Microsoft's file system patent upheld

Two patents covering one of Microsoft's main Windows file-storage systems are valid after all, federal patent examiners have decided.

The decision, announced Tuesday by the software giant, effectively ends a two-year saga over the patents and reverses two non-final rulings--the latest issued in October--in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected Microsoft's claims.

In their latest action, filed last week, the examiners concluded that the company's File Allocation Table (FAT) file system is, in fact, "novel and non-obvious," entitling it to patentability. Now the office is in the process of issuing a "patent re-examination certificate," which signals the finality of the decision, a Microsoft representative said.

The FAT file system, a common means of storing files, was originally developed for the DOS operating system, but has also been employed in Microsoft's Windows and on removable flash memory cards used in digital cameras and other devices. Some Linux- and Unix-related products also use the system to exchange data with Windows.

The Patent Office agreed to re-examine two patents covering the FAT system at the request of a little-known public interest group called the Public Patent Foundation in April 2004.

That organization claimed there was "prior art" that proved Microsoft was not the first company to come up with the file format.

It also voiced concern that Microsoft would try to seek royalties from companies that sell and support Linux for using the technology, potentially posing a threat to the free software community. Under the terms of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License, Linux cannot be distributed if it contains patented technology that requires royalty payments.

Microsoft indicated in the past that it would license the file format. In December 2003, it said it had struck such a deal with flash memory vendor Lexar Media.

The Patent Office's final decision followed several non-binding decisions that were unfavorable to Microsoft. After issuing its preliminary rejection of the patents in September 2004, examiners handed down a similar decision about a year later.

All along, Microsoft voiced confidence that the patents would be upheld. David Kaefer, the company's director of business development, said Tuesday that the company was "very pleased" with the office's final decision. "This result underscores the validity of these patents but also the importance of allowing third parties to request re-examinations," he said in a statement.

Public Patent Foundation President Dan Ravicher said his organization disagreed with the Patent Office's conclusions and offered a broader critique.

"Microsoft has won a debate where they were the only party allowed to speak, in that the patent re-examination process bars the public from rebutting arguments made by Microsoft," he told CNET News.com. "We still believe these patents are invalid and that a process that gave the public equal time to present its positions would result in them being found as such."

CNET News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this report.

[sanenazok]

Dump FAT

I can't beleive that people still insist on support of this fragmentable mess. Hope MS starts seeking money and some better/open source file system will be the result.

[baswwe]

you are missing the point

Linux uses it to give it the ability to mount a windows FAT hard drive and read and write(?) data to it. Thats the only reason why they are supporting
this "Fragmentable mess". Any any other device maker makes the Flash cards with that file type for easy reading in Windows.

Why don't we pay royalties to Microsoft for the software we write on it?

[hadaso]

Pay M$ to access your files

So if your filenames are longer than 8 characters (plus 3 character extension) then you will need to pay Microsoft to access them. Now everyone go and rename all your files when renaming is still free!

[baswwe]

you are missing the point

Linux uses it to give it the ability to mount a windows FAT hard drive and read and write(?) data to it.

Why don't we pay royalties to Microsoft for the software we write on it?

[macemoneta]

Excellent!

Maybe now people will stop using the FAT-crap and switch to ext2 (which is also available for Windows and Mac users).

[joshuaguttman]

Totally stupid!

The people in the patent office are a bunch of techno-handicapped morons. The FAT technology is INCREDIBLY obvious if you actually learn what a FAT table is. You got several series of data on a disk. You'd like to reference that series of data by a friendly name. It would be nice if you could chain different pieces of that series of data together into a, wait for it - here comes the ingenious part, file. Oh, and it would be nice if we could set a series of really simple attributes about this data stream. Also, I'd like several relatively simple compression methods for various values in the FAT. Oh, yeah, lastly, can we have a hierarchy of files?

Wow man, get Ray Kurzweil on the phone. This is the ground-breaking stuff we should all be working on!

[FutureGuy]

Who stupid?

How much do you know about patents? Most patents seem pretty straight forward and obvious after they are filed. Ohh pass electricity through a filament, put glass around it and remove any oxygen to prevent oxidation and there you have a light bulb. I am sure that was a stupid patent too. Go home.

[David Arbogast]

Totally....... ??

