PUBPAT Challenges Microsoft's FAT Patent

About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-15 16:42 · 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.

Re:About time... by r4bb1t · 2004-04-15 16:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but is it ok to challenge patents just because they become standards?
Re:About time... by Bronster · 2004-04-15 16:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:About time... by pilgrim23 · 2004-04-15 16:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Was not FAT12 (DOS 2.0) not actually an extension of the CP/M file system? Does not ProDOS, MFS HFS and all most all the other early file systems behave in similar fashions? FAT16 was merely a hacked to 2gb extension of the orignal 32mb limited FS. a Patent on FAT makes NO sense.

--
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Re:About time... by emtechs · 2004-04-15 17:12 · 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...
Re:About time... by mattjb0010 · 2004-04-15 17:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Was not FAT12 (DOS 2.0) not actually an extension of the CP/M file system?

So you're saying MS grew FAT on other people's work?
Re:About time... by Grail · 2004-04-15 17:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:About time... by red+floyd · 2004-04-15 17:20 · Score: 5, Informative

That's trademark, not copyright.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-15 17:24 · 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.
Re:About time... by Vicegrip · 2004-04-15 17:25 · 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.
Re:About time... by afidel · 2004-04-15 17:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Um, this isn't about FAT12 or FAT16, it's about specific extensions added for DOS style file name for FAT32. Basically the patent covers the means of embedding the DOS style handle into the FS block data in such a way as to allow backwards compatability while still allowing apps that use the correct API to get the real long file name. For more info see this wikipedia article. The most damning thing to MS is that they released beta code for Win95 more than 2 years before filing the first of the patents. Patent law clearly states that you have no more than 364 days after first publicly demonstrating a device or idea to patent it.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:About time... by Bronster · 2004-04-15 17:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Rather the method of storing short and long file names in the FAT file system.

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?

1) design inflexible system

2) patent bandaid

3) profit

I think I've discovered the underpants gnomes' secret business model - patent bandaids. Unfortunately the ubiquitous triple questionmark logo is prior art.

*sigh*
Re:About time... by Danse · 2004-04-15 18:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-15 18:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:About time... by OrangeTide · 2004-04-15 18:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Really? And all this time I thought companies actually wanted piles of patents that nobody ever uses.

i was hoping people would stop using FAT because of the patent and use UFS or some kind of journaling flash filesystem. If they just defined it as part of the standard when they defined a flash interface (or the next USB revision?) then maybe microsoft's hand could be forced. Infact I think MS would be for a more stable and reliable filesystem (because even they admit that FAT isn't very good by not recommending using it when NT got NTFS)

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Re:About time... by Free_Meson · 2004-04-15 19:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

The most damning thing to MS is that they released beta code for Win95 more than 2 years before filing the first of the patents. Patent law clearly states that you have no more than 364 days after first publicly demonstrating a device or idea to patent it.

Not neccessarily. MSFT would have its patent rights intact if, for example, anyone seeing that code (I assume you mean sourcecode and not binaries) had a click-through or better confidentiality agreement. More importantly, though, as long as MSFT just took the input and showed the output (a public demonstration) without going into detail about how the transformation worked, they'd likewise be protected. If I give you a magic black box that you can put a fish in and the fish will turn into a chicken, and there's no way for you to take apart the box, then even though I'm demonstrating the effectiveness of the box in turning fish into chickens I'm not forfeiting any patent rights...
Re:About time... by omicronish · 2004-04-15 19:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:About time... by bluephone · 2004-04-15 19:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Right, it's really about the VFAT overlay, but there's still prior art in the form of 4DOS, and there was even a Win3.1 specific utility called LongfileNames or something. I rememebr seeing it on CompUSA in a long thin box (kinda like square/triangular poster tube). So there's plenty of prior art for the concept.
Their specific implementation however might not be challengable, seeing as how they DID invent it. There's a chance however since IIRC patent law gives you only 1 year after public introduction to patent said invention or you lose the right to patent it. The problem then becomes a game of dates and when it was "public" (do wide spread betas count? It WAS indevelopment for 4 years), and when did they submit the patent.

--
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Re:About time... by Danse · 2004-04-15 19:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-15 19:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Even the Commodore 64 / 1541 had "long" filenames, at least compared to FAT. Not 256 chars, like most *nix systems, but 14 chars, which is enough for most uses. If filenames get much longer than that, they take too long to type, and you would need grep to find the right file anyway.

No, it was not a hardware limitation, just as the Cobol Y2k problem was not a hardware limitation. Just a stupid design.
Re:About time... by Anne+Thwacks · 2004-04-15 20:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is more of a problem than you think. The FAT system was a re-implementation of previous technology, and is not patentable. Even M$ have not claimed it is, and the "prior art" objection is a valid one. However, "A means of mapping long filenames to short ones" would appear to normal people to be a trivial application of programming techniques: you put a short file name here, and a long one there, and you use some kind of hashing algorithm - computing 101 stuff! But, by huge volume of precident, in the US, contrary to the wording of the law, you are permitted to patent trivial examples of basic technology. This is a challenge to the whole of the USTPO. If patenting trivia is not permitted, then most patents, and almost every single software patent, will have to be slung out: and bang goes their source of revenue!
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
Re:About time... by Grail · 2004-04-15 20:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

See how confusing all this mess is? You even get moderated as "insightful" for pointing out the bleeding obvious! :)
Re:About time... by eclectro · 2004-04-15 21:12 · Score: 3, Informative

then even though I'm demonstrating the effectiveness of the box in turning fish into chickens I'm not forfeiting any patent rights...

