Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Gets Back Its FAT Patent In Germany

Posted by kdawson on from the break-out-the-fatback-recipes dept.

Dj writes to let us know that Microsoft has regained its FAT patent in Germany. (We discussed it three years ago when the German Federal Patent Tribunal ruled that Microsoft's patent on the FAT file system, with short and long names, was not enforceable.) "The [German] appeal court's decision brings it into line with the US patent office's assessment of the FAT patent. In early 2006, after lengthy deliberations, the latter confirmed the rights to protection conferred by [US] patent number 5,579,517, claiming that the development was new and inventive."

8 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. I thought Europe didn't allow software patents? by Palestrina · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What am I missing?

    1. Re:I thought Europe didn't allow software patents? by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're missing the fine print loophole. Yes, software applications are not patentable.

      However, the loophole is that an invention that solves a "technical problems" in a non-obvious way (rather than just a "business problem") is still patentable - which according to this court decision includes file systems.

      As far as this non-lawyer can see, that makes the law a paper shell because it protects only software that is obviously not patentable anyway (Say, Microsoft getting a patent on word processors*) but leaves algorithms unprotected. (Ironically, algorithms are also considered unpatentable in the narrowest sense, which is why patents have to replace the word "algorithm" with one that the Patent Office does not understand.)

      (*Or Amazon getting a patent on a web shop UI... OH WAIT. :P )

  2. FAT is antiquated by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this have any practical significance? Am I missing something? Is FAT still worth enough for them to bother fighting to have their patent in Germany?

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1. Re:FAT is antiquated by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The patent covers the long file name implementation. This isn't a patent on FAT in general. So a USB card will not be patent infringing. Even if there are long file names on it, the infringer is whatever created those files. This would be things like digital cameras for instance that actually create files, or other operating systems, etc. Reading the long file names would not be affected by the patents.

    2. Re:FAT is antiquated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Microsoft did not invent FAT (and they where not the first to use it). The German patents are about a specific FAT extension that make it possible to store both the 8.3 "DOS" filename as well as the long "Windows" filename in a FAT filesystem. Linux (and other open-source projects) now have a simple trick to avoid licenses: they store the short OR the long filename. This works transparently for short filenames, and (now rare) devices that can't handle the long filenames don't use long filenames anyway.

  3. Re:Stupid Headline by hvdh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The patent is not for the FAT filesystem itself. The patent is for the kludge that allows FAT to support both long filenames and 8.3 filenames.

    Kludge is quite right. I was pretty surprised to find out that on CDROMs, a long filename had a different 8.3 name when listed in pure DOS vs. in a Windows 98 (?) command shell.

  4. The geek mind-set by westlake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how much that cost MS. Bribes aren't cheap.

    Loose talk about bribery is for losers.

    Given the importance of complex legal codes, {German] judges must be particularly well trained. Indeed, judges are not chosen from the field of practicing lawyers. Rather, they follow a distinct career path. At the end of their legal education at university, all law students must pass a state examination before they can continue on to an apprenticeship that provides them with broad training in the legal profession over two years. They then must pass a second state examination that qualifies them to practice law. At that point, the individual can choose either to be a lawyer or to enter the judiciary. Judicial candidates start working at courts immediately, however they are subjected to a probationary period of up to five years before being appointed as judges for lifetime. Judiciary of Germany

  5. Re:Stupid Headline by anonum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes and there's a linux kernel patch that should cleverly circumvent that patent
    http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/FAT-patch/
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/26/313
    It hasn't apparently been tested in court so far though.

    On U.S. soil, one wouldn't probably want to acid-test the above patch in court, somewhere was mentioned that it may cost up to $5M to defend yourself in court for a single patent infringiment, even if you would not turn out to be infringing a patent at all.