Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PUBPAT Challenges Microsoft's FAT Patent

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the slim-filesystems-still-safe dept.

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."

22 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. About time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

    1. Re:About time... by emtechs · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The patent only applies to the method used to store long filenames without much change to the underlying 8.3 file name system.

      Scary: That's patent worthy.

      Scarier: There were three prior patents covering the technique...

    2. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The microsoft patents aren't about all of the FAT file system. Rather the method of storing short and long file names in the FAT file system.

      Interestingly, the request for reexamination is based partly on what Microsoft might do, and has made no attempt to do. Their assertions are that in light of other patents the specific combination of techniques would have been obvious. This strikes me as less than genuine because of how patents are done, particularly in this day in age. 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?

      But more importantly; in the case of the invention of polyamides, with their logic the claimed invention of one precludes others from claiming the invention of others of similar structure. In light of Nylon, Kevlar is obvious.

      This of course is not what happened.

      I'm not saying that shouldn't have happened. It's an interesting demand to make of would be inventors, and certainly a considerable demand to make of the patent office. (I guess we know that when they play Stars! 2 they always click the bleeding edge technology box.) But the fact that their line of reasoning isn't followed, really at all, and has many billions, possibly trillions, of dollars in property bet against it doesn't bode well I would think.

    3. Re:About time... by Vicegrip · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let me suggest this question then:
      If it becomes a standard, is it in society's interest to let the patent last so long?

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    4. Re:About time... by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 4, Interesting
      4DOS was a DOS alternative that supported long filenames. So hardware limitations are no argument.

      Limiting filenames to 8.3 is just laziness. Even worse: all filenames used those 11 bytes, even if they didn't need them: how's that for efficiency?

      The best option would be to allow the user filenames of any length, and telling him: hey, you can use 255 characters for a name, but remember it costs disk space.

      This would require a bit of programming from the side of Microsoft. They didn't do that. They didn't need to, because they sold someone else's creation. And that was, as you mention, QDOS, which isn't named for nothing "Quick & Dirty Operating System". 8.3 is the quick way, not the right way.

      And it took Microsoft only twenty years to make it right...

  2. They request all kinds of Patent re-examinations.. by sharkb8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. I've never heard of the Publlic Patent Foundation by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. I think that's the whole point by Elpacoloco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I think that's the whole point by surprise_audit · · Score: 4, Interesting
      There may not be criminal penalties, but a patent holder can still sue a patent infringer. And unfortunately, the little guy doing the suing has to have a big warchest simply to start the process. If he wins (or settles out of court), he may get a settlement that looks like a big pile of money, but is in fact mere pocket-change to big business.

      Which prompts the question: is the patent holder obliged to license his patent to anyone that asks, or can he grant licenses to some applicants and not to others??

    2. Re:I think that's the whole point by zero_offset · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know what you consider "getting rich", but you might be surprised at how many people out there make a few million off one dumb idea or another. For instance, the guy who thought up those automatic pet-food dispensers is worth something like $3M purely from licensing that silly little idea.

      In fact, it probably says a lot that a multi-millionaire simply flys below the radar of "rich folks" these days. Granted, there are lots of people who are vastly more wealthy for other reasons, and certainly there is more money being made off patents by medium and big companies -- but that doesn't mean individual examples are particularly rare.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  5. Open source patent office? by Atario · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Open source patent office? by perlchild · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's why the patents process normally applies to technology, not science. But ever since patents started covering ideas, and not the technological items that represent them, tne line has been blurring...
      Software patents(and the dreaded algorithm patent sure to come out someday if the trend doesn't stop) further blur the distinction.