<<The people in the patent office are a bunch of techno-handicapped morons. The FAT technology is INCREDIBLY obvious if you actually learn what a FAT table is.>>


Yes... SO obvious that numerous different filesystems are in use all over the world in a multitude of systems, and this patent only covers FAT. Think about it...

[protagonistic]

The FAT file system, was originally developed for Windows

UH, last time I checked FAT was originally developed for DOS, not
Windows. And the patent office doesn't get out much if they think
it was new and innovative at the time. I guess it is about time that
FAT was allowed to R.I.P.

[guinnessguy]

Uh

Perhaps that's why the article says "The FAT file system, a common means of storing files, was originally developed for the DOS operating system, but has also been employed in Microsoft's Windows and on removable flash memory cards used in digital cameras and other devices." ?

[t8]

FAT

Funny that it was called FAT and Microsoft are well known for software bloat.

Could just be a coincendence.

[t8]

FAT

Funny that it was called FAT and Microsoft are well known for software bloat.

Could just be a coincidence.

[t8]

Microsoft is a 90s phenomenon

In a world of Internet, open source, and weblications, Microsoft is showing the world that they are holding onto old technology and getting as much cash from their inadequate bloated technology as possible. They are only reinforcing to the world that they are not moving forward with Web2. In the end the perception will be Microsoft is about boxed expensive lock in software (a 90s phenomenon) while Google and Co are true Internet companies not only moving with the times, but actually pioneering new ground on the Web.

It will soon be about Windows vs the Internet. It won't be hard to pick the winner. Microsoft will not do anything to harm Windows, FAT, and their rip-off bloatware. But the Web will move in leaps and bounds because of the shear number of innovators on that platform and it's open nature.

[walt121]

90s and the present

In most user applications, the difference between local file access and a round-trip across the Internet will continue to make Windows (and other operating system) software superior to Internet applications. Internet applications are frustrating to use, because of the lag. Outlook is a good example -- because someone sent a 1 meg attachment to all employees, everyone in my building thought Outlook had frozen a few days ago.

This is why we do not use online word processors or spreadsheets. The time to load the application or the continuing round-trips every few characters make it too dreadful for words. Microsoft does see that the continued growth of the Internet could threaten Windows and Office, which is why they have been integrating networking components into the OS and the office suite. Examples include IE and Outlook Express, plus the new client-server functionality in more recent versions of MS Office. Do not dismiss their determination to persevere. They will be around a long time.

[Gayle Edwards]

Microsoft DID NOT invent the "File-System"...

...but, you can sure bet that Microsoft WILL use this (in my opinion, obscene) "final Patent decision" as a DEADLY-WEAPON to eliminate competition, lock-in customers, and forcibly-extract revenue, which is NOT, truly, due them.

After all, based upon their [Microsofts] established-history, that IS what Microsoft does best.

Honestly, there are so many things wrong with this "...decision...", I just dont know where to begin.

First, the "FAT" was created as part of "DOS", ...NOT any version of "Windows". Any, statement to the contrary demonstrates a COMPLETE-IGNORANCE of virtually ANY FACTS related to the "computer industry".

Second, "DOS" was basically a copy of "CP/M". In fact, Microsoft bought "Q/DOS" ("the Quick and Dirty Operating System") from "Seattle Computer Products" and licensed it to "IBM" as "DOS". Microsoft did this because they wanted to get into the "OS" market with the "IBM-PC", ...and Microsoft desperately needed an 8086-compatible "Operating System", which they just could not produce to meet their contractual-obligations. Previously, Microsoft primarily produced "programming Languages" and a version of "CP/M" which they, themselves, licensed from others.

Third, the "FAT" is nothing more than a "vector-table". This idea existed prior to Microsofts use. A "File Allocation Table" is, and was, rather obvious. Furthermore, Microsofts particular implementation of a "FAT" was just "basic-engineering", using "...well-established techniques". All of which are supposed to legally-preclude "Patent-ability".

So, the earlier "non-binding" conclusions WERE clearly, correct, (according to virtually every non-Microsoft "expert", anyway) both legally and technically.

Id say, that this "final-decision" made at the highest-level, ...at the last minute, ...after all the overwhelming evidence which completely discredited "Microsofts Patent", pretty much will be used to hand the entire computer-industry (indeed, pretty much the entire Digital-world), squarely back to the multi-billion-dollar company (whose single greatest legacy is their repeated copying and even, legally-established, "theft" of other peoples creations for the express purpose of "market-manipulation").

