Posted on 10/06/2005 8:45:52 AM PDT by ShadowAce
The U.S. Patent Office has rejected two Microsoft patents over the FAT file format, but the software maker said Wednesday that it's not ready to give up its battle to protect its widely used method for storing data.
The patent office delivered its ruling late last month but made it public this week. With one of the patents, the decision is what's considered a final rejection, while with another it's considered nonfinal. In both cases, Microsoft has the ability to pursue its claims further.
The rejections come after a re-examination of the patents was sought by the Public Patent Foundation, which argued that they were invalid because there was "prior art," that is, evidence that others had done similar work before Microsoft's patent application. A U.S. Patent Office examiner issued a preliminary rejection of one Microsoft patent in September 2004.
Though developed for Windows, the FAT format has become a common means of storing files on all manner of computers, as well as on removable flash memory cards used in digital cameras and other devices. It is also used by the open-source Samba software that lets Linux and Unix computers exchange data with Windows computers, and by Linux itself to read and write files on Windows hard drives.
There has been concern that if the FAT patents are upheld, Microsoft may claim that Linux infringes on Microsoft technology and will seek a royalty. Any monetary compensation could threaten the operating system, which under General Public License (GPL) terms may not be distributed if it contains patented technology that requires royalty payments.
A Microsoft representative said Wednesday that the company considers the latest rejections somewhat of a victory because the examiners have rejected the prior-art claims. Microsoft said the latest rejections are centered on how the inventor of the patents is listed.
"None of the prior art submitted by the Public Patent Foundation stood up under examination," Microsoft Director of Business Development David Kaefer said in a statement. "The issues that have come up in these re-examinations have nothing to do with (non-Microsoft) prior art. Instead, the issues involve a question over whom--at Microsoft--should be properly listed as an inventor."
A Public Patent Foundation representative was not immediately available for comment.
Microsoft announced plans to license the FAT format in December 2003, as part of a stepped-up intellectual-property licensing push. It announced at the time that flash memory seller Lexar Media was taking a license for its FAT format technology.
Partial Tech Ping! If you know of anyone interested, please ping them as well.
BUMP!
Huh?
I thought FAT was developed for DOS and carried forward to Windows.
FAT was a cooperative development.
Microsoft trying to patent this is like someone taking out a copyright on "Happy Birthday". Just plain evil.
Tech ping.
I think they are talking about long file name fat
"Ummm... "Happy Birthday to You" IS copyrighted. "
I know, and I find it offensive since the holder of the copyright did not write the "song". It's taking credit for other's work, and profiting by using the system.
If Microsoft were to get a patent on FAT, I'd see the two as similar, (although Microsoft at least had something to do with FAT).
Suckers
Agreed... I also have a problem with copyrights that last more than fifty years past the death of the holder (or fifty years flat, in the case of a corporation). Why should copyrights get longer protections than patents?
Correct me if I am wrong but Samba has *nothing* to do with fat 32. It uses SMB/CIFS and can communicate with shares of that protocol on NTFS/FAT/EXT3/JFS/XFS/......
I could be wrong, I know samba at the app level not down to the guts..
Microsoft would have you think so, but FAT was really invented by Tim Paterson (who had no connection to Microsoft at the time, but later went to work for the company) for his QDOS operating system.
Microsoft's only legitimate claim to FAT is that they purchased a license for QDOS. They do, however, have some legitimate claim to the later expansion of FAT to support long file names (VFAT), although such a claim isn't of the novel nature sufficent to justify patent protection.
"Microsoft would have you think so, but FAT was really invented by Tim Paterson (who had no connection to Microsoft at the time, but later went to work for the company) for his QDOS operating system."
Ok, it's good to get the history straight. I think I knew that at one time. (Bathtub theory of memory, mine's full).
It just strentghens my point that what Microsoft is trying to do is evil! :)
Uh ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Microsoft better be careful I think they are infringing on SCO's patents. I think this falls under 'Using the treat of lawsuits to extort money out of companies for questionable claims to IP based on licensing'
I wonder if Darl will be sending them a license..
If you are interested in the TECH ping list contact shadowace
Oh come on, let's not be too dramatic. Cutting the heads off of innocent people while videotaping it is evil. Flying planes with people in them into a building to kill thousands is evil. Using chemical weapons on Kurds is evil. Trying to put a patent on technology is business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.