Was it a public beta or was it not? If you publicly disclose that you have a black box that turns a fish into chicken (and with the way DNA research is going, don't laugh at it) publicly, it is your responsibility to patent it.

Just because nobody may not know the workings of the black box does not make it any less your responsibility to patent it. Because unless the patent examiner grants you the patent and hence the monopoly on it you don't have exclusive rights to it.

So, if you publish that you have a machine (or let the public use it, like in a beta) that turns a fish into chickens, you have a year to file tha patent on it. After that year, your exclusive rights to the secret box that turns fish into chickens evaporates. Anybody can use the idea and make a box that does the same thing.

But that was not what is at argument here. What is being challenged here is that the FAT file system is not really a "novel" or "unique" idea in the first place, but rather obvious for those who are familiar with the technology.

The three qualifications for a patent are usefulness, novelty, and it has to be nonobviuos

As the article states, and why this will be important in the future, the patent office granted a patent to something that was obvious.

The problem is not patents themselves (and I would argue that software patents are not entirely bad if held to the original standards that they were supposed to be under), but that the patent examiner will slap a patent on anything that walks through the door.

For one reason or another the patent office is broken (not enough money), with the attitude that rather than themselves having to put a critical eye torward something that may be obvious, they decide to not do this and let a judge later sort it out.

Which is wrong, and just another example why our government is broken in more ways than one.

Admittedly, it costs a lot of money to hire an examiner that is familiar with often arcane (but important) technologies. But it does not let the patent office off the hook.

What we have is people who are getting a software patent equivalent to a patent on breathing air.

The business method patents (this kind of patent is worse than software, as it has no technology behind it) come to mind, like the "ecommerce" one.

Some would argue that software patents should never have been granted because it is a "slippery slope". I think they are right. The original software patents were granted to machines that controlled the vulcanization of rubber (novel and nonobvious) and another that read data off seisometers.

We have slid from that all the way down to the "one click" patent to buy something.

Anyway, this is an important fight that needs to be won.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Re:About time... by bgspence · 2004-04-15 21:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Sure, but it makes no sense to grant a patent on claims which were already patented or applied for. The Microsoft's patent, 5,579,517, claims are shown to make the same claims as the prior art patents 5,307,494, Yasumatsu et al., and 5,367,671, Feigenbaum et al.

The challenge by PUBPAT has a long breakdown of how each and every claim in the Microsoft patent is claimed by the prior art patents. So, the prior art claimed is not just some other previous implementation, but laid out clearly in two previous patents. It would seem to be a slam dunk if you read the details of the request for reexamination.
Re:About time... by pjt33 · 2004-04-15 21:56 · Score: 3, Informative

possibly give rise to a preference to patent inventions in other countries
In which other countries? A lot of stuff that's patentable in the US isn't patentable in many other countries.
Re:About time... by Lumpy · 2004-04-15 22:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:About time... by Net_Wakker · 2004-04-15 22:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

In which other countries? A lot of stuff that's patentable in the US isn't patentable in many other countries.
Except in Australia, where you can even patent the wheel.

--
a horrible place
Re:About time... by bhtooefr · 2004-04-15 22:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can actually see why it wouldn't be feasible. It's due to the physical size of the FAT itself. If you can't hold the filename inside the FAT, you have to make it shorter. In this case, the FAT had to be small to put more data, and filename size (and cluster size) took a hit. Now, they could have put a 100KB FAT on the 180KB disks, but it would have eaten up almost all of the space!
Re:About time... by donheff · 2004-04-15 22:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Profit Center? The USPTO collects money to defray its costs:

"All fees available to the Director under section 31 of the Trademark Act of 1946 shall be used only for the processing of trademark registrations and for other activities, services and materials relating to trademarks and to cover a proportionate share of the administrative costs of the Patent and Trademark Office."

It may be doing a lousy job of it, but it ain't no IRS.
Re:About time... by Flyboy+Connor · 2004-04-15 23:15 · 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...
Re:About time... by betelgeuse-4 · 2004-04-16 00:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would help Microsoft, not hinder them. They're own of the few companies around that can afford to ruthlessly persue every single patent infringement, real or perceived, no matter how trivial. Smaller organisations would suffer as they would lose a patent when they couldn't persue a minor infringement because of the legal costs.

--
Decode these
Re:About time... by sproketboy · 2004-04-16 00:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Quote: " ...although long filenames might've been considered, hardware limitations may have made them infeasible at the time."
No it was incompetence. Apple DOS (even before ProDOS) had long file name support. That was wayyy back in like 79-80.
Re:About time... by ShortSpecialBus · 2004-04-16 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

System designers really have to start thinking farther and farther ahead. For example - most modern desktop motherboards still have 3-4G memory limits - my older ones have 768M limits even though I have ram chips in hand that could bring that up to a gig if the MB could handle it. In 10 years from now, I can see NV memory modules that could hold 500G

I agree with you, but there are probably things that we aren't considering. When designing a circuit/processor/motherboard/whatever for both speed and efficiency, you need to set design paramaters that are reasonable for the motherboard's percieved lifetime (generally 2-3 years I would guess). If you make a motherboard with today's technology that supports 500GB of RAM, there are going to have to be significant tradeoffs with speed and other things for that support. It is hard to design hardware that is so open ended.

