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.

Comments

IBM??

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they do the same with the thousand IBM useless patents?

This happens at a high rate.

[Amiga Lover]

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.

Re:This happens at a high rate.

[Halo1]

Even with the reduced costs, it's still a huge waste: first you have the company spending time and money on getting the patent, then the public or another company spends time and money to defeat it. This is not a structural solution, in fact it's some patch work that spends even more resources in order to keep an obviously non-working system afloat (by curbing its most perceived excesses).

It would be much better to simply properly reform the patent system and to limit it again to what is was originally designed for in the 15th century, instead of keeping these artificial extensions (by courts, not by lawmakers!) into fields it was never intended to cover and for which it simply does not work.

It is not a problem of examination, it is a problem of subject matter with which the patent system simply cannot deal. The European Patent Offices tries to deal with software patents by demanding "further technical effects" in the "technical contribution" of the "inventive step", but it results in almost exactly the same patents as in the US, just slightly differently worded.

Re:Excellent!

[mirko]

It may surprise many to know that patent officers are often promoted on how many patents they reject, not how many they approve.

This is indeed surprising and probably partially true ... and partially false.
Please, quote your sources.

And this is why lawyers are hated.

[Anonymous Coward]

" 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.

Re:Not excellent

[jkabbe]

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).

Makes you wonder about SCO licensees

[OwlWhacker]

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.

Re:VFAT Patent

[gewalker]

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.

Re:Excellent!

[theLOUDroom]

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.

Not a FINAL Rejection

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of dancing in the streets going on here. However, this was not a final rejection, thus Microsoft still has the opportunity to convince the Patent office that their patent should be allowed. The only thing that has happened is that the PTO has looked at the stuff that was given to them by PubPat and said that they think that PubPat has made an initial case that the patent should be rejected. Microsoft still has the opportunity to have it changed and to offer amendments that narrow the scope of the patent. I would have been EXTREMELY surprised if Microsoft did not get an initial rejection after the PTO decided to accept the reexam.

I guess being a Patent attorney gives me a little different view on things like this.

Stop editorializing

[kylef]

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.