Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft FAT Patent Rejected

Posted by michael on from the 8.3-for-you-and-me dept.

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.

4 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. IBM?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Re:Excellent! by mirko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  3. And this is why lawyers are hated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " 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.

  4. Re:Excellent! by theLOUDroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.