Although it would be nice, I don't think it's practical/cost-efficient.

--
//FIXME: Bad .sig
Re:About time... by Arker · 2004-04-16 01:34 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Not actually true. FAT first appears in the Stand-alone Disk BASIC written by Marc McDonald for MicroSoft back about 1977. When Tim Patterson kludged together QDOS in 1980, he used FAT, but he didn't invent it, it had already been in use for around 3 years.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Re:About time... by muskr · 2004-04-16 01:46 · Score: 3, Informative

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?

Well, actually, fixed file name lengths make your record lengths fixed, which makes it MUCH faster to parse through the data (does anyone who runs a major database waht to back me up here?). There was a day before fast hard drives and back when processor speed was measured in single digit MHz. People used to BOOT from a floppy disk on computers without a fixed disk. Do you REALLY want long file names and, hence, a larger directory structures on your floppy-based computer?! The 8.3 convention was probably intended to make sure that parsing large directories didn't take up a significant portion of the CPU time (go type "dir" on A:\ and tell me if it responds fast enough for you), and also to make it easier for applications that required access to files could more easily store those filenames.

It's especially useful for small apps that need to TSR (terminate and stay resident). Often, large chunks of these were written in assembly language! Do you really want to implement "copy or compare data from this pointer to a pointer until you get a 0x00" in assembly just to copy or compare a filename?

For the programmer types, we're talking about the difference between a pointer to a fixed-length string and a pointer to a pointer to a variable length string (since you couldn't fit variable length strings in a fixed-length directory entry). Pointer operations are always slow, but they used to be even slower on older processors.

Also, the original MSDOS didn't have the nice up/down arrow to repeat previous commands feature in 4DOS (did 4DOS also have tab-key completion?), so typing long filenames would be tedious (wow, that was back before GUIs! Anyone remember Norton Utilities?).
Re:About time... by ratboy666 · 2004-04-16 02:42 · Score: 3, Informative

FAT12 and extension to CP/M file system?

No.

"FAT" systems store the allocation table as a singly linked list on disc. Two copies, in case one gets mangled (but they are adjacent, which is not good). The directory is a list of names, and starting indexes into the allocation table. This makes random access bad, because you have to keep traversing the singly linked list to find blocks. (DOS of early vintage).

CP/M also uses an allocation table, but it is not stored on disk. Instead, a file is broken into "extents". Each extent has a directory entry, and a fixed number of pointers to disk clusters. A single file will have more than one directory entry, if it contains multiple extents.

CP/M built the allocation map for the disc when the disc is "mounted" (used the first time). It does this by reading the directory, and marking blocks that are in use by files.

With FAT, you can have "cross linked" files. The singly linked lists representing the data blocks point into each other. With CP/M you can have multiple directory entries refer to the same data blocks as well. CP/M allows "sparse" files, which FAT doesn't. CP/M has better random access (two levels of index), although many programs pre-built access lists for DOS to improve random file performance (I did that for one application).

CP/M limited file names to emulate PDP-10, FAT limited file names to emulate CP/M -- it's a push.

And, finally, the patent is NOT on FAT, it is on the long file name extensions introduced with Windows 95.

A "FAT" system was in place with Microsoft Disc Basic (AFAIR), Zilog also used a singly linked list block map in their Z80 development platform. I am sure that there is plenty more "prior art" for FAT.

The idea of stored a hash long name into a fixed length directory in multiple pieces, using keys and checksums -- that is what is being contested.

Ratboy

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Re:About time... by poot_rootbeer · 2004-04-16 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone complaining about the 8.3 limitations of the original FAT filesystem, please remember, this was a product that came out in 1981, which ran on a 4.7MHz 8-bit CPU with as little as 16KB of memory, and was used with 160KB floppy disks. Sure, by 2004 design standards the FAT design is poor, but in those days where every bit of performance was necessary, the design compromises are a little easier to understand.

(Also ,the IBM execs who bought PC-DOS from Gates & Co. may have been used to the 6-letter limitation of older IBM mainframes, so 8.3 might as well have seemed long enough to them.)
Re:About time... by some+guy+I+know · 2004-04-16 07:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Even the Commodore 64 / 1541 had "long" filenames [...] 14 chars, which is enough for most uses. [...] the Cobol Y2k [sic] problem was not a hardware limitation. Just a stupid design.
That's a three-character difference (14 vs 8+3).
I remember AT&T UNIX versions 6 and 7 had 14-character filenames.
Longer filenames didn't appear until BSD UNIX (around 1980).
This was done so that the filename and (16-bit) i-number could fit into 16 bytes.
(Note that this limited the number of files on a filesystem to 65536.)
I remember using an OS on a PDP-11 that squeezed 6+3 filenames into six bytes (upper-case + digits + some punctuation) back in the 1970s.