And, I guess its just a coincidence that this "decision" would also just happen to give Microsoft the power to nearly-completely crush "Linux", the "...number-one competitive threat" (according to Microsofts "internal" memos) to Microsofts ILLEGAL-MONOPOLY.

Somehow, I really dont think that such GROSS INCOMPETENCE on the part of "the Patent Office" could possibly be an accident. Nor, based upon the FACTS, did I really think that anyone else would have actually believed that this could possibly have been the "Final" outcome, in this matter.

Maybe, that was the point...

[rwklein]

Patent Office

I have also been to Brussels 3 times and mixed in the discussion on software patents here in Europe.
Of course we look closely at the US patent office.

Also the patent office here in Europe seems to have a very broad interpretation about the term "none obvious". Looking at how many patents are awarded it seems that everthing deserves a patent. Some other examples simply make you laugh your self to bits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418165.stm
"A circulair transportation device"

And before you go to the toilet, get a ticket..
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2123791,00.htm

So watch out the most obvious things are patented!

The first bad thing is that in the E.U. parlement 1/3 of the parlement members have a strong legal background (read lawyers). In the end the only people who realy benefit from patenets are lawyers. Also goverments seem to believe that more patents means more innovation. Just imagen if the IT industry would have had patents from the beginning. We would still be using a 286 with green screens (oke a bit overdone).

Another fine example of broad patents are the patents from Acacia research:
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_dmt.htm

"DMT technology". These patents are so extremely broad in there claims. From the link above:

"Acacia?s Digital Media Transmission or ?DMT®? technology involves the transmission and receipt of digital audio and/or audio video content via a variety of means including the internet, cable, satellite, and local area networks. Elements of the DMT® transmission process include a source material library, identification encoding process, format conversion, sequence encoding, compressed data storage, and transmission. Elements of the DMT® receiving process include a transceiver, format conversion, storage, decompression, and playback."

And how much research have other companies not been putting in code for MP3, MPEG, Divx, WMA, Realplayer format (just to metioned a few).

An exanple:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=acacia.AS.&OS=AN/acacia&RS=AN/acacia


And yeh your video and or audio stream can be transmitted over "the internet, cable, satellite, and local area networks."

I gues I need to start using smoke signals again :-)

"Elements of the DMT® transmission process include a source material library, identification encoding process"

Notice the broad wording "a source material",
"encoding process"...

The E.U. patent office has a history of approving crap patents. But the US patent also has some jewls: US patent 6,080,436
"Bread refreshing Method" or "Method of swinging on a swing". You realy wonder how many people are "skilled in the art" at the patent office looking and the kind of "none obvious" patents that get approved.

[IanThain]

Says it all.

Says it all. But "how many divisions does the Pope have?"

[googlesaurus]

Never to be enforced

Calm down, chill out, or have a drink and relax.

I would say chances of MS enforcing this patent to be less than zero...

They would have done all this 20 years ago and killed off all the competition if that was their goal.

It's more a matter of MS protecting themselves from another corporation attempting to sue themselves to profitability by being granted the same patent.

It was simply cheaper to go thru the patent process than fight about it in court.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Software patents didn't exist 20 years ago...

Copyright protected software. Software patents
are a modern phenomenon. Unfortunately.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Is it this patent? (long filenames)

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,579,517.WKU.&OS=PN/5,579,517&RS=PN/5,579,517

[joecr]

re:Is it this patent? (long filenames)

According to http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp they are talking about 3 Patents U.S. Patent #5,579,517, U.S. Patent #5,758,352, & U.S. Patent #6,286,013

So

[zaznet]

FAT is much like older systems.

Anyone who has ever been down to the byte level of disks on older systems such as CPM or Commodore 64's knows that FAT is nothing new.

The first time I edited a FAT table using some older DOS tools I recall feeling right at home from my previous experiences on the C-64.

[bumpurcs]

C64 for sure

Yeah, I even still have my old basic code that lets you display the FAT on the old 1541 disk drives. You had file attributes, filenames, etc. GEOS had long file names, that ran on C64 as well. I _KNOW_ that was way prior to this patent.
Wonder if www.commodore.net knows, maybe they could get some cash out of M$.

