Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft FAT Patent Rejected
dkh2 writes "It's being reported other places as well but, there's a very nice story over at Groklaw about efforts by the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) to get Microsoft's patent on FAT restricted or revoked. Bearing in mind that Microsoft still has right of appeal, The USPTO has rejected Microsofts FAT patent." Our earlier story reported on efforts to overturn this patent.
Will they do the same with the thousand IBM useless patents?
According to more of the text at groklaw, 70% of those patents challenged, are eventually rejected, just like this one.
Far better than going through the courts once the patent is being defended by nazgul style lawyers is to defeat it on merits with the patent office. Looks like Dan Ravicher is onto something that could do with all our support.
It may surprise many to know that patent officers are often promoted on how many patents they reject, not how many they approve.
... and partially false.
This is indeed surprising and probably partially true
Please, quote your sources.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
So the public funds the patent office, and yet it still has to do its own "double-checking"?
What the zarking faquaad are you talking about? Trolling?
The patent was rejected on obviousness grounds. As in, anybody skilled in the art at the time of invention would have found the invention obvious.
" As lawyer, this is ridiculous."
As a developer, this is wonderful.
Software patents are a bad idea. The only people who think differently are lawyers and developers who are mostly under 35 years of age.
All software is derivative.
More to the point, the greatest renassaince in software development came prior to patents of software. It is literally destroying the software industry. Oh, except for MS and IBM.
Really, get a clue.
There's a comparison to be made to the open source community. Why is open source software better? Because when you have thousands or millions of eyes looking at something you'll find more errors and have a better quality product in the end.
The same logic applies to patents. A single examiner in the USPTO can't possibly research every possible document in existence looking for prior art. The USPTO needs to take advantage of the eyes of others. They do that through the pre-grant publication and reexamination proceedings. Because the publication process only allows for a short period to submit prior art it means that many patents will be granted that later get overturned.
All the USPTO can make is a good effort and require that the patent application be written according to the guidelines so it can be understood by others (other patent lawyers that is).
Here's what Ravicher says about this development, "I hope those companies that chose to take a license from Microsoft for the patent negotiated refund clauses so that they can get their money back."
But what about those who have paid SCO for licenses to use Linux? Even if they have negotiated refund clauses, it seems very unlikely that they'll get one.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Actually, I would argue that implemtation was innovative. By accounts, MS spent considerable effort coming up with details necessary for this to work somewhat transparently. This is and should be protected by copyright -- you should not take MS code as your own.
The idea was not however novel. The patent should fall.
1 down, 100,000 to go.
But I am of the opinion that software should never receive a patent. Software patents are harming innovation and the public, not helping them. Consitutional purpose of patents is the help the public by promoting innovation, not as a means of supporting more lawyers.
The system is broken. The system might have been able to work in 1800 when the amount of 'stuff' that had to be taken into account was 1/10000 of what it is today. In 1800 a single individual could be expert on most of science and technology. Now, someone with a four year degree is barely scratching the surface. Doing a meaningful search for prior art is a daunting task and much of the time it looks like it doesn't get done properly.
In the face of a blizzard of bogus patents, getting them rectified one at a time just won't work. If Microsoft says that I am violating one of their patents, I have to give up; I just can't afford the lawyer's bill. Therefore the system works only in favor of the big guy and the lawyers.
All the USPTO can make is a good effort and require that the patent application be written according to the guidelines so it can be understood by others (other patent lawyers that is).
...
There are a number of inherent problems with the USPTO:
* its financial resources are diverted to other ventures, instead of reinvested in patent examination, as a result, patent applications see less and less patent examination, and
* patent examiners are woefully undertrained; they should be among the best in their field, but the low wage of examiners means that those who actually know what they're doing find other jobs
* a lot of classes of patents show no credible benefit to the industry they cover, like software patents. How many programmers do you know who go trawling through the patent database for a solution to their problem? I don't know a single one, and I've seen plenty of legal advice discouraging programmers from doing this. The entire reason for existance of the patent system is to spread new knowledge and inventions. The monopoly is what is given in exchange for the knowledge, and it is not the primary purpose of the patent system. Since no one ever looks at software patents except for when they are sued for patent infringement, the entire purpose of software patents is null and void.
Why not?
If I recall correctly, MS-DOS was reverse engineered from IBM's PC-DOS (which legend has it evolved from QDOS - Quick and Dirty Operating System).
I don't know about any patents under those OSs, but there is definitely evidence of prior art.