Storage was very, very expensive back then.
People did what they could to conserve space, including using short file names and two-digit years.
Their design decisions were in no way "stupid".

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana

I don't know... by ATAMAH · 2004-04-15 16:45 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Re:I don't know... by Dejitaru+Neko · 2004-04-15 16:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:I don't know... by sql*kitten · 2004-04-15 18:01 · 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.
Re:I don't know... by Godeke · 2004-04-16 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I agree with you that the theory is that you can't patent an idea, patents in the business process space have been so broad as to effectively allow patents on ideas. Not in this particular case, but do you recall when British Telegraph decided it owned the concept of the hyperlink? Or when a encyclopedia company (blanking on which one, google failed me) decided it owned the concept of a computer based encyclopedia (probably a desperate attempt to lock a market that has reduced multi thousand dollar encylopedia sets to a few hundred dollars for paper, and $50 for a CD). One click shopping (patenting the *concept* of storing data, not the actual implementation: if it was implementation, someone would have reimplemented via new methods in a hartbeat). Heck, there is the guy who is chasing people for presenting pictures of products on a site that allows purchase of those products.

While in this case they are not claming a overly broad area, to say "You CANNOT patent an idea" seems to overlook the fact the patent office seems perfectly willing to issue such patents. A more accurate statement is "You can patent just about anything, but overly broad patents may be struck down at great expense".

--
Sig under construction since 1998.

They request all kinds of Patent re-examinations.. by sharkb8 · 2004-04-15 16:47 · 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.

I've never heard of the Publlic Patent Foundation by KarmaOverDogma · 2004-04-15 16:47 · 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

In other News... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-15 16:48 · Score: 5, Funny

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.....

Re:In other News... by rock_climbing_guy · 2004-04-15 17:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Hold it right there! That MPAA patent on light infringes on my patent on the electromatic force. have patents pending on gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

--
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Re:In other News... by bergeron76 · 2004-04-15 19:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

You guys laugh now, but keep your eyes on the prize.

I recently saw a thread here on /. 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.

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.
Re:In other News... by John+Starks · 2004-04-15 20:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
Re:In other News... by jimicus · 2004-04-15 21:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Since WE'RE the origination point of the vast majority of thier "innovation", I say we beat them at their own game.
What with? Luncheon vouchers? If the Open Source community *does* fund lawyers to use Microsoft, MS have the money to keep on throwing lawyers at us ad infinitum. Yes, some lawyers take on pro bono cases. But there are limits.
As a group, we are a lot of people, we could have a powerful loud voice. But it's unlikely we will ever be rich.
Remember, politicians are in the minority and only there because they were voted there. If we can become sufficiently organised as to explain these issues to Joe Voter, we shall be more powerful than any amount of $$$//.
Who's with me? Mail me and I'll post back with numbers.
Re:In other News... by richieb · 2004-04-15 23:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Software Patents suck - but they are the new reality. We need to either beat them or join them.
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.
Re:In other News... by torpor · 2004-04-15 23:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not just that, what the People need is their Own Corporation.

I see no reason why a corporation can't be founded to protect -all- individual details and information.

"Life Product, Inc. - we keep your details safe."

If I owned -stock- in the company that I knew had its soul purpose to protect not just my copyrighted material, but also my general 'life product' as art, then I'd be much happier having mega-corp know my weekly shopping list and able to tune its production/output accordingly ...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Correct me if i'm wrong .. by naden · 2004-04-15 16:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Correct me if i'm wrong .. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-04-15 16:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Well, there was this guy named Einstein, ever heard of him? ;)

Seriously, no, most patent examiners aren't geniuses, nor should they need to be. They should definitely be technically competent, though. It occurs to me that with all the out-of-work techies, and the flood of tech patents coming through (many of which should never be granted) there's a real opportunity here ...

And the system that gives the patent applicant the responsibility for the search for prior art seems absurd to me. Who the hell is going to put effort into finding something that will invaildate his own application?

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Correct me if i'm wrong .. by DarkZero · 2004-04-15 17:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Correct me if i'm wrong ..

But doesn't this just validate that the patent system albeit a little broken generally works.

If giving a patent to anyone for anything that sounds vaguely technical and then waiting for the real inventor to come and prove himself, in spite of the fact that there are many people on the government's payroll with the job title of "patent examiner", is a system that "generally works", then I'd like to know what qualifies as "broken".
Re:Correct me if i'm wrong .. by sumdumass · 2004-04-15 17:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

seriously, no, most patent examiners aren't geniuses, nor should they need to be. They should definitely be technically competent, though. It occurs to me that with all the out-of-work techies, and the flood of tech patents coming through (many of which should never be granted) there's a real opportunity here ...

I'm wondering if out of work techies would actually make things worse.

Rite now you have overburdened undercompetent people making deciseions as best as they can based on what they can find out. With the out of work techies, you will have a bunch of flamers that lost a previous job probally because of lack of skill, overwhelming devotion to product from one companie, or some other companie making thiers close down. (really there are alot more valid reasons but these lend to my point).

