RSSUSPTO to Review Microsoft FAT Patent
By Nate Mook | Published June 11, 2004, 7:49 PM
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has agreed to a request that it reexamine a patent granted to Microsoft covering the FAT (File Allocation Table) file system used in Windows.
A non-profit group called The Public Patent Foundation asked the USPTO in April to revoke the patent on grounds that FAT has become a ubiquitous format found in numerous devices. FAT is also used by the open source community to provide communication between Windows and UNIX-based systems.
Microsoft announced last year that it was looking to license FAT, sparking fears Redmond would wield its legal prowess against the fledgling Linux market.
"We are obviously very pleased with the Patent Office's decision to grant our request to reexamine Microsoft's FAT patent," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director and Founder, in a statement. "This is the first step towards ending the harm being caused to the public by this patent that should have never been issued."
Microsoft said the review would give the company a chance to prove the legitmacy of its patent.
"At this point, we have the opportunity to demonstrate why this file system innovation deserves patent protection," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's intellectual property and licensing group, in a statement. "The USPTO often grants reexamination requests and they provide an important mechanism to assure high levels of patent quality."
There are a lot more stupid patents to review and revoke. USPTO is doing a realy terrible job. They accepts just any patent as long as they get dirty money for it. And patents like this do nothing but stop development and advancement of humanity.
Score: 0
|They actually invented the FAT format, so why dont they deserve a patent on this format?
They dont have a patent on filesystems at all, but just FAT.
Patents are good if you only can patent a special thing, patent rar and not the idea to compress a file.
I dont see a bad thing on that.
Score: 0
|FAT is Microsoft's own proprietary file system. It is *not* a reimplementation of other existing file systems, as others in this forum have mentioned erroneously. MS should be able to patent FAT. End of discussion. Third-party file system software and appliances should make use of modern, STANDARD file systems for interchange, such as the ISO/ECMA/OSTA UDF file system! All modern operating systems (and DVD/Blu-ray hardware) support a minimum of UDF 1.02. UDF also has the following advantages over FAT: freely-available specification, file system scalability, special provisions for cross-platform interchange, and additional file system robustness (in later versions of UDF). As I see it, Microsoft's exercise of their patent rights in this particular instance only serves to push the multimedia industry towards adopting a modern standard. Is that so bad?
Score: 0
|"to assure high levels of patent quality"
Yeah, right. I fails to believe any sw patent obtained by m$ in the last decade to be anything more than ridiculous. And it's not just m$'s fault, it's the USPTO's as well.
It isn't the way to grant all amusing and ridiculous patents then wait for someone to challenge them. I suppose the peeps working at USPTO on investigating filed patents get a fair payment to do their jobs. So they should just do their jobs and things could change for the better (hopefully).
Score: 0
|So you believe all Software patents are stupid?
Patents protect products that were uniquely invented that took tons of time to research and create. Why is software any different?
Score: 0
|I can think of three reasons for denying a patent to Microsoft (or any other company in such a position):
1. FAT was a re-interpretation of the CPM filesystem, in much the same way that WMP is a recreation of Winamp, or that IE was a clone of Netscape;
2. Patents were never designed to protect inventions on a permanent basis; ten to fifteen years is deemed enough to protect drug patients. For the good of society at large, generic drugs can be created after such a time period.
3. Undefended patients that become generic are good for commercial competition. Microsoft are a very dominant player in the computing field, the use of legal tricks to attempt to bully smaller players is anti-competative.
4. FAT uses other international standards such as ASCII and could be regarded as an "interpretation" of these, not a true invention.
Score: 0
|"1. FAT was a re-interpretation of the CPM filesystem, in much the same way that WMP is a recreation of Winamp, or that IE was a clone of Netscape;"
That whole post needs to be deleted or replaced with fact instead of fiction.
Score: 0
|I don't believe in software patents. I believe this because the majority of software patents aren't software patents they are idea patents. For example someone patented the idea of an online auction and ebay had to pay millions to stay in business. Is that a patentable? no, all they did was patent the idea of a business!!! That is complete absurd! All you have to do is think of an everyday thing and add "with a computer" on the end and there you go! Is it fair for someone to patent the way in which you keep your files organized in a filing cabinet and then go after business which use your filing system? Why should it be any different on a computer? I believe you should be able to patent the code for it, and keep it protected and license it, but the idea and the way you do it should not be patentable. Its like patenting the idea of a air conditioner. You can't, but you can patent the specific way in which it works and if people figure out how it works and makes a new one that uses the same ideas but different parts is completely legal and legit! In conclusion, software patents are stupid the vast majority are idea patents and should be revoked!
Score: 0
|I could argue either way about wether or not software patents should exist, but the fact is THEY DO. Microsoft has money for a reason, and it's not because they steal it all--that's not the point and I'd rather not argue over a deadlock issue--the point is Microsoft is where it is and we can't punish them for having more money than other companies (I say that, but--well, we SHOULDN'T punish microsoft for having more money, anyway.)
Score: 0
|the fact is: MOST of the stuff M$ has produced, is based on someone else's idea. Even the original DOS was bought by Bill Gates from someone else. When Bill bought that, he didn't buy the file system too. He doesn't deserve this patent.
Score: 0
|Even there were such thing as patent for FAT.
However it's already expired, it's a fair competition therefore Microsoft can't do no sh!t about it.
More people will sue Microsoft if they do.
Score: 0
|no.. just 99.99% of them..
Score: 0
|