Buy a politician, preferably a president
A perfect example of how the system should work. The patent office doesn't need a reform, it needs to simply do a better job of following its own rules.
Yes it does.
The fundamental concepts behind the patent office have become unworkable.
With our currently level of technology, it is unreasonable to believe that there is ANY organization that can sufficiently understand every technology on the planet in order to determine whether an invention is novel.
Back in the days when the patent office was created, it might have been a reasonable concept but today it's not. There's way too much specialized knowedge out there for it to be practical.
The patent ofice should admit what is has already become, a mere registy of "I invented this on this date" and drop all pretenses of actually being expert enough that all patents they accept are automatically valid.
Life is too short to proofread.
I guess being a Patent attorney gives me a little different view on things like this.
Which useless IBM patent would you prefer they go after? Please cite why you think it is useless, and the benefit if it is overturned. Someone has to invest significant time in an effort to overturn a patent. You want to choose your targets carefully. The reason that this patent was considered important to overturn is not that it was owned by M$, but the potential impact if it wasn't.
It almost seems as if you feel the motivation for overturning individual patents should be to go after organizations, rather than to go after bad patents that could have a significant impact if not overturned.
<rant>
Of all the stupid things passed off on the computing community, that was one of the most insidious and poorly thought out little "lets break everything" adventures. First we have niche filesystems, designed to not use CLI at all, use it. Flipping brilliant. Not. Then Microsoft has to have it too because they're not too brilliant either, so they break the OS to do it (and yes, it's still broken.) Now Linux, of all things, is all about spaces in filenames. This is a case of imitation being the poorest form of flattery. I wish the Linux community would stand up and say no_more_stupid_filenames and stop using spaces. No financial problem for our LInux community, so we could fix the syntactical problem. I don't hold out much hope for it, but man...
The meat of the problem is that spaces are natural language delimiters, and syntax and parsing are important, even core, parts of CLI and almost all computing languages. To throw them into the same syntactical barrel with letters and numbers was just_plain_stupid.
If I had a "Dumbass Of Coding" award, I'd find the mini-mind that decided to use spaces (I'm guessing it was a Mac guy, but it's just a guess) and engrave them a special plaque.
ThereAreSeveralExcellentAlternatives to-spaces-in-filenames I_can_show_most right.here.without.brain.strain
</rant>
But_I_do_think_long_filenames_are_a_good.idea
:)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Because you're an expert on the patents both companies hold, right?
Give me a break.
If you think software patents are stupid, then just say that. Unless you've worked at both companies and know first-hand the differences between the types of patents involved, you do not have the foundation to make your claim.
I don't agree. Firstly, the patent should never have been granted in the first place, and secondly, even if it was a real invention with no prior art, it should have been granted.
There are plenty of software patents (maybe about 10% of those granted) that are totally valid and legal in accordance with US law. These can be every bit as damaging as the invalid patents.
Look at public key cryptography. A truly groundbreaking invention at the time, no prior art. Not obvious and so on. The patent has expired now, and it wasn't until it expired that e-commerce started to take off in a big way.
The harm caused by the patent - e-commerce growth and electronic communications stifled while the patent was still in force.
The benefit? Would the inventors have still come up with the idea if they weren't able to patent it? I'm pretty sure they would.
Would they still come up with the idea if the patent only lasted a couple of years? Almost certainly.
In the US, the patent examiners are required to have an applicable degree before their considered for the job.
Perhaps, but it's really hard for me to see how anyone with any relevant knowledge in computers could possibly not know that the FAT based filesystem has been well understood (not necessarily LIKED, just understood) by absolutely anyone who cared since the 1980s. It is well documented (disclosed) in numerous books, both from MS, and by third party authors and has been for over a decade. It's just a LITTLE late to claim it as a new invention. It wasn't all that novel even when it came out.
If THAT had a chance, it may not be too late for Clarke to patent the communications satellite.
Again, this is wrong. To be granted, a patent application has to fully enable the invention. That means someone reasonably skilled in the art has to be able to duplicate the invention. It does not have to be a common person, it has to be someone who competent in that field. Thus, you're not writing gene therapy patents so that grandma can understand them, and you're also not writing automobile suspension patents so that a computer programmer can understand them.
I must respectfully disagree. The way some software patents are worded, it's hard to even be sure it is talking about software (or even a computer) much less duplicate the invention. In other cases, I have seen patents that upon careful reading merely describe a common business procedure only using a computer rather than index cards in a box.
In many cases, the only non-obvious part is the wording of the patent.