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: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40415155729460

Quote:

---

"'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.

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 did...........so 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 :D 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 :D

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?

Cheers