Microsoft's file system patent upheld

update 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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?