The point is you are going to more likly to have mistakes when someone born from the industry makes decisions baced on loyalties and other experience gained primarily from directions taken by the current marketing scheeme of the dominant comany. This type of knowledge and understanding would bias the process from the start. With this kind of influence, (or oposition to influence) a well crafted patten aplication would be more likley to market it's way into the aprovaly list or diaproval list (if it is from a disliked company)

Sadly... by Sheetrock · 2004-04-15 16:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Sadly... by Bronster · 2004-04-15 16:55 · 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?
Re:Sadly... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-04-15 17:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

How many truly original inventions have been the subject of high-profile patent litigation recently? None that I can think of. It seems to me that the vast majority of patent cases lately have been corporations (corporations don't invent things; people do) trying to milk money out their competitors over unoriginal "inventions" that represent blindingly obvious and/or widely-used technologies that should never have been patented in the first place.

And truly innovative people invent because they want to make the world a better place. If they make money off it, that's gravy, not the motivating force. It's the suits, who have never had an original thought in their lives, who go to court to try to squeeze a few more bucks out of the fruits of the labor of the people with brains.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Sadly... by NortWind · 2004-04-15 17:08 · Score: 4, Informative

This only weakens the concept of intellectual property.
There is no such thing as intellectual property. Ideas are free, and always have been. There are copyrights, which restrict commercial use of original works. There are also patents, by which the governments grants the inventor of a novel idea a monopoly on the use of that idea for a limited time, for the express purpose of placing the idea into the public domain. Once an invention is patented, the patent is public record and anybody can read it at anytime, and come to understand the ideas contained in it if they wish.
Re:Sadly... by sharkb8 · 2004-04-15 17:09 · Score: 3, Informative

First, It's not a legal battle. It's just a request that the USPTO take another look at the patent in light of the prior art. If I'm not mistaken, Microsoft has the right to rebut the request, and PubPat doesn't gat to respond to Microsoft.

Second, If it wasn't a bogus patent being weilded for compeitive advantage, no one would have requested a re-examination.
Re:Sadly... by composer777 · 2004-04-15 18:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can tell that you aren't an innovator, if you were, you wouldn't buy into the pro IP arguments that are made by slick businessmen like Bill Gates. The majority of innoviation is done by Phd's and undergrads working in university research departments, many of them vastly underpaid, and who receive 90+% of their funding for this innovation from the government, not corporations, with undergrads often living below the poverty line. Perhaps if you want to understand why they perform valuable research, for stipends that would made a junior high teacher blush, then maybe you should quit watching tv and ask one of them, the answer might surprise you. But, you're probably too lazy, so I'll give you the short answer. They innoviate, write software, design buildings, perform research, because they have a love for science and creating ideas, systems, etc.. Then once enough research is performed, in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, then the giant megacorp completes the last 1% of work required to test said drug and patent, and then rip off taxpayers to the tune of billions. Most of the "innovation" done by drug companies is developing better search engines so that they can more efficiently mine the public literature. That's right, you pay for the majority of the research through government grants, and then said corporation rips you off. Pretty neat, huh? And you wonder where your taxpayer money is going.... *smirk*

Just as an aside, my handle is composer777, and yes, I have another degree in music. Much the same thing happens in music. Musicians practice and play because they love what they do. They get really good, then megacorp comes along, picks and chooses who they want, makes a bundle off the hard work of that musician, and tosses them away. If you ask them why they are so greedy, they'll tell you because it's the only way to motivate people to create good music. Bullshit, the best musicians would play no matter what they are getting paid. They charge $20 for a CD because they know morons like you are dumb enough to buy into their propaganda.
Re:Sadly... by geekoid · 2004-04-15 18:27 · Score: 3, Funny

"...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."

rich?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

heh by DarkHelmet · 2004-04-15 16:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

was obvious and, as such, should have never been granted

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

Wait a minute... by The+Master+Control+P · 2004-04-15 16:50 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Re:Wait a minute... by osiris · 2004-04-15 21:27 · Score: 2

I think you may mean ISO-9660?

details here

ISO 9960 seems to be: Draughting instruments with or without graduation -- Part 1: Draughting scale rules

Because you need to solve a goddamn problem by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · 2004-04-15 16:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Because you need to solve a goddamn problem by bennomatic · 2004-04-15 17:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Too true, too true. And some of these companies invent problems to solve. Take razor companies like BIC and Gilette, for example. Do you know how many patents they have on the razor head for the Sensor XL? Something like 20. And half of them are on the mechanism for holding the head to the handle.
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?
Re:Because you need to solve a goddamn problem by Saeger · 2004-04-15 17:42 · 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
Re:Because you need to solve a goddamn problem by senatorpjt · 2004-04-15 17:49 · Score: 2, Funny

I've decided to skip the 4-blade generation. I'll wait until they make one with 5 blades.
Re:Because you need to solve a goddamn problem by Saeger · 2004-04-15 17:58 · Score: 2, Funny

And I think I'll stick with the El Cheapo double- and triple-blades until a decade or so when I can just turn the facial hair gene off and/or direct my little swarm of smart nanobots to eat the unwanted keratin 24/7.
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:Because you need to solve a goddamn problem by BlackHawk-666 · 2004-04-15 18:44 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm hanging out for a Gilette +5 vorpal blade - now that's shaving the smart way!

