PUBPAT Challenges Microsoft's FAT Patent 396
An anonymous reader writes "The Public Patent Foundation filed a formal request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office today to revoke Microsoft Corporation's patent on the FAT File System, touted by Microsoft as being 'the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices.' In its filing, PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art showing the patent, which issued in November 1996 and is not otherwise due to expire until 2013, was obvious and, as such, should have never been granted."
About time... (Score:4, Interesting)
They request all kinds of Patent re-examinations.. (Score:4, Interesting)
They have several interesting projects on patent re-examination, commentary on the patent process, etc.
I've never heard of the Publlic Patent Foundation (Score:4, Interesting)
Go get 'em!
.
new != original (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that's the whole point (Score:5, Interesting)
However, too many patents means that when joe inventor makes something, evil corporation sues him for violating patent 284958390*pi^12, "Use of energy to propell machine," and steals his work anyway, making millions of dollars while give the original invetor squat.
Open source patent office? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sadly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Um - because if it really is a novel invention worthy of patent protection then all the later judges are going to throw it out of court immediately based on the previous decision, and if you're a scum sucking pond scum who's standing on the shoulders of the giants before you and setting up a toll gate to stop those who really are innovating then you bloody well deserve what you get.
The concept of intellectual property was never designed to protect the sort of arsewipe who patents every piece of common knowledge they can slip under the noses of the patent office and makes a business out of milking their "valuable IP portfolio". If you're in the business of buying other people's ideas for the purpose of extorting money from people building the future on top of them, then I say good riddance to you - our current technology is built on the ideas of our predecessors, and who are we to stop our successors from learning from us?
Re:About time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Scary: That's patent worthy.
Scarier: There were three prior patents covering the technique...
Re:How exactly does this work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't buy into it. (Score:5, Interesting)
So don't call them 'FAT' patents, because they aren't. Call them VFAT patents. Or call them by their names, which also makes it obvious.
Re:About time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, the request for reexamination is based partly on what Microsoft might do, and has made no attempt to do. Their assertions are that in light of other patents the specific combination of techniques would have been obvious. This strikes me as less than genuine because of how patents are done, particularly in this day in age. If the combination of ideas was so obvious, why didn't the last of the submitted prior art patent it, since they're so skilled they can claim worthy patents when there is significant pressure to claim everything thing concievable at the time of the filing?
But more importantly; in the case of the invention of polyamides, with their logic the claimed invention of one precludes others from claiming the invention of others of similar structure. In light of Nylon, Kevlar is obvious.
This of course is not what happened.
I'm not saying that shouldn't have happened. It's an interesting demand to make of would be inventors, and certainly a considerable demand to make of the patent office. (I guess we know that when they play Stars! 2 they always click the bleeding edge technology box.) But the fact that their line of reasoning isn't followed, really at all, and has many billions, possibly trillions, of dollars in property bet against it doesn't bode well I would think.
Re:About time... (Score:5, Interesting)
If it becomes a standard, is it in society's interest to let the patent last so long?
4DOS? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure I remember using 4DOS around the DOS 3.3 to DOS 5.0 days.
Give Them Money (Score:4, Interesting)
The "Online" link on this page [pubpat.org] will take you straight to PayPal.
Let's See More of That Idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet THAT would get Microsoft's attention!
Re:Because you need to solve a goddamn problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably bogus patents up the wazoo on that too.
(Patents aren't going to mean much anyway once anyone can do desktop manufacturing for next to nothing.)
--
Re:Open source patent office? (Score:5, Interesting)
Software patents(and the dreaded algorithm patent sure to come out someday if the trend doesn't stop) further blur the distinction.
*steps on soapbox*
now it appears to me that part of the problem with patents and copyright is that the public instinctively associate them with the inventor/discoverer/original author, and we're fine with them, until such rights are sold then we become not so fine with it. For one, it's a lot simpler/more instinctive to sort out who disovered something, if it's an individual making the discovery, not a corporation. In that same line of thought, what happens when those rights are transferred, and for instance, how to get the original author to unlearn what he sold, gets a lo more confusing.
Trademarks, as a rule are purely corporate/marketing concepts and have far less contestation going on... They also have to be defended constantly...
Copyrights are especially problematic, as copyright ownership gets regularly extended for corporations (technically, you could even view the legatees of an author as a corporation, THEY DIDN'T WRITE THE BOOK) to protect little mouses, and such... Yet the author in many cases is long dead... before the first lawyer gets paid... (Not that I object to heirs of authors and such to benefit from the work of their forebears... I do however insist on the fact that by that point, the original intent of copyright: to encourage the author to produce more work, because his rights are protected, will take a lot of doing to respect: he's dead, he won't write that many books anymore...
