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."
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but is it ok to challenge patents just because they become standards?
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.
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but is it ok to challenge patents just because they become standards?
If they were standards before they were patented, then yeah - I would say that's grounds for challenging them.
If they were a stealth patent on an idea that was common knowledge at the time (and I'm thinking especially of things that just weren't practical due to lack of CPU power that are blindingly obvious as well) then yeah, definitely.
Anyway, all the devil's advocates are on loan to SCO at the moment, raking in megabucks from the warchest.
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.
I really hate to sound like a troll (and I left out any "???" step), but...
1. Patent random, generic idea
2. Sit on patent
3. Sue people
4. Profit!
It seems to me to be a trend all too often in the world today, particularly with software. Heh, I wonder what the world would be like if the first caveman to make fire had patented the process of creating friction by rubbing two sticks together.
In regards to this context, I do not see why Microsoft should hold any power with this patent, seeing as how they sat around and let people adopt the format as a de facto standard. It's not like there is any secret to it, and I see it as just another plan of theirs to make people dependent on them and then extort them. The first hit is always free, huh?
Nyo nyo, the Neko Boy has spoken.
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.
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.
It's called Science.
Here's how it works.
You discover something. To let everyone know about it, you write a paper, and you send it off to a journal. That Journal has other experts in the field read what you've done. If they like it, they tell everyone else about it by printing it up in this little book. If they don't, they tell you to a) revise it, or b) go away.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure thats what you're looking for.
Why do they do this? It's not really to make a better shave like they say. It's so that once they've spent millions of dollars pushing a particular product, someone else can't come out with "Sensor-compatible" heads to take away their massive profits.
I understand that companies need to protect themselves, but it's one thing when they make something different that's better, and quite another when they've made something that's different and just better marketed. This sort of patent activity is a waste of time and an abuse of the system which makes it more difficult for legitimate inventions to be properly considered.
OK, I'm done with my little soapbox rant. It's just that I know some people who are small inventors and have a few patents having to do with radiation detectors, and I've seen the work that he's gone through to protect his inventions, and it makes me sick to think that some huge company with a big IP law department can force through some ridiculous patent while it takes a little guy years to get the final paperwork on truly innovative concepts.
Sigh.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Why wait until now to pursue it? Well if they'd kicked off an action in 1996 the mass of consumer electronic devices (cameras, MP3s etc) would likely not have adopted FAT.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
I think patents should be treated the same way as copyright - if you don't enforce it, you obviously don't want it. Why is Microsoft going to enforce FAT patents now? If they'd enforced them earlier, noone would have used FAT, they'd have found something else to use.
If the combination of ideas was so obvious, why didn't the last of the submitted prior art patent it, since they're so skilled they can claim worthy patents when there is significant pressure to claim everything thing concievable at the time of the filing?
Perhaps they didn't patent it because it *was* obvious. The idea that every idea or hack or workaround or anything else that pops into someone's head should be patented is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you did something first that nobody else has done. Perhaps nobody else needed to do it. That doesn't make it patent-worthy. Hell, it's getting so that you can't do a damn thing without major financial backing just to try to figure out if you're violating someone, somewhere's, patent. Even if you're not, you'll still need the financial backing to fight off the inevitable lawsuits from all the vague and overbroad patent holders out there that are trying to hustle anyone that tries to create anything these days.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wait a second... Assume Data Structures A and B (c-style pseudo code):And take Operating Systems X and Y, where Y is implemented from scratch to work similar to X. Please take into account that the source tree of Y currently is over 200 MB (2.6.5-mm1, unpacked).
Do you seriously want to claim that the difference between A and B is anywhere close to the difference between X and Y?
IMO that's a bit like telling me that accidentially inhaling (and thereby killing) a fly in my sleep is pretty similar to the holocaust. Or claiming that a single molecule of Water is pretty similar to the atlantic ocean. Or claiming that the "word" "GATC" is pretty similar to all of mankind.
Free as in mason.
After companies got burned by people reading their patents and adding inventions that were a shade of obvious, they took the tack of patenting everything and variation they could concieve of. That became the standard, and it predates the patents cited as prior art.