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Donate! by Dwonis · 2004-04-15 16:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't forget to donate!

Hopefully more to come! by code_echelon · 2004-04-15 16:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

new != original by acidrain · 2004-04-15 16:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Erghh by l0ungeb0y · 2004-04-15 16:52 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

Re:Erghh by kasek · 2004-04-15 16:57 · Score: 5, Informative

sure, NTFS is the file system of choice for newer windows boxes. but there are still plenty of other devices using the FAT system, such as digital cameras, mp3 players, personal video recorders, etc. still plenty of money to be made.
Re:Erghh by MinusOne · 2004-04-15 16:59 · Score: 3, Informative

> I'm not too up on Windows but isn't FAT depricated?

Maybe for PC OSes, but have you used a CF or SD card in a digital camera? Or a memory stick? or any other small portable data container? They all use FAT32 or some related FS. The inneficeincies of teh format don't really apply to the media like that.

In other news... by FrYGuY101 · 2004-04-15 16:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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

I think that's the whole point by Elpacoloco · 2004-04-15 16:53 · 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.

Re:I think that's the whole point by tftp · 2004-04-15 17:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The number of "joe inventors" in the whole recorded history of humanity who got rich inventing can be counted on fingers of one hand.
Most of patents are filed today by megacorporations, as a weapon against competition, and many of those patents are trivial extensions of known principles and ideas.
Re:I think that's the whole point by gerardrj · 2004-04-15 19:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Patents do not prevent other people from "stealing" an idea. A patent is just a recognition that the inventor was the first to write down and send the idea. That recognition grants but does not guarantee the inventor exclusive use of the idea for a period of time.
Unlike copyright where MPAA, RIAA and other SIGs have purchased legislative insurance, there are not ( to my knowledge) any criminal penalties for patent infringement.

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Re:I think that's the whole point by surprise_audit · 2004-04-15 19:44 · 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??
Re:I think that's the whole point by zero_offset · 2004-04-15 22:50 · 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

Bless PUBPAT by emtechs · 2004-04-15 16:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I hadn't heard of PUBPAT before but in a cursory glance at their site they seem to be making the 'DUH!' exclaimations so many of us do when we see a dumb patent - but in formal requests to the USPTO.

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.

Open source patent office? by Atario · 2004-04-15 16:54 · 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

Re:Open source patent office? by Ieshan · 2004-04-15 17:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Open source patent office? by sn2k · 2004-04-15 17:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is it possible to make patent approvals open-source?
No I can hardly believe somebody could seriously sugest this. There is no way that everybody is going to agree on whether or not every patent is valid. In fact, a bigger problem is what would stop people with a conflict of interest in getting involved. I could just imagine Microsoft or another company paying people to "volunteer" and aprove every one of their patents. Or you could look at it the other way. I'm sure that slashdot and a bunch of other anti-microsoft sites could go and invalidate every one of microsoft's patents.
Re:Open source patent office? by perlchild · 2004-04-15 17:45 · 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...
Re:Open source patent office? by rastos1 · 2004-04-15 18:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sounds like RFC definition to me.
Re:Open source patent office? by ecartz · 2004-04-15 18:32 · 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.
Re:Open source patent office? by bug-eyed+monster · 2004-04-15 19:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are two problems here.

One is the type of technology being patented. We're seeing more and more patents on procedures (business, medical, software etc). Procedures can be described in terms broad enough to cover situations that didn't even exist when the patent was filed, and it's hard to know what term will be too broad tomorrow: "computer network" was specific enough 15 years ago but too vague 5 years later.

Two is the way patents are used today. The goal of a patent was to allow the inventor to license and sell their technology through partners without fearing the loss of ownership (my favorite example is Dolby noise-reduction). But today, many US patents have become no more than instruments of litigation. They're not there to let the inventor find partners, but to let the patent owner shoot down their competitors.

An open-source patent office may fix the first problem by declining all procedural patents, but that's better solved by reforming the patent office's charter. It won't fix the second problem because it can't predict how the inventor will use a legitimate patent.

Anti-trust? by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-04-15 16:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Shameless bastards.

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.

Re:Anti-trust? by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-04-15 17:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think the Unisys thing would be considered anti-trust since they did not use a position of power to influence the uptake of GIF. (ie. they didn't say "we own graphics so you better use GIF").

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.

About time by davmoo · 2004-04-15 17:02 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:About time by TechyImmigrant · 2004-04-15 17:28 · Score: 4, Informative

"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)."

Don't think so...
From 'Beneath Apple DOS', the major structural elements are..

VTOC - Volume Table of Contents
The Catalog - Kind of obvious
The Track/Sector List - Also kind of obvious

--
Evil people are out to get you.

Re:Hey.... by ambienceman · 2004-04-15 17:03 · Score: 2, Funny

That's why I'm makin' money off of Mr. Chappelle's stupid jokes, bitch. I got people pickin' up the greatest hits left and right. Goddam, I mean people who didn't even know who I was are callin' themselves the ol' boy Rick James. But get it right...