You might say part of the problem is that the public recognizes a right to a discoverer/author as an individual, for a limited duration, but it becomes a lot less instinctive when those are transferred. Perhaps making them non-transferrable would keep the legislation on this topic, at least understandable by someone without a major in minor in intellectual property...
Re:I don't know... (Score:4, Interesting)
You CANNOT patent an idea. You can only patent the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. You're only looking at the title of the patent, which will be something generic like "A method for doing X". That's only to make them easy to search, the thing that matters is the text of the patent. In this case, MS doesn't have a patent on the idea of a filesystem, they have a patent on one specific filesystem, FAT. That's all.
Patent discussions on Slashdot at meaningless, because 99% of the Slashbots think that the title of a patent is the entirety of the patent.
Re:Open source patent office? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open source patent office? (Score:4, Interesting)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Anyway, I'll try to come up with a "open source" patent system that addresses your concerns:
1. Anyone can submit a patent. The patent is publicly available immediately. The patent is assumed to be valid (no initial review).
2. Anyone can contest a patent by submitting prior art (or bringing up another weakness in the patent application). The original submitter(s) have a choice: admit the prior art (which invalidates the patent) or argue the point. If they argue, the disagreement goes to a patent examiner. The loser pays for the patent examiner's time.
3. Normal legal appeals apply.
This system should actually be cheaper than the current system. The patent examiner is no longer expected to look for prior art. Instead, it will be submitted by the contesting party. Thus, the patent examiner doesn't have to spend a lot of time on the case. The loser pays method encourages the parties to come to an agreement prior to the examination.
This system also encourages sharing more than the current system. Since the initial filing no longer requires an expensive application, there is no reason not to submit the patent (and its enclosed information). This avoids the current problem of people not having the resources to pursue a patent application, so they simply keep it secret and hope for more resources in the future.
The biggest weakness? Noise. There would be a lot of junky patent filings. Of course, some would ask how that is different from the current system.
There is also an argument in favor of eliminating patents except for pharmaceuticals. Many patents are defensive (to protect against others patenting one's invention). Other patents are just moonshine (i.e. they will never be licensed or used by anyone else). The primary purpose of invention is for one's own use...no patent needed for that.
Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't they not be issued a patent on this if they allowed people to use their filesystem method? It seems like it's in such common use by many devices now...
Some other posts have indicated that the patent only covers the storage of long filenames associated with the FAT filenames for use by Windows...if this is true, isn't that an obvious invention (i.e. database relating short names to long names)? You can't patent a relational database based on purpose, can you? If so, I will be submitting my patent for databases that store telephone numbers in relation to adressee names within a matter of days, and get rich of the phone companies alone...
I wonder if HFS could be considered prior art...each file as I understand it, is given a unique ID with which is can be referenced by, regardless of path. This (as I am to understand) is how Mac apps can still save to any file if it is moved while opened. Could the ID number be considered a short name? Then again, FAT came before HFS, but HFS came before long Windows filenames...
IAONAL, anyone with definitive answers is more than welcome to correct me.
Re:About time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not neccessarily. MSFT would have its patent rights intact if, for example, anyone seeing that code (I assume you mean sourcecode and not binaries) had a click-through or better confidentiality agreement. More importantly, though, as long as MSFT just took the input and showed the output (a public demonstration) without going into detail about how the transformation worked, they'd likewise be protected. If I give you a magic black box that you can put a fish in and the fish will turn into a chicken, and there's no way for you to take apart the box, then even though I'm demonstrating the effectiveness of the box in turning fish into chickens I'm not forfeiting any patent rights...
Re:I think that's the whole point (Score:5, Interesting)
Which prompts the question: is the patent holder obliged to license his patent to anyone that asks, or can he grant licenses to some applicants and not to others??
Re:Patent is on storing long filenames (Score:3, Interesting)
It was introduced in early 1994, a year and a half before the introduction of Windows 95.
Re:It's actually the long file names patent (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but the patent would seem to apply to the VFAT driver in Linux. A driver that only reads long filenames but does not generate them should probably be be ok as one patent claims the method of writing and the other patent claims media formatted according to this method.
Microsoft are currently targeting makers of devices such as digital cameras and PDAs that use FAT on removable flash devices. At least cameras should be able escape the patent as the standard DCIM format only requires 8.3 filenames.
Re:About time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Because you need to solve a *bleep* problem (Score:2, Interesting)
The cartridges are so expensive that I feel like I am using a cadillac to scrape hairs off my face. And that's for the three bladed kind.
What I find interesting is that Wal-Mart has a generic cartridge that fits the sensor razor.
So since they have dozens of patents on the sensor (presumably to stop cartridge knock offs), how are the generics able to be made?
