)...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
There are accepted standards for doing inventions. Log books with numbered pages, done in indelable ink and dates everywhere. Photo's help. A good patent attorney can help with how to properly document your stuff. Beware, there are a LOT of people out there who will commit fraud. Some of them are simply habitual liars. The US Patent office has stuff online that is short and very useful if you don't happen to have a patent attorney at your disposal. Their suggestions also hold up in most if not all parts of the world. Well, not Zimbabwe, they don't care about law at all over there. Whatever suits Mugabe at the time.
" This only weakens the concept of intellectual property."
There's no such thing as intellectual property.
Please define it.
It's rumoured that, in addition to FAT, Microsoft will also be patenting BALD and SWEATY
HH
--
LibreSociety.org Manifesto Version 1.5.4 -- David M. Berry & Giles Moss A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present. -- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership. 1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!" 2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control. 3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?" 4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes. 5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass the creative output of their employees and others. What is more, they continuall
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
Capialism Fails it
As lots of people have noted, the patent is on the long filename extensions in VFAT, not on the basic FAT file system.
So why don't cameras, flash drives, etc, just come with FAT file systems installed? Cameras never need to produce long filenames. Flash drives don't need to produce files at all.
If the user's OS chooses to put some long filenames on the device, that's not being done by the device, it's being done by the OS.
The only devices that should need to worry about this patent are things like MP3 players that display the filenames themselves.
You can go here to make donations: http://www.pubpat.org/Support.htm I wasn't aware of PUBPAT before either, but what a concept! An organization to combat the stream of idiotic patents, especially in software, that seem to be everywhere these days. I'll be sending them a check... Next we need someone to lobby for reducing the Disney Deadline - allowing IP to become public domain again instead of kicking back the deadline every time Disney is in danger of losing exclusive rights to Mickey.
Those damn public and open source projects! First Linux, now this! All we wanna do is own everything....I mean, is that so much to ask?
... a MOBO that was upgradeable in all it's aspects, by plug in modules on the board, they'd get at least one customer, me. I think a board like that would be a hit. Instead of being forced to upgrade the entire board, you could just do the components as they get better and as you can afford it. It's just an extension of the idea they use now -like the pci slots,ram,CPU,etc, and follow that sort of convention even further into modularity. What I am saying is to eliminate so many hard wired aspects to the design. Call it the "universal" mobo that is upgradeable and customizable to a higher level.
I'd also like to see the vaious hardware manufacturers make it easier to take back and recycle their older components, in fact, require it. That's another subject, but the waste problems are just being sloughed off to the worlds community at large, the manufacturers are getting quite a free skate on that issue. Of course, you could apply that to anything manufacturered, and eventually I think it will be done anyway, I'd just like to see it sooner rather than later.
Just one more question, if it takes huge sums of money to motivate people to create new inventions, then why do they write free software? You would think that the counterexample to your assumption would have occured to you, since you happen to be posting on a site powered by, and largely in favor of, free software. None of those people require money to get motivated. As far as weakening intellectual property, I'm assuming that you're talking about weakening it's protections for the little guy. Well, that's already a problem, and I can't see how stregthening or weakening IP laws will change that until we provide more built-in protections in the legal system for people who don't have millions to spend on lawyers.
and still modded 4 Informative.
What the fuck is slashdot coming to?
Oddly enough, you're going to need some sort of "Table of Contents/Allocation Table" to tell you where the fucking files are.
It's the specific specifications and implementations which are patentable, as they should be.
PUBPAT vs. FAT? Oh my GAT! I wonder who will turn out to be fatter--- I mean better.
Seriously though, what is FAT still used for, which wouldn't be better with ext3 on the hdd side and jffs on the side of flash storage?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
I just buy the 10-packs of disposable Bic razors that come in a yellow package. They've worked fine for me forever and I have no idea why I'd want to pay more.
My eyes are bleeding now. Thanks!
Karnal
...and there was even a Win3.1 specific utility called LongfileNames or something.
I think it was called LONGFI~1.EXE
(I know, I know... ~1 is a 9x-ism)
The patent front is the one front the linux crowd has to fight back at Microsoft. MS has taken out alot of potentially frivolous patents lately (are they still applying for around 400 patents per month?). They patent obvious technologies then use those patents to destroy the competition (I know, preaching to the choir). This practice must be stopped, as long as no one fights back the powers that be will assume that everyone is happy with the way things are. If George W Bush thought for a second he wouldnt be re-elected because of what he did with the DOJ in the MS trial you would see him turn on MS like a pit bull on a cruel master.