I'm Rick James, bitch... The original

And I Think Different. I have an Apple - G3 Pismo

Bill Gates and FAT don't got shit on me, Steve, and HFS, bitchhh

--
MY SECRET DIARIES

Obligatory Family Guy Quote by Dejitaru+Neko · 2004-04-15 17:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, there was this guy named Einstein, ever heard of him? ;)

Einstein: What is it you would like to patent?
Smith: I call it Smith's Theory of Relativity.
Einstein: ... *ruffles through the pages, knocks Smith unconscious, and runs off with the papers*

--
Nyo nyo, the Neko Boy has spoken.

Re:FAT Stolen? by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-04-15 17:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Lieke Edison "inventing" the light bulb etc, the true history of invention can be adjusted by suitable PR. The problem with a patent is that it stands until it is overturned. That MS only got the patent in 1996 means that they must have fought a long hard battle (like the Texas Instrument microchip one) to get the patent.

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.

It's actually the long file names patent by mistshadow · 2004-04-15 17:09 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:It's actually the long file names patent by XNormal · 2004-04-15 20:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

As much as I hate to admit it the methods they use to store long file names in directory entries in a backward-compatible way are novel (for the time) and non obvious - hence patentable.

IANAL, but the patent would seem to apply to the VFAT driver in Linux. A driver that only reads long filenames but does not generate them should probably be be ok as one patent claims the method of writing and the other patent claims media formatted according to this method.

Microsoft are currently targeting makers of devices such as digital cameras and PDAs that use FAT on removable flash devices. At least cameras should be able escape the patent as the standard DCIM format only requires 8.3 filenames.

--
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.

Re:How exactly does this work? by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-04-15 17:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

While the patent stands it impacts on any device/product that implements FAT. Examples: Operating systems that implement FAT; CDs with such software; PCs loaded with such software; cameras, MP3 players etc with Compact Flash/SmartMedia etc cards; media (floppy disks, Compact Flash, SmartMedia cards,...) pre-formatted with FAT.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.

And now you'll see how the patent system works... by kcbrown · 2004-04-15 17:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

...I mean, really works.

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.

Don't buy into it. by pb · 2004-04-15 17:16 · 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.

Something doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-15 17:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Something doesn't add up by Ann+Elk · 2004-04-15 22:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

In general (IIRC), a patent application must be filed with the patent office no more than one year after the invention was first released to the public. As someone in an earlier message noted, Microsoft released a beta version of Win95 with long filename support sometime in 1994, approximately 2 years before the patent application was filed. If these dates are indeed true, then the patent is invalid.

Of course, I can't speak for all groups at Microsoft, but the group I was in was very aware of this "one year grace period" for patents. We always noted exactly when a "patentable idea" was first mentioned to the public, even if it was just a Powerpoint slide at a trade show. The day the first non-Microsoftee hears about an idea is the day the patent clock starts running.

Again, I'm sure different groups within Microsoft handle this differently, but if the Win95 group didn't file the patent application within the one year grace period, then they fucked up in a big way.

Of course, in a refreshing turn of events, Microsoft's fuck up could turn out to be a blessing for the rest of the industry...

4DOS? by Cryptnotic · 2004-04-15 17:35 · 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.

Re:4DOS? by mikis · 2004-04-15 18:41 · Score: 3, Informative

It had file comments, stored in the descript.ion files in each directory, but I don't remember long filenames.
Re:4DOS? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-15 18:41 · Score: 3, Informative

iirc from the last /. story about this, 4dos stored its long file names in a file. Microsoft's implementation stores the long file names in a series of extra directory entries.

Patents don't cover a concept, they cover a method.
Re:4DOS? by chgros · 2004-04-15 19:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Patents don't cover a concept, they cover a method.
Unfortunately these days it seems when you patent a method it covers the concept.

Did anyone bother to read these patents? by micron · 2004-04-15 17:39 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Did anyone bother to read these patents? by SlashdotLemming · 2004-04-16 00:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

If people actually read the patents, then 90% of the patent stories here would never get posted here.

This is a discussion site. Discussions involving facts are usually much shorter and less interesting than those involving paranoia, Big Brother, and the quest of everyone in a management position to take over the world.
Slashdot wouldn't be popular if it weren't dumbed down.

Give Them Money by Bob9113 · 2004-04-15 17:40 · 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

Let's See More of That Idea! by VernonNemitz · 2004-04-15 17:41 · 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!

Re:Let's See More of That Idea! by mjh · 2004-04-15 19:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, yeah, that'd get their attention, but it's never going to happen, even if it's entertaining to imagine. It won't happen because the crime doesn't fit the punishment. And you're not allowed (and should not be allowed) to craft a punishment for a crime that only applies to one person.

It seems to me that what you're suggesting is roughly equivalent to sentancing amputation to a known, non-repentant jay-walker - just because you know he's non-repentant. The law against jay-walking never described such a penalty, and it's not fair to make one up now. The anti-trust laws never described the penalty you suggest, and it would be equally unfair to impose on M$.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:Let's See More of That Idea! by Lumpy · 2004-04-15 22:59 · Score: 2, Funny

I prefer a lighter approach...