Myself, I'm an Atra man. The dollar store had a ten pack of generic cartridges for a dollar. I filled a large drawer with them.
They don't have the lubra strip on them, but I'm quite happy with the price.
It also seems that the three blade variety do not stay as sharp as long, and clog easier. Which is natural if your profit model is based on people tossing cartridges.
They sent me a free four blade razor in the mail. I think I will save it for special occasions.
Maybe I can get a hot date through slashdot personals.
Me against 10,000 other nerds. I don't know.
Re:About time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Something doesn't add up (Score:3, Interesting)
In general (IIRC), a patent application must be filed with the patent office no more than one year after the invention was first released to the public. As someone in an earlier message noted, Microsoft released a beta version of Win95 with long filename support sometime in 1994, approximately 2 years before the patent application was filed. If these dates are indeed true, then the patent is invalid.
Of course, I can't speak for all groups at Microsoft, but the group I was in was very aware of this "one year grace period" for patents. We always noted exactly when a "patentable idea" was first mentioned to the public, even if it was just a Powerpoint slide at a trade show. The day the first non-Microsoftee hears about an idea is the day the patent clock starts running.
Again, I'm sure different groups within Microsoft handle this differently, but if the Win95 group didn't file the patent application within the one year grace period, then they fucked up in a big way.
Of course, in a refreshing turn of events, Microsoft's fuck up could turn out to be a blessing for the rest of the industry...
Re:I think that's the whole point (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, it probably says a lot that a multi-millionaire simply flys below the radar of "rich folks" these days. Granted, there are lots of people who are vastly more wealthy for other reasons, and certainly there is more money being made off patents by medium and big companies -- but that doesn't mean individual examples are particularly rare.
Re:About time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:About time... (Score:4, Interesting)
Limiting filenames to 8.3 is just laziness. Even worse: all filenames used those 11 bytes, even if they didn't need them: how's that for efficiency?
The best option would be to allow the user filenames of any length, and telling him: hey, you can use 255 characters for a name, but remember it costs disk space.
This would require a bit of programming from the side of Microsoft. They didn't do that. They didn't need to, because they sold someone else's creation. And that was, as you mention, QDOS, which isn't named for nothing "Quick & Dirty Operating System". 8.3 is the quick way, not the right way.
And it took Microsoft only twenty years to make it right...
Was this obvious in 1993? (Score:4, Interesting)
Claim:
1. In a computer system having a processor running an operating system and a memory means storing the operating system, a method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
(a) storing in the memory means a first directory entry for a file wherein the first directory entry holds a short filename for the file, said short filename including at most a maximum number of characters that is permissible by the operating system;
(b) storing in the memory means a second directory entry for a the file wherein the second directory entry holds a long filename for the file and wherein the second directory entry includes an attributes field which may be set to make the second directory entry invisible to the operating system and the step of storing the second directory entry further comprises the step of setting the attributes field so that the second directory entry is invisible to the operating system, said long filename including more than the maximum number of characters that is permissible by the operating system; and
(c) accessing the first directory entry with the operating system.
public review period for patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine something like Slashdot, where each patent application gets posted. Anybody (competitor, script kiddie, whatever) is able to post responses, point to prior art, etc. The patent examiner then can take those discussions into account when making a decision. The discussions would have no legal significance other than being a resource for the patent examiner working on that particular patent (well, they might also constitute published prior art for future patent applications and changes to the patent). If the discussions aren't useful, we are no worse off than now. If they are useful, then the patent examiner can more easily weed out bad patents.
This wouldn't even have to be financed by the PTO. Anybody could set it up outside the PTO and put the published patent applications in there. The only thing that would need to change is that the patent examiners would have to get motivated to look at it before making their decision.
Re:In other News... (Score:2, Interesting)
I see no reason why a corporation can't be founded to protect -all- individual details and information.
"Life Product, Inc. - we keep your details safe."
If I owned -stock- in the company that I knew had its soul purpose to protect not just my copyrighted material, but also my general 'life product' as art, then I'd be much happier having mega-corp know my weekly shopping list and able to tune its production/output accordingly
No, sorry (Score:2, Interesting)
plain silly (Score:2, Interesting)
so im starting to wonder if patent laws should be rewritten to cover this fact, and at the same time remove any ability to patent software solutions as that is like patenting a painting technique or music style (oh how the riaa would love that idea)...
Just use FAT, not VFAT (Score:3, Interesting)
So why don't cameras, flash drives, etc, just come with FAT file systems installed? Cameras never need to produce long filenames. Flash drives don't need to produce files at all.
If the user's OS chooses to put some long filenames on the device, that's not being done by the device, it's being done by the OS.
The only devices that should need to worry about this patent are things like MP3 players that display the filenames themselves.