The good and bad of that, I'll leave to wiser people that myself to discuss, but that is the status quo. And that is exactly what PUBPAT is challenging. If they can beat Microsoft with that argument, all the 'little' inventions can/will get overturned too. And I assure you that after many years, PUBPAT will probably be one of the very exceptional David's on a field of Goliaths.
It's a huge change, and in the long run I would predict it would chill innovation in the US, lead to more draconian NDAs & Non-Compete agreements, aid the big guys in consoladating IP to be used against the market more than each other, encourage more secrecy, less patenting, more espionage, and possibly give rise to a preference to patent inventions in other countries. If I had played a lot more Elevator Action, I might see this as a positive development.
Maybe the small inventions like this lead to the larger more important inventions and abstractions. I don't know. Maybe they get brighter less flexible more ambitions people thinking about the true solutions to succeed the collections of hacks. And the publication and protection of those inadaquate hacks, as well as the promissed protection for the imagined invention are a necessary step to the launching pad. Maybe no one does. Maybe the idea of the perfect solution to the mess is an illusion, and we've just got to find the mess that's the best. Maybe we've already found it marveling at the green-ness of grass we might have had.
Patents don't cover a concept, they cover a method.
Unfortunately these days it seems when you patent a method it covers the concept.
I.e. they're patenting a work around for a stupid shortcoming, for which the only reason nobody else was doing it was that they designed their systems to be more flexible in the first place?
FAT was originally designed in the 1980's, and although long filenames might've been considered, hardware limitations may have made them infeasible at the time. Also, FAT wasn't initially designed by Microsoft; the first version was released with QDOS.
Saying FAT sucks is like saying Minix (the file system) sucks. They're both old, and better file systems supercede them. The only problem is that Microsoft decided to use FAT and extended it for Windows 9x, but that's somewhat understandable from a compatibility standpoint.
You guys laugh now, but keep your eyes on the prize.
/. about port-knocking and it occurred to me that there should be a an OPEN-SOURCE/EFF style Patent Attorney Leauge dedicated to preserving Innovations that come from the Open-Source Community.
I recently saw a thread here on
We're paying BIG BUCKS for litigation attorneys in a DEFENSIVE role in protecting Open-Source / Free IP; why not take an offensive stance? The EFF should partition a portion of it's income (or otherwise hire some IP attorneys) for the purpose of protecting free IP.
Organizations CAN obtain patents in the same way that Corporations can. As such, we should FIRST push innovation through a valid legal representative (the EFF comes to mind), and ask that they help Patent or otherwise "secure" the Intellectual Property. When the patents are granted, it will provide the open-source community with OFFENSIVE rights against companies like MSFT, et al.
Why should we sit back and play "catch up" with the great industry marketers and non-innovators? We need to organize, re-group, appropriate resources and act like an adult - not a group of children chanting about things we believe in but aren't willing to back up.
I know it might sound counter-intuitive to not get coolness-points by having your idea/project "slashdotted", but ultimately I think it will help the greater good to have our IP reviewed by a legit IP attorney (represented by the EFF or other org that is in our best interests) before posting it publicly (and INVALIDATING OUR VERY OWN Intellectual Property by demonstrating PRIOR ART).
Why do we continue to post great ideas publicly and not preserve the rights to those ideas?
Why do we continue to bitch about how we're getting FSCK'ed by the big corporations?
I'll tell you why - it's because WE (the innovators) are giving our Ideas and Intellectual Property to the big corporations. We're handing it over to them on a silver platter. A perfect example can be found with the TCP/IP stack that IS Microsoft Windows 95-XP... That code is undeniably *BSD CODE!
While I see no problems with the BSD licenses, I do see a problem when a company like MSFT that has the resources to buy a massive amount of Patents and the Open-Source community sits back and waits for the fallout.
Do you guys not see the big picture? They can't beat us in the marketplace. They CAN beat us using legislation / regulation / lobbying / etc.
Here's the bottom line:
IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN FREE/OPEN SOURCE - WE HAVE TO BE PRO-ACTIVE - _NOT_ RE-ACTIVE.
Software Patents suck - but they are the new reality. We need to either beat them or join them.
