RSSMicrosoft's FAT Patents Upheld
By Nate Mook | Published January 10, 2006, 7:30 PM
Ending a two-year battle over the FAT file system, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has reversed a non-final ruling from October and upheld Microsoft's patents on the technology. Despite the prior setbacks, Microsoft had remained steadfast that it would be victorious all along.
In June of 2004, the USPTO agreed to review the patent after questions arose surrounding its validity. A group known as the Public Patent Foundation disputed Microsoft's claims to FAT in April 2004, saying it had become ubiquitous as a format and found in many devices.
After an initial rejection of the patents in September 2004, the USPTO rejected two patents related to long file names in October 2005. At the time, Microsoft noted that the non-final rejections were based on issues with the inventor named on the patent application, not claims of prior art from PubPat.
"None of the prior art submitted by the Public Patent Foundation stood up under examination. The issues that have come up in these reexaminations have nothing to do with non-Microsoft prior art," David Kaefer, Director of Business Development and IP Licensing, explained in October.
Microsoft has now prevailed and the USPTO is in the process of issuing a "patent re-examination certificate." The company could theoretically seek royalties from companies utilize FAT, including Linux vendors and memory stick manufacturers. Lexar has already licensed the technology from Microsoft.
Saying Microsoft was pleased with Tuesday's decision, Kaefer added that, "This result underscores the validity of these patents but also the importance of allowing third parties to request re-examinations."
Windows is bad, OSX is good. Now go away.
Score: 0
|Just another example of the Golden Rule!
Those with the Gold, make the Rules!
It must be humiliating to be a US citizen these days.
Bar
Canada
Score: 0
|This is a bit of a BS statement in general.
While it is true that he who has the gold makes the rules. However it is your gold they want so you have the gold thus you make the rules. A buyer should never conform to the seller. They should be made to conform to you. The sooner more people realize it's that simple the better off we will be.
It really is that simple too. If we don't buy they go bankrupt so they have a choice. Conform or die.
Score: 0
|>This is a bit of a BS statement in general.<
It is, is it? It appears to me that the US has descended into a corrupt industrial military hegemony where money/power and the religious right rules all, even science and technology.
You no longer have a free press, your leaders are liars & cheats and you are spending trillions YOU DON'T HAVE!
Your country is so indebted to the Muslim Saudis that your future is being sold into virtual dhimmitude by your ruling class.
Your country is known for bullying and backstabbing it's closest partners yet continues to expect respect and obedience and are shocked when it doesn't happen.
As for your statement about it being 'my gold' that Microsoft uses to buy the 'rules';
WRONG!!!
I haven't purchased a Microsoft product in 8 years being a 100% Linux developer/deployer. The problem is I regularly use USB memory sticks and hate the idea that I will be paying for a VFAT license just because your USPO is inept and corrupt.
So, General, it is YOUR country that is out of control and therefore YOUR responsibility to correct the problem. Unless of course the Iranians nuke 'The Land of The Free' back into the 16th century.
Bar
Canada
Score: 0
|i just adout agree with all you said:)
ps, what distro you use?
Score: 0
|>ps, what distro you use?<
Slackware since 1994.
Bar
Canada
Score: 0
|If memory serves me correctly, MS acquired the OS from Digital Research and then hacked it together to make it work for IBM.
While I have paid my dues to use MS products, I would prefer to get away from it all. Maybe it is their (MS) power that scares the bejessus out of me and now with the USPTO upholding their claim to FAT, what do you think MS will now do?
In my opinion they may continue to pad their IP portfolio and then come after everyone, then Mr. Gates will be the Dictator of Technology.
Score: 0
|Check your sources and do some research, buddy... Microsoft didn't buy that from Digital Research (as Digital Research was working on CP/M-86 and was late to make a deal with IBM). MS-DOS "started off as QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) which was developed by Seattle Computer Products to run on IBM's new PC", and later bought by Microsoft (who also hired the guy that wrote it).
Score: 0
|Memory is wrong. DR came about after MS had DOS 1.0. IBM and MS had a disagreement. Then several compatible DOS companies started cropping up, PC-DOS, IBM DOS, Novell DOS, along with Digital Research to compete with MS technolgy, but they were still licensed from MS, because of their FAT technology. Since MS has developed NT/32-bit OS, they no longer support or develop FAT, NTFS is the new preferred standard, and FAT/FAT32 is no longer even being developed or supported by MS, that's where the problem is.. who owns the patent? MS created it, but that doesn't mean they still OWN it, because they essentially gave it away.
Score: 0
|...and today there would be a suit to keep him from working at MS...
Score: 0
|If Mr Bill want license fees from people
using FAT from start, then the patent
should start at that time as well. So it
is now to old. Ok. No money Mr Gate.
Score: 0
|That would be incorrect, read the Generals post below for information regarding the different FAT types.
It doesn't mean what you think it means...
Score: 0
|It would be nice if your story included the original date of the patent and when it expires.
Score: 0
|Over 20 years. It should have expired by now, as I understand it.
Score: 0
|Patents last 20 years.
FAT was created by Microsoft in 1977 for Microsoft Disc BASIC. It was later used in many CP/M clones and DOS operating systems. The FAT file system and the DOS operating system are not the same thing. It has nothing directly to do with QDOS or DR-DOS or CP/M and any of it's clones. The original CP/M did not use the FAT file system. The two evolved along side each other but where never the same thing.
