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

Excellent!

[AKAImBatman]

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. Organizations like PubPat are a good thing, because they add another layer of checking (i.e. public responsibility) to the patent process.

It may surprise many to know that patent officers are often promoted on how many patents they reject, not how many they approve. Thus it is in their interest to reject any applications with even the slightest possibility of being invalid. Yet it seems that ridiculous patents make it through anyway. How does this happen?

The answer lies in the patent lawyers who draw up the papers. What they'll do, is that they'll draw up revision after revision of the idea until the patent office is confused enough to grant it. (Or perhaps they lucked upon a new patent officer.) That's why most of these patents seem so vague. The applicants are making sure that there's no way someone who doesn't have a very thorough education in the field of the patent could understand that the idea is unpatentable. Thus the idea passes through the process and must be challenged in court or via reexamination later.

Re:Excellent!

[lothar97]

The answer lies in the patent lawyers who draw up the papers. What they'll do, is that they'll draw up revision after revision of the idea until the patent office is confused enough to grant it. (Or perhaps they lucked upon a new patent officer.) That's why most of these patents seem so vague.

I have to strongly disagree here. I am a lawyer, and I work in an IP firm. I draft patent applications. There is a fine line that is walked when drafting patent applications. You have to be specific in what you're covering. If not, you can later lose the patent for not specifying what you invention actually does. That said, you do not want to be so narrow that you get limited rights. In many technological areas, you attempt to anticipate where the technology will go, and draft a patent application that can be applicable to other embodiements of your invention in the future. That said, in the patent application you also do have to provide specific examples of how your invention is used. Failure to do so means you did not fully enable your patent application, and can mean losing your patent.

The applicants are making sure that there's no way someone who doesn't have a very thorough education in the field of the patent could understand that the idea is unpatentable. Thus the idea passes through the process and must be challenged in court or via reexamination later.

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.

That said, until the past 5 years or so, all computer related patent applications, including software, were reviewed by electrical engineers. The computer science degree was not recognized as a qualification to take the patent bar (and be able to submit or review patent applications). I think this is because places like ITT Tech give out CS degrees that are basically network tech certificates. The USPTO now recognizes accedited CS degrees, and have been hiring people with CS degrees. I predict in the future, as we have people who have been educated in CS, have written code, etc, we will see better computer-related patents in the future. I myself have a poli sci degree, but have been programming since age 6- thus I have written several patent applications that include computer code embodiments.

Re:Excellent!

[Omnifarious]

If the purpose of a patent is to convince people to publish knowledge of how their inventions work, why is it so hard for anybody but a patent lawyer to understand a patent? If it's purpose is to disseminate information, and thus encourage the progress of science and the useful arts, shouldn't the patent be written in a language that's geared towards the engineers who work in the field?

It seems to me that the current purpose of patents is more a legal weapon to use against competitors. It's purpose is no longer seen as a way to encourage the dissemination of information, rather it's purpose is to restrict the freedom of everybody but the patent holder without the patent holder having given anything in return.

Would a patent help?

[tkrotchko]

Seems to me a patent would have run out by now.

If you look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT_file_system#Histo ry

You'll see a couple landmarks:

FAT12 - 1980
FAT16 - 1983
VFAT - 1995
FAT32 - 1997

But really, the FAT file system is 24 years old at this point. How can you patent something you did 24 years ago and you've not complained about it in all that time?

Not excellent

[Moderation abuser]

Definitely *not* an example of how it should work. You have an external organisation doing the job that the patent office itself should be doing. That's a failure in need of reform. Perhaps if business processes and software were not patentable, the patent office might have more resources to devote to patents which are worthy of being granted.

Too Bad

[RAMMS EIN]

Too bad it got rejected. I was hoping the patent would push people away from FAT. Perhaps just the patent will do the trick, though.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt you are a lawyer. Look at your previous slashdot posts.

Nothing in that comment makes sense. What are you talking about? Those patents were for a minor modification to old 24-year old specification that was in the public domain. This has no open source ramifications. There are lots of things that people or organizations create things that are not patentable. That doesn't mean it is a precedent every time a patent is rejected.

Are you working for Microsoft? What do you mean call the EFF? What, and tell them congratulations? Does Microsoft now register trolls on Slashdot to try and sway public opinion?

Re:This is stupid

[LWATCDR]

Umm the idea of patenting software is stupid. You can not patent a book, movie, story, sheet music or comic books! Software should be handled under copyright law not patent law.

Re:Related News

[slew]

Yes, but the USPTO did accept Bill's patent on the door hinge...

FWIW, I remembed this one from a few years back...

Re:Is this a patent system feature ?

[Waffle Iron]

The loss of this patent strikes no blows against the freedom to innovate, believe me.