[robertcampbell2]

God, so many experts..

A few points...

From Wikepedia
"The FAT filesystem was invented by Bill Gates and Marc McDonald in 1977 for managing disks in Microsoft Disk BASIC and was incorporated by Tim Paterson in August 1980 to his 86-DOS operating system for the S-100 8086 CPU boards"

The Public Patent Foundation failed to show prior art. They lost plain and simple.

From Cnet
Microsoft holds approximately 27 patents to technology used in Linux.

Given that that Microsoft is the market leader by a huge margin over Linux, it doesn't seem likely that it would, or needs to go after Linux using patents. Doing so would lead to a protracted, expensive legal battle and create a PR nightmare of Microsoft. Besides, just saying that it has the patents is enough to make many CEO's shy away from Linux.

It's just business.

[3147]

Microsoft's VFAT patents have been ruled invalid in the EU on the grounds that they were both obvious and trumped by prior art in the form of the CD rockRidge extensions. They were ruled invalid in the US as well twice on the same grounds, only to be overturned in a final ruling. I guess Bill Gates father's firm's influence with the Bush administration legislators go pretty deep.

[rcsteiner]

Is this about FAT, or about VFAT on FAT32?

The story does a very poor job of defining the scope of the patent in question.

[El Dominicano]

FAT, Commodore and other computers

MS patented the fat system in 1977. Commodore used Microsoft Basic OS. Commodore cannot claim anything since they were using MS operating system.
Most computers in thoses days had a version of Microsoft basic as their OS, ie. Apple, Altair, Commodore, etc.

[Jake Leone]

Microsoft destroys free press in China, makes Apple's '1984' add come true

Microsoft recently, at the mere request of a Chinese government official. Deleted the blog of a journalist based in China.

This blog was located on U.S. Soil.

This blog contained useful, wholesome, information, honest information.

This blog did not violate any laws, in China or in the world.

This blog contained public information on the suppressive activities of the Chinese government.

This blog was protected by the U.S. constitution. As it was located on U.S. soil and read by U.S. readers.

This blog could well have been useful to many people around the world (not just China).

Microsoft is partnering with the Chinese government to eliminate the free press in China.

We know the name of Big Brother, his name is Bill.

[Earl Benser]

Sort of....

Microsoft recently, at the mere request of a Chinese government
official. Deleted the blog of a journalist based in China.
>> True, but 'mere request' is a biased characterization

This blog was located on U.S. Soil.
>> Where is any blog located?? The Internet is world wide, as in
world wide web.

This blog contained useful, wholesome, information, honest
information.
>> Matter of opinion. This is yours. The CHinese government
has a different one.

This blog did not violate any laws, in China or in the world.
>> No proven violation, anyhow.

This blog contained public information on the suppressive
activities of the Chinese government.
>> Claims, yes. Actual 'information' requires verification, not
that it couldn't be verified.

This blog was protected by the U.S. constitution. As it was
located on U.S. soil and read by U.S. readers.
>> Location question again, plus the basic argument of whether
or not blogs qualify as any sort of protected journalism. Both
questions are likely to be negatively decided.

This blog could well have been useful to many people around
the world (not just China).
>> Never a criteria for a blog.

Microsoft is partnering with the Chinese government to
eliminate the free press in China.
>> Pure BS and any rational person knows it. MS does have a
need to develop its entry into the CHinese market and rule
number one is "Don't **** Off The Chinese'. Work around them
instead.

We know the name of Big Brother, his name is Bill.
>> If he was that smart, Windows would be a much better OS.

;-)

[reustle]

Patent duration

As in post 27, there was a question about when the royalties start.

I have a simmiliar but diffent question.
When will MS-patent expire?

[jp51552]

When ...?

It will for all practicle purposes NEVER expire.

Disney's for Mickey Mouse's should have expired in the late Nineties but congress changed the rules and extended it to basicly as long as the company exists.

The same will happen with this.

BTW
BEFORE there was even an IBM PC there was the Tandy-Radio Shack Model I PC. It's DOS (NOT to be confused with MS-DOS) used a GAT - Granule Allocation Table. Which was also a vector table. It's last iteration TRSDOS 6.2 was a MUCH better OS than MS-DOS ever was (or will be for that matter.)