People are also forgetting that there are a few different favors of FAT and not all of them are covered in this.
The original FAT created in 1977 (today known as FAT12) is expired. It's still used today on floppy discs.
FAT16 introduced in 1988 with MS-DOS 4.0 and used into early versions of Windows 95 would be set to expire in 2008. This file system is the most commonly used in flash cards and all them other portable storage devices. The size of those devices is not yet large enough to benefit from FAT32.
VFAT invented around 1991 for Windows 3.11 would be set to expire sometime in 2011.
FAT32 introduced in Windows 95 OSR2 and used into Windows 98 and on and still in use today was created in 1996 and should expire in 2016. Of all the variants I think this is the version MS is most interested in protecting.
Microsoft has a valid claim on the patents though it is questionable why they did not try to in force them years ago. I doubt it has anything to do with charging royalties to people that make flash cards and all that jazz though. If that is the case then there is always the Linux ext2/3 file systems to fall back on.
Score: 0
|I agree with the technical aspects, however I think they are referring to the more general use of FAT, not designed for each type. I believe this applies to the overall technology of the File Allocation Table, not the invidual dynamics of each.
Score: 0
|I looked more into it and Wikipedia has updated it's FAT entry with info on this.
The four patents seem to deal with FAT versions that support LFN's. So VFAT and FAT32 (Versions used in Win 95/98/ME/XP).
Still a lot of questions though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ion_Table#FAT_licensing
Score: 0
|Why can anyone get a patent on something that they released over 20 years ago (if it was part of Microsoft BASIC, that'd have been around 1976-78, nearly 30 years ago) and then allowed to become the defacto standard.
If this is related to long file name support ONLY, and not the FAT file system, then maybe that is fair. And all the camera manufacturers can remove long filename support (they don't need it anyway). Specialised devices can have their own filesystem. The only issue is interoperability with Windows, which will never ship with any support for anything that could cut revenue for Microsoft (25 cents a device up to a maximum of $250,000). Okay for Apple - they'd pay $250,000 once, over the 100 million iPods they'll eventually sell that'd be 0.25 cents per device. Sucks for the other manufacturers though, but not by much.
Score: 0
|Who cares about this or that other file system?
They did DOS.
If you use DOS then pay the royalty.
Pretty simple actually.
Score: 0
|Bill Gates invented it. That's all you need to know.
Score: 0
|Fine, he invented it.
Score: 0
|That's stupid, it's so widely used now they shouldn't be able to suddenly say "that's ours and you have to pay us royalties for using it". Wasn't FAT basically a modifed version of the CP/M file system anyway?
Score: 0
|Hmm, I confess I'm ignorant of whether it is modified from CP/M or not, but nor do I see any indication that Microsoft intends to use their patent to the ends that you mention either. The effort so far as I've understood it is that A) they are protecting their patents against other patent wh***s (please pardon the expression) so that they aren't sued, and B) they are trying to prove a point about the patent process.
Score: 0
|Why is that stupid? Yes, it's widely used now. That does not meant that it's not valid IP for Microsoft.
Widely used = widely infringed if the IP is deemed valid.
Imagine you invented something and a million people copied it the very next day - is your IP invalid because it's now widely used?
Score: 0
|No it is not based on the CP/M file system. FAT was invented by Bill Gates for managing discs in Microsoft Disc BASIC. The file system was later incorporated into various CP/M clones including Microsoft's later on. FAT is what gave the CP/M clones the advantage over the actual CP/M.
Score: 0
|If I invented it and a million people copied it the next day I would of course be able to claim infringement. But I should not be able to claim infringement after saying nothing for several years until it was used everywhere.
Score: 0
|Indeed... or go after only the companies with large cash flows despite other apps that are doing the same thing and don't have as deep pockets... coughEolascough, etc etc.
Score: 0
|There should be a statue of limitations.
Score: 0
|If Bill Gates invented FAT, then what file system did QDOS (before Microsoft bought DOS) use?
Score: 0
|The term of the patent shall be generally 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), from the date of the earliest such application was filed, and subject to the payment of maintenance fees as provided by law. A maintenance fee is due 3 1/2, 7 1/2 and 11 1/2 years after the original grant for all patents issuing from the applications filed on and after December 12, 1980. The maintenance fee must be paid at the stipulated times to maintain the patent in force. After the patent has expired anyone may make, use, offer for sale, or sell or import the invention without permission of the patentee, provided that matter covered by other unexpired patents is not used. The terms may be extended for certain pharmaceuticals and for certain circumstances as provided by law.
Score: 0
|Well, if Microsoft bought QDOS and it used FAT then Microsoft bought FAT too. :-)
Score: 0
|Not neccessarily. If they bought a technology that was not licensed for FAT, then they bought technology that isn't theirs to keep.
Much like buying an automobile company. Some cars may have built in technology, but that doesn't mean that company OWNS the technology. Maybe the company that created FAT had an agreement with MS over FAT, and they want their technology back..
You ASSUME they bought the rights to everything. And QDOS was DR -DOS, wich was bought by IBM, not MS.
Score: 0
|Cool.
Score: 0
|WOW, way to get your facts 100% wrong! LOL
QDos was purchased by Microsoft, google it.
PC-DOS was killed by IBM.
DR-DOS (Digital Research DOS) was purchased by Novell -> Caldera -> SCO and became OPENDOS.
Score: 0
|