The FAT long filename kludge gets a lot of flack, but I always thought that is was actually one of the more innovative things that Microsoft did. It did provide some measure of forwards and backwards compatibility during the painful transition from DOS/Win3 filesystems to more modern ones.

However, does anybody seriously think that the promise of a patent reward is what spurred Microsoft to develop this innovation? No way. They came up with it because their desperate need to maintain compatability between their OS generations. They would have done it even if there were no such thing as patents.

Awarding them a patent on this effort now, even if it were valid, serves only to add more barriers to the software marketplace. It is not going to somehow spur them on to create more invaluable innovations in the area of kludging filesystem namespaces.

The problem that this technology solved no longer really exists. Almost nobody is using 11-character-max filesystems today. The only reason to continue to use this technique is so that this filesystem can maintain backwards compatibility with itself, not with older filesystems as originally intended. There is no longer any intrinsic value in a patent on this technology other than to lock out competition.

Does innovation suffer?

[runderwo]

I'm certain this has consequences for innovation and economic motivation, according to the dire forecasts by intellectual property holding groups (who are clearly experts on the issues involved). Can someone elucidate on what we as a society are giving up by not allowing inventors exclusive rights to their inventions?

Re:Is this a patent system feature ?

[TheNetAvenger]

Thisisbrilliantwhydon'twejustremovespacesfromevery thingwetypebecauseyouaretoolazytoquoteafilenameorp ressthetabkeyandletthecommandlineinterfacedoitfory ouautomatically.Whydon'twejustremovespacesfromever ythingwedo,maybethereasonwehaven'tisbecausenomatte rwhetheryouareusingcuteunderlinesorcapitalizingeac hwordinthesentence,itisstillhardertoreadandtakemor etimeforthenaturalprocessingofinformationinthebrai ntorecognizethingsquickly.Iforonejustthinkyouarela zyorreallysimplemindedtobelievethatusingnamingconv entionswithoutnaturallanguagesyntaxlikespacesisgoi ngtobeproductivetoanyone,exceptmaybefoolslikethath aven'tlearnedaneasierwaytonavigateorprocessdocumen tsorinformationthanfromacommandline.

This_is_brilliant_why_don't_we_just_remove_space s_ from_everything_we_type_because_you_are_too_lazy_t o_quote_a_filename_or_press_the_tab_key_and_let_th e_command_line_interface_do_it_for_you_automatical ly._Why_don't_we_just_remove_spaces_from_everythin g_we_do,_maybe_the_reason_we_haven't_is_because_no _matter_whether_you_are_using_cute_underlines_or_c apitalizing_each_word_in_the_sentence,_it_is_still _harder_to_read_and_take_more_time_for_the_natural _processing_of_information_in_the_brain_to_recogni ze_things_quickly._I_for_one_just_think_you_are_la zy_or_really_simple_minded_to_believe_that_using_n aming_conventions_without_natural_language_syntax_ like_spaces_is_going_to_be_productive_to_anyone,_e xcept_maybe_fools_like_that_haven't_learned_an_eas ier_way_to_navigate_or_process_documents_or_inform ation_than_from_a_command_line.

ThisIsBrilliantWhyDon'tWeJustRemoveSpacesFromEve ry thingWeTypeBecauseYouAreTooLazyToQuoteAFilenameOrP ressTheTabKeyAndLetTheCommandLineInterfaceDoItForY ouAutomatically.WhyDon'tWeJustRemoveSpacesFromEver ythingWeDo,MaybeTheReasonWeHaven'tIsBecauseNoMatte rWhetherYouAreUsingCuteUnderlinesOrCapitalizingEac hWordInTheSentence,ItIsStillHarderToReadAndTakeMor eTimeForTheNaturalProcessingOfInformationInTheBrai nToRecognizeThingsQuickly.IForOneJustThinkYouAreLa zyOrReallySimpleMindedToBelieveThatUsingNamingConv entionsWithoutNaturalLanguageSyntaxLikeSpacesIsGoi ngToBeProductiveToAnyone,ExceptMaybeFoolsLikeThatH aven'tLearnedAnEasierWayToNavigateOrProcessDocumen tsOrInformationThanFromACommandLine.

This is brilliant why don't we just remove spaces from everything we type because you are too lazy to quote a filename or press the tab key and let the command line interface do it for you automatically. Why don't we just remove spaces from everything we do, maybe the reason we haven't is because no matter whether you are using cute underlines or capitalizing each word in the sentence, it is still harder to read and take more time for the natural processing of information in the brain to recognize things quickly. I for one just think you are lazy or really simple minded to believe that using naming conventions without natural language syntax like spaces is going to be productive to anyone, except maybe fools like that haven't learned an easier way to navigate or process documents or information than from a command line.

So which one of these was the easiest for you or anyone to read? Exactly my point. Just like when a computer is storing the name of a video, a song, or anything that might have need for