Public Patent Foundation lobbies USPTO to Re-examine the FAT filesystem Patent.
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Public Patent Foundation lobbies USPTO to Re-examine the FAT filesystem Patent.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001

    Public Patent Foundation lobbies USPTO to Re-examine the FAT filesystem Patent.

    They are claiming that the FAT filesystem's patent shouldn't have been issued due to Prior Art. For those unfamiliar with the patent process, when you submit a patent, it must be reviewed and the patent office must examine whether there are any other pre-existing things either already publicly available, or patents issued on the idea. Asking for a review could lead to revoking the patent, which at this point is inconsequential to MS really, considering their operating systems run with NTFS or newer filesystems. It will not really affect any users, as far as I can tell.

    Groklaw has an article on it:
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

  2. #2
    Macht Nicht Aus moxnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Huson Mt.
    "'Free software is licensed in a way that prohibits royalties - you can't pay Microsoft a license and distribute your software under a free software license,' says Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation which has filed the request to invalidate the patent. . . .

    "According to the Public Patent Foundation's request, 'the '517 patent is causing immeasurable injury to the public by serving as a tool to enlarge Microsoft's monopoly while also preventing competition from Free Software.' 'Microsoft is using its control over the interchange of digital media to aid its ongoing effort to deter competition from Free and Open Source Software. Specifically, Microsoft does not offer licenses to the '517 patent for use in Free Software. As such, the '517 patent stands as a potential impediment to the development and use of Free Software because Free Software users are denied the ability to interchange media with machines or devices running Microsoft owned or licensed software.'
    Inconsequential to MS newer operating systems, but perhaps an integrial part in their goal to dominate the software market.
    \"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Champagne in one hand - strawberries in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!\"
    Author Unknown

  3. #3
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Hey this is really interesting isn't it?

    Microsoft don't "use" FAT anymore...........but, if they want to enforce patent rights then they implicitly accept responsibility for support?

    They were forced by commercial pressure to extend support for Win98 etc. so they really want to dump the old "domestic" line that they why not dump the file system patent................then they could say:

    "It is in the public domain sir, and can be supported by third parties for those willing to pay for that, rather than our excellent new systems"

    If they hang on, then they are anal retentives?

    [ Please, no comments about Windows and anal retention I don't want to start another OS flamewar]

    Marketing considerations would suggest making an apparent "magnanimous jesture"

    Ah well, now I have got (gotten) that off my chest, I know I must have remembered to take my cynical pill this morning.........any puns involving "cynical" and "cyanide" will be referred to the RIAA for analysis............I have always wanted an official taster

    Seriously, I find it rather interesting, and would love some legal opinions.........particularly as the technology has actually been sold, rather than pre-emptively patented?


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts