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."

3 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. 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.