The company executive team must be locked in the stockades in a public place for a 24 hour period.. and allow the public to taunt them, throw roten food at them and other forms of mild public punishment.

in fact allowing the general public at most criminals would solve a large number of society's problems...

turn over the convicted rapist to the angry mob of women... I'm pretty sure that televised barbarianism of a rapist being torn limb from limb and the body dragged through the streets would make a difference...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

It's not your fault you're FAT by teamhasnoi · 2004-04-15 17:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Do you want to lose 10, 20, even 30 megs of data? Then you need new patented MS Cortislim! MS Cortislim works by blocking the use of FAT by your computer when it is under stress, running SETI@home, or any Open Source software.

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!

Re:Devils advocate by LittleBigLui · 2004-04-15 18:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Was not Linux merely a hacked version of unix?
Yes, yes, I know they are not the same. But neither is 32mb and 2gb.

Wait a second... Assume Data Structures A and B (c-style pseudo code):

struct A { byte filename[255]; int directoryId int clusterId bit length[12]; bit hidden; bit system; bit readonly; //... } struct B { byte filename[255]; int directoryId int clusterId bit length[16]; bit hidden; bit system; bit readonly; //... }

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.

Patent is on storing long filenames by baywulf · 2004-04-15 18:32 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Patent is on storing long filenames by pe1chl · 2004-04-15 20:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Remember that Linux included another method to achieve the same thing (and more): UMSDOS.
It was introduced in early 1994, a year and a half before the introduction of Windows 95.

Steve Ballmer? by EnsilZah · 2004-04-15 19:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Microsoft's FAT patent?
I didn't know Microsoft patented Ballmer.

Hmmm by Tokerat · 2004-04-15 19:04 · 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?

PubPat's revenge by Gary+Destruction · 2004-04-15 19:24 · Score: 2, Funny

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...

Blind loyality by RoLi · 2004-04-15 19:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the combination of ideas was so obvious, why didn't the last of the submitted prior art patent it ...

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.

Re:wow, what's the big deal by Anne+Thwacks · 2004-04-15 20:33 · Score: 4, Informative

No, these patents cover

a) Using a lookup table (to convert betwen long and short)

b) Using a hashing algorithm (to create short from long).

Its pretty obvious that these are entirely novel solutions to a unique problem, and are nothing to do with the use of hashing algorithms (eg during WWII) or lookup tables (eg civilisations prior to the ancient greeks)

The truth is, these absolutely must be novel, because ...[need more coffee]

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII

Oxymoron alert by MyFourthAccount · 2004-04-15 21:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art

I mean, who writes this shit?

Re:Because you need to solve a *bleep* problem by eclectro · 2004-04-15 21:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

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"

Amen, brother! by motown · 2004-04-15 22:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?"

Was this obvious in 1993? by dcrouch · 2004-04-15 23:21 · 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.

public review period for patents by hak1du · 2004-04-15 23:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

plain silly by hitmark · 2004-04-16 00:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

New Microsoft Patents by Hieronymus+Howard · 2004-04-16 00:33 · Score: 2, Funny

It's rumoured that, in addition to FAT, Microsoft will also be patenting BALD and SWEATY

HH
--

The world has gone crazy... can't we just share? by locarecords.com · 2004-04-16 00:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Just use FAT, not VFAT by djmurdoch · 2004-04-16 01:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:Again.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-16 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

God, it's like I'm trying to teach Marlee Matlin how to talk over the internet.

FAT, or rather the various inventions that make it up have been patented at one time or another, many having entered the public domain. Microsoft's inventions are rather narrow in scope having to do with file attributes and long file names being saved esentially as linked metadata crammed where it doesn't belong. Rather than patenting all mouse traps using springs to crush and suffocate mice, they made a few tweaks to the design of the spring. They are now not asking people to either discontinue use of all mouse traps using springs, only that people selling devices which make use of their particular flavor of mouse traps pay them a quarter per device up to one quarter megadollar, people who wish to assemble such mouse traps in their garage are still free to do so.

Their invention was modest, and perhaps even less than elegant, and so is what they're asking. Let's be clear. They're not even telling flash memory makers to not use FAT for flash. In fact they have no basis from which to make such a request. Rather they are saying, if you want to use FAT, please by all means, but if you're using our inventions in your implimentation, we'd like a modest consideration.

It would seem you've little understanding for the wide minutia of what is patentable, and a grossly overly broad idea of what is obvious. To even greviously injure your tortured straw-man oil example. I could invent an adative for oil to make it easier to use with hinges. And in fact such things are common in the extreme. You should know better. The fact that you don't speaks for you and your education in a way words never could.

Re:No, sorry by imkonen · 2004-04-16 03:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

"That's called communism."

Hardly...You know blind devotion to the principle that everything that benefits Corporate America(TM) is good thing is not the same thing as favoring capitolism or laissez-faire economics or libertarianism or whatever you presumably identify yourself as? When the government steps in and takes an active role in helping corporations advance their goals at the expense of society, they're not supporting a free economy. You want the government all the way out of the business of redistributing wealth? Fine..I can respect that opinion even if I disagree with it, but at least have the balls to be consistant and advocate banning the entire patent system, whose sole justification for existance is the concept of 'benefiting society.'

Nope, that's not prior art by XNormal · 2004-04-16 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

What about ProDOS? by chicagozer · 2004-04-16 05:13 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Slashdot Mirror

PUBPAT Challenges Microsoft's FAT Patent

137 of 396 comments (clear)