      *steps on soapbox*
      now it appears to me that part of the problem with patents and copyright is that the public instinctively associate them with the inventor/discoverer/original author, and we're fine with them, until such rights are sold then we become not so fine with it. For one, it's a lot simpler/more instinctive to sort out who disovered something, if it's an individual making the discovery, not a corporation. In that same line of thought, what happens when those rights are transferred, and for instance, how to get the original author to unlearn what he sold, gets a lo more confusing.
      Trademarks, as a rule are purely corporate/marketing concepts and have far less contestation going on... They also have to be defended constantly...
      Copyrights are especially problematic, as copyright ownership gets regularly extended for corporations (technically, you could even view the legatees of an author as a corporation, THEY DIDN'T WRITE THE BOOK) to protect little mouses, and such... Yet the author in many cases is long dead... before the first lawyer gets paid... (Not that I object to heirs of authors and such to benefit from the work of their forebears... I do however insist on the fact that by that point, the original intent of copyright: to encourage the author to produce more work, because his rights are protected, will take a lot of doing to respect: he's dead, he won't write that many books anymore...
      You might say part of the problem is that the public recognizes a right to a discoverer/author as an individual, for a limited duration, but it becomes a lot less instinctive when those are transferred. Perhaps making them non-transferrable would keep the legislation on this topic, at least understandable by someone without a major in minor in intellectual property...

    2. Re:Open source patent office? by ecartz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I'm sure that slashdot and a bunch of other anti-microsoft sites could go and invalidate every one of microsoft's patents"

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      Anyway, I'll try to come up with a "open source" patent system that addresses your concerns:

      1. Anyone can submit a patent. The patent is publicly available immediately. The patent is assumed to be valid (no initial review).

      2. Anyone can contest a patent by submitting prior art (or bringing up another weakness in the patent application). The original submitter(s) have a choice: admit the prior art (which invalidates the patent) or argue the point. If they argue, the disagreement goes to a patent examiner. The loser pays for the patent examiner's time.

      3. Normal legal appeals apply.

      This system should actually be cheaper than the current system. The patent examiner is no longer expected to look for prior art. Instead, it will be submitted by the contesting party. Thus, the patent examiner doesn't have to spend a lot of time on the case. The loser pays method encourages the parties to come to an agreement prior to the examination.

      This system also encourages sharing more than the current system. Since the initial filing no longer requires an expensive application, there is no reason not to submit the patent (and its enclosed information). This avoids the current problem of people not having the resources to pursue a patent application, so they simply keep it secret and hope for more resources in the future.

      The biggest weakness? Noise. There would be a lot of junky patent filings. Of course, some would ask how that is different from the current system.

      There is also an argument in favor of eliminating patents except for pharmaceuticals. Many patents are defensive (to protect against others patenting one's invention). Other patents are just moonshine (i.e. they will never be licensed or used by anyone else). The primary purpose of invention is for one's own use...no patent needed for that.

  6. Re:Sadly... by Bronster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    Um - because if it really is a novel invention worthy of patent protection then all the later judges are going to throw it out of court immediately based on the previous decision, and if you're a scum sucking pond scum who's standing on the shoulders of the giants before you and setting up a toll gate to stop those who really are innovating then you bloody well deserve what you get.

    The concept of intellectual property was never designed to protect the sort of arsewipe who patents every piece of common knowledge they can slip under the noses of the patent office and makes a business out of milking their "valuable IP portfolio". If you're in the business of buying other people's ideas for the purpose of extorting money from people building the future on top of them, then I say good riddance to you - our current technology is built on the ideas of our predecessors, and who are we to stop our successors from learning from us?

  7. Don't buy into it. by pb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  8. 4DOS? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  9. Give Them Money by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  10. Let's See More of That Idea! by VernonNemitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  11. Re:Because you need to solve a goddamn problem by Saeger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I thought it was hilarious when Gillette (I think it was them) came out with some gimicky QUAD-blade razor just a little while ago, and they had to get people to stop laughing by having a commercial that went something like "yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking: 'Four blades? Come on!' But trust me... it's GREAT. No, really! Stop laughing"

    Probably bogus patents up the wazoo on that too.

    (Patents aren't going to mean much anyway once anyone can do desktop manufacturing for next to nothing.)

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  12. Re:I don't know... by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Patent random, generic idea

    You CANNOT patent an idea. You can only patent the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. You're only looking at the title of the patent, which will be something generic like "A method for doing X". That's only to make them easy to search, the thing that matters is the text of the patent. In this case, MS doesn't have a patent on the idea of a filesystem, they have a patent on one specific filesystem, FAT. That's all.

    Patent discussions on Slashdot at meaningless, because 99% of the Slashbots think that the title of a patent is the entirety of the patent.

  13. Hmmm by Tokerat · · Score: 3, Interesting


    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?
  14. Was this obvious in 1993? by dcrouch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.