Comments on: Microsoft's Linux-related patents rejected

U.S. Patent Office rejects claims on popular FAT storage format, used in the open-source OS. But software giant can pursue issue further.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

'nother misleading headline.

Is there *ANY* editorial oversite at CNET?

[aabcdefghij987654321]

'nother misleading headline.

Is there *ANY* editorial oversite at CNET?

Another error

There's nothing in SAMBA that uses FAT. SAMABA use the native filesystem and SMB.

Another error

There's nothing in SAMBA that uses FAT. SAMABA use the native filesystem and SMB.

FAT Developed For Windows?

So what is the next rewrite of history?

Qwerty developed for Keyboards!!!?

No, QDOS...

The FAT filesystem was first released by Seattle
Computer Systems for QDOS -- a quasi-ripoff of
CP/M written for their 8086 computer kits -- in
1980. FAT is 25 years old and itself not
patentable.

Microsoft's patent claims all revolve around
using long filenames in a FAT filesystem that
wouldn't otherwise support it (they have 4
patents on that). It's the ability to use long
filenames on a FAT filesystem that they are
attempting to assert rights over.

No, QDOS...

The FAT filesystem was first released by Seattle
Computer Systems for QDOS -- a quasi-ripoff of
CP/M written for their 8086 computer kits -- in
1980. FAT is 25 years old and itself not
patentable.

Microsoft's patent claims all revolve around
using long filenames in a FAT filesystem that
wouldn't otherwise support it (they have 4
patents on that). It's the ability to use long
filenames on a FAT filesystem that they are
attempting to assert rights over.

FAT Developed For Windows?

So what is the next rewrite of history?

Qwerty developed for Keyboards!!!?

No, QDOS...

The FAT filesystem was first released by Seattle
Computer Systems for QDOS -- a quasi-ripoff of
CP/M written for their 8086 computer kits -- in
1980. FAT is 25 years old and itself not
patentable.

Microsoft's patent claims all revolve around
using long filenames in a FAT filesystem that
wouldn't otherwise support it (they have 4
patents on that). It's the ability to use long
filenames on a FAT filesystem that they are
attempting to assert rights over.

No, QDOS...

The FAT filesystem was first released by Seattle
Computer Systems for QDOS -- a quasi-ripoff of
CP/M written for their 8086 computer kits -- in
1980. FAT is 25 years old and itself not
patentable.

Microsoft's patent claims all revolve around
using long filenames in a FAT filesystem that
wouldn't otherwise support it (they have 4
patents on that). It's the ability to use long
filenames on a FAT filesystem that they are
attempting to assert rights over.

Crossover

Is it time to reclassify intellectual property? Does it qualify for a patent or copyright? Maybe a hybrid. Regardless, I have a like-hate view of Microsoft. I would hate to see open source hamstrung because FAT got a patent. I'm glad computing became accessable in part because of MS-DOS, Windows, etc... Money has made Microsoft mad. If it weren't for frustration with Microsoft I never would have gotten interested in Minix and subsequently Linux.

[fireball74]

Intellectual property....

It's a term that tries to blur the lines between and encompass patents, copyrights, and the like. It's a term usually used to confuse the masses, some how making it sound more impressive. Let's just say, in the court of law, if I were questioned about "Intellectual Property" I'd have to ask "What kind?" because it's to broad of a term.

I really, honestly, hope M$ doesn't win this one. Not that I don't believe in compensation, but come on. The FAT file system has been out since 1980, starting with FAT12 in QDOS. You can read the history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table. To be honest, they didn't invent it. They took someone else's idea, stole it, and expanded on it. To be quite honest with you, Linux doesn't use FAT anymore compiled into the kernel. Instead, it's included in a driver that can easily be separated from the kernel. If it become encumbered, simply remove the driver and no harm done.

Crossover

Is it time to reclassify intellectual property? Does it qualify for a patent or copyright? Maybe a hybrid. Regardless, I have a like-hate view of Microsoft. I would hate to see open source hamstrung because FAT got a patent. I'm glad computing became accessable in part because of MS-DOS, Windows, etc... Money has made Microsoft mad. If it weren't for frustration with Microsoft I never would have gotten interested in Minix and subsequently Linux.

[fireball74]

Intellectual property....

It's a term that tries to blur the lines between and encompass patents, copyrights, and the like. It's a term usually used to confuse the masses, some how making it sound more impressive. Let's just say, in the court of law, if I were questioned about "Intellectual Property" I'd have to ask "What kind?" because it's to broad of a term.

I really, honestly, hope M$ doesn't win this one. Not that I don't believe in compensation, but come on. The FAT file system has been out since 1980, starting with FAT12 in QDOS. You can read the history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table. To be honest, they didn't invent it. They took someone else's idea, stole it, and expanded on it. To be quite honest with you, Linux doesn't use FAT anymore compiled into the kernel. Instead, it's included in a driver that can easily be separated from the kernel. If it become encumbered, simply remove the driver and no harm done.

[Bill Dautrive]

Too funny

Only Microsoft would have chutzpah to try and patent something they didn't invent, or is even unique.

At its basics, FAT is an array of pointers. Are they going to try to patent simple data structures next?

This should make open source fans/users happy. That Microsofts only way to compete against open source is to sleaze around in the shadows, trying to take sucker punches. They can not come out and compete fairly, side by side.

[Bill Dautrive]

Too funny

Only Microsoft would have chutzpah to try and patent something they didn't invent, or is even unique.

At its basics, FAT is an array of pointers. Are they going to try to patent simple data structures next?

This should make open source fans/users happy. That Microsofts only way to compete against open source is to sleaze around in the shadows, trying to take sucker punches. They can not come out and compete fairly, side by side.