Since WE'RE the origination point of the vast majority of thier "innovation", I say we beat them at their own game.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
It's a huge change, and in the long run I would predict it would chill innovation in the US, lead to more draconian NDAs & Non-Compete agreements, aid the big guys in consoladating IP to be used against the market more than each other, encourage more secrecy, less patenting, more espionage, and possibly give rise to a preference to patent inventions in other countries. If I had played a lot more Elevator Action, I might see this as a positive development.
:)
Well, the way things are now, if you're not a big corp, you can't afford to innovate in many areas. You have nothing to bargain with (no patent portfolio to cross-license), so the big boys can simply trample you with lawsuits if you seem like even a minor threat to them. There are such a huge number of vague, broad, and obvious patents that they can probably find a million and one things that are somewhat similar to some aspect of your invention or process. So yeah, maybe your scenario actually would be an improvement. But then again, I played a lot of Elevator Action, so that may have warped my view
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
Obvously, everyone here thinks that its the job of the USPTO to examine patent applications, and investigate whether they are "novel, feasible, and non-obvious". This ceased to be the case long ago: Their job is to earn money. No one has ever successfully sued them for granting patents on trivia. This has created a loophole where the govt can make money by granting a patent to almost anything submitted, in return for a fee.
Even a case where the USPTO is found liable for gross failure of duty, and fined an amount commensuate with its takings, would not stop this stupidness - just because someone has been able to argue that one instance is trivia does not create a precedent for arguing that something else is trivia. Even if M$ lose this case, it will have no impact whatever on the real problem - that the USPTO exists as a profit centre for the government, and not as a service to the US tax payer.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
That's the most ridiculous post I've ever read on Slashdot. It's probably a troll; I mean, the majority of your sentences are coherent, but there's just no logic from sentence to sentence. I imagine you like this guy, only with foam coming out of his mouth as well. But I'll respond anyway.
You claim that Microsoft keeps stealing our ideas, that if they didn't have their patents, but we had patents, we'd win in the marketplace. Or something like that. It's not really clear. But allow me to refute that anyway. Look at GNOME. Look at Mono. Look at KDE. Now look at Microsoft Windows. Who is innovating, again? Who is copying who? And don't give me that crap about the BSD TCP/IP stack. Whether or not Microsoft "stole it," I'd hardly say that the TCP/IP stack is the "vast majority of [Microsoft's] 'innovation'". Whether or not you like their products, you'd have to be foolish to claim that all their good ideas came from open source software.
It sounds like what you're calling for is a GPL for patents. I'm not sure how you'd word it. You can't sell products using this patent unless you release the source code under the GPL? Something like that? Get a clue. Not everyone likes the GPL. BSD folk will want to release code using your patents. Mozilla will want to include your new algorithms and whatnot. People such as myself will want to put code using your patents in the public domain. Oh, but too bad. We should extend the GPL virus.
And if you meant that instead we should licence the patent to anyone, what's the point of paying the fees? You might as well just publish your software and not worry about paperwork. You'll have established prior art for the future by doing so. After all, patents are relatively easy to knock down with obvious prior art. It's the "obvious" part that's tough to claim.
But let's say that we still think patents will help the open source community. Let's say that we manage to come up with some innovative idea and we patent it. Let's say Microsoft really wants/needs this technology. What will we gain? Microsoft has the funds to buy us off fairly easily. They also have the funds to get the patent invalidated without much hassle. But the small business software writer does not. He just can't use our technology. So he suffers, and Microsoft wins the day again. Who have we helped, again?
No, patents for open source ideas is a horrible idea. It would merely make writing software more difficult for everyone, and especially for non-GPL fans. It would delay the development of open source software, hurting one of the key benefits of open source -- fast turnaround and constant development. And in the end, it would solve nothing.
How did your post get a +5?
t's a huge change, and in the long run I would predict it would chill innovation in the US,
yup just like software piracy has cause a almost stoppage in new software, and music trading has decimated the record industry...
In fact, I remember hearing that someone using that same argument against the printing press....
and Argh said the same thing to Ogg about that damned wheel of his... it will destroy the dragging industry in the village...
If your company can not adjust to change then you deserve to be put out of business when a minor change like this comes along.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Not really. Patenting things just makes lawyers richer. The best way to fight patents is to publish your ideas and make sure that prior art is well established.
...richie - It is a good day to code.