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.

8 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    1. Re:Excellent! by lothar97 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      --

  2. Would a patent help? by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  3. Not excellent by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  4. Too Bad by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  5. Re:Related News by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

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

  6. Re:Is this a patent system feature ? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

  7. Does innovation suffer? by runderwo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web