Obvious? I am sure that the many years of work put in to finding a way to make natural rubber into something useful by Charles Goodyear (http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a /rubber.htm - end of page 4, specifically) finding the "obvious" solution of mixing rubber and molten sulphur (every home has some, right?) must prove something...
It was "obvious" that turning natural latex into something useful would be a good idea. What took Goodyear many years and a lot of money to do was find out what it was.
Next you will be telling us that the combining of optical and magnetic technology is "obvious" because everyone wants bigger hard drive capacities, despite it taking years to get right in the lab, or that the idea of holographic storage is "obvious" because you saw it on StarTrek!
If I knew then what I knew now, would I still feel this old?
Microsoft does not use a lookup table. It interleaves the long filename into the directory as a series of "invalid" directory entries that are ignored by older DOS versions. There is no "actual" short filename in the Microsoft implementation either: the long filename directory entry points directly to the first cluster without lookup via the short filename. So this patent does not qualify as prior art.
Patents are not about ideas but about reduction to practice.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
You obviously forget the rather high profile case of Dyson vacuums (originally one man), who invented the bagless vacuum for the home (using older technology from the saw mill vacuum), against Hoover, the evil mega-corp and household name. As I heard it, Hoover basically copied the idea down to the nuts and bolts, and changed the colour, and tried to claim they weren't breaking the patent rights. The article below is about Dyson loseing one of the many court hearings. Even for a company now the size of Dyson, the costs are still punishing. "At October's hearing Judge Fysh ruled Hoover's design for the Triple Vortex was a clear infringement of Dyson's patent. He rejected Hoover's argument that the technology behind the Dyson machine involved nothing that was not generally known within the industry. Hoover, which counterclaimed for the removal of Dyson's patent on the grounds of 'obviousness and lack of novelty', is seeking to take the case to the court of appeal." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1113990.stm
If I knew then what I knew now, would I still feel this old?
Please reread parent of my orignal post. The parent post made the suggestion that if something becomes 'a standard' (leaving undefined how this process transpires) then it should automatically become public domain. I objected to this.
Their system has become a standard, this is a de facto standard. This means that a large number of people voluntarily choose to use it. This contrasts strongly with the seizure of something in the name of the public good, which would make it a standard de jure. Thus, my reference to communism - the law of the land states that everything is the property of the State.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Apple's ProDOS had long filename support back when Microsoft's manuals came in 3 ring binders and thw Windows game of choice was Reversi.
ZZ
ZZ
I would tend to agree with the outcome...but not with the idea that anyone is buttering bread with the USPTO. Those guys seem to be clueless as regards this topic, or at least they are following guidelines that themselves lack clue, but I don't know how they could be bought outright. Afterall they don't run for election; their jobs are more secure than anyone in Congress, probably. Say what you want to about pencil pushers in gov'mint, but they do follow their own rules like a bunch of mindless Turing machines.
I think that, once they get this one right (which might take years) they'll hew to the line like F/OSS zealots. Here's hoping, anyway.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
They probably licensed the patent, or even are just re-branding actual sensor blades.
Take a close look at the packaging of various generic products (for example, batteries). Often, they have a "made by $NAME_BRAND_COMPANY" in the fine print.
he was talking about patenting software to control a vulcanising machine! Of course vulcanised rubber is patentable, but should a (specific) machine control program be?
[off-topic]By the way, where on Star Trek did you see holographic storage? The holodeck has holographic display, but I don't remember them ever saying that (for example) isolinear chips worked holographically.[/off-topic]
Microsoft should get the patent fair and square. They were the one that make it, and everyone followed it. Now if you make a widget and become popular, I bet you would chase after the patent royalty fee
eminent domain n. The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
Surely you've heard of it. If not, search on google, and you'll discover that it's hardly a foreign concept in the United States, or indeed any country on Earth. The concept dates back to before the Magna Carta. Modern democratic governments sieze private property for "the good of society" on a fairly regular basis--teachers usually give the example of building a highway when explaining the concept. Hell, in my home town the city government is trying to get through the process of seizing the local water company from its owners. (It's currently a regulated private company.)
US patent and copyright law is steeped in language referring to promoting "the good of society", and that's the original language created by the founding fathers.
The parent post you label as communist presents an idea which is much more easily reconciled with the thinking of the founding fathers than your own--none of them would have agreed with you that people have a natural right to control the ideas they create; in fact, they'd probably argue the opposite.
The only reason our representative democracy grants patents is that the benefits to society outweigh the detriment of taking away society's free access to ideas. If the scale tips the other way....
Did someone patent paragraphs?
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
Yes sorry about that! ;-)
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM