decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Microsoft's FAT Patent Rejected by Patent Office, At PubPat's Request
Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 07:43 AM EDT

Are you sitting down? The Patent Office has rejected Microsoft's FAT patent in the reexamination proceeding initiated earlier this year by Dan Ravicher's Public Patent Foundation, PubPat. As you can see, Daniel Lyons' unfounded mockery of Mr. Ravicher's credentials was misguided. Here's what Ravicher says about this development, "I hope those companies that chose to take a license from Microsoft for the patent negotiated refund clauses so that they can get their money back." Microsoft has the opportunity to respond, but it's uphill for them now.

Oh, and for the rest of you skeptics, Munich has decided to go forward with its GNU/Linux switch.

Here's the PubPat press release. For contact info, click on the above link.

***********************

At PUBPAT's Request, Patent Office Rejects Microsoft's FAT Patent

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 30, 2004

At PUBPAT's Request, Patent Office Rejects Microsoft's FAT Patent: All Claims of Reynolds '517 Patent Ruled Invalid

NEW YORK -- In the reexamination proceeding initiated earlier this year by the Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT"), the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected all of the claims of Microsoft's patent on the FAT file system, which Microsoft describes as "the ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers, and, since the advent of inexpensive, removable flash memory, also between digital devices."

Relying predominantly on evidence provided by PUBPAT when the reexamination was requested, the Patent Office made multiple rejections of the Redmond, WA based software giant's patent. Microsoft has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection, but third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT, are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.

"The Patent Office has simply confirmed what we already knew for some time now, Microsoft's FAT patent is bogus," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "I hope those companies that chose to take a license from Microsoft for the patent negotiated refund clauses so that they can get their money back."

More information about the reexamination of Microsoft's FAT patent, including a copy of the Patent Office's Office Action rejecting all of its claims, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm.


  


Microsoft's FAT Patent Rejected by Patent Office, At PubPat's Request | 165 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections here
Authored by: spuluka on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:05 AM EDT
If needed.

---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft won't get fat from FAT.
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:11 AM EDT
This is a good start. Perhaps a few losses like this will disuade Microsoft,
and others from using their patents as weapons. Hopefully it will embolden weak
companies from paying a technology tax to bogus patent holders - just as the
communities positions on SCO have kept companies from purchasing SCOSource
licensing.

I think with this kind of stuff, patents & SCO you could use a saying my
wife does to our kids:

"See, God doesn't like ugly."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's FAT Patent Rejected by Patent Office, At PubPat's Request
Authored by: entre on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:12 AM EDT
This is the first of the most important challenges.
There has to be a file structure to pass data openly and MS did not invent it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How are software patents advantageous to the USA?
Authored by: billyskank on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:14 AM EDT
In the Munich article, there is this:

"SAP's chief executive, Henning Kagermann, has been an outspoken advocate
of European software patents, arguing that the current position puts Europe at a
disadvantage to the United States, where software can be patented."

I don't yet understand this argument. How does not having software patents put
Europe at a disadvantage to the States?

---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

License from Microsoft
Authored by: spuluka on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:14 AM EDT
"The Patent Office has simply confirmed what we already knew for some time
now, Microsoft's FAT patent is bogus," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's
Executive Director. "I hope those companies that chose to take a license
from Microsoft for the patent negotiated refund clauses so that they can get
their money back."

I'm sure this is just press release hyperbole. We do know that the Microsoft
patent license and cross licensing deals are done based on their entire
portfolio, not on a single patent basis.

---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software repeal movement needed
Authored by: dyfet on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT
While it is certainly useful to invalidate a given patent where possible to do so under existing law, this is not a solution to the problem of software patents. At best, it means a few less existing land mines, meanwhile companies continue creating ever larger minefields that can be used against the practice of independently writing and expressing ideas through software.

What we urgently need in this nation is not an effort to improve the quality of the USPTO, but rather an organized effort to advocate for active repealing software patents. Doing anything less will condemn future generations of software authors to slavery. While removing a few mines is helpful in the short term, and genuine patent "reform" is needed as well, simply doing these things alone would do little for the software profession as a whole other than make those collers chafe a little less.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here please.
Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT
Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Donation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:33 AM EDT
I think PubPat deserves a donation.
I just gave them $25 bucks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Donation - Authored by: lazy on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:55 AM EDT
    • Donation - Authored by: IrisScan on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
      • Donation - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 05:16 AM EDT
  • Donation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 12:55 PM EDT
  • Donation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 01:03 PM EDT
Reading the USPTO reply recommended
Authored by: macrorodent on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT

I found reading the Patent Office's decision (scanned document as PDF is linked at Pubpats' site) quite educational, in that it demonstrates how the patent office interprets prior art in a situation like this. It is not long a long read, just 17 pages of actual text.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's FAT Patent Rejected by Patent Office, At PubPat's Request
Authored by: park0009 on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:09 AM EDT
I would not make too much of the PTO's rejection of the claims of the MS FAT patent because:
As a background matter, the PTO standard for granting reexamination requests is -- whether the newly cited prior art raises "a substantial new question of patentability" affecting any of the patent claims.
Since the PTO granted reexamination, it must have determined that the newly cited prior art raised "a substantial new question of patentability".
Thus, it is almost a given that the first office action by the PTO would be a rejection of the patent claims, otherwise, the PTO should not have granted reexamination.
Now that the first office action issued, the interesting part of the reexamination process begins -- how will MS respond.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Downside for MS
Authored by: lightsail on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:19 AM EDT
This is my take of the downside for MS:

We developed the technology to use, not to patent- no loss

We spent a pittance to apply for patent - no great loss

We still have a huge number of patents and patents pending -no loss

One change to patent law, if we cannot get the patenting of software stopped, is
to have penalty for patent abuse or allow companies that have a bogus patent
impact their product to sue for damages based on the claims of the patent. In
this case, every FAT user could form a class and sue MS based on the premise
that the bogus patent made them liable even if MS did not pursue damages... a
sort of reverse submarine patent effect.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's FAT Patent Rejected by Patent Office, At PubPat's Request
Authored by: pcguido on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:35 AM EDT
Did you know that IBM holds a patent on the destructive backspace key? I wish
they would enforce it against Word...

;) Guido

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pretenderle trolling Yahoo SCOX as MULLETSCOOPER???
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:57 AM EDT
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&mid
=187196&sid=1600684464


http://search.messages.yahoo.com/search/messages?ta
g_M=mulletscooper&fname_M=txt_author

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's FAT Patent Rejected by Patent Office, At PubPat's Request
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:59 AM EDT
In the end who pays for that are the custumers and they can not get their money
back. No company will ask for incorrect paid royalties if they risk to answer
for that too. At least now, they donĀ“t have to renew this license and will be
quit. The bill stays with the weakest side.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Careful! This decision doesn't attack software patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 11:47 AM EDT
I read the decision as being not quite the victory that some do. Sure it's nice
to see Microsoft lose, but the decision seems to boil down to this:

MS's claims about its file name hiding were an obvious improvement on prior art
as expressed in four things: three prior patents (referred to as Yasumatsu,
Feigenbaum, and Platteter) and one magazine article in PC Magazine (referred to
as Duncan). If they so choose, might any of the three prior patent holders now
attempt to get Microsoft (and other users of VFAT file systems) to pay THEM
royalties, instead of MS being the one to try the extortion.

This decision did not in any way try to upset the software patent system (no
surprise - it is coming from the patent office), it just struck down MS's
application.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is PubPat adequately funded?
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 11:48 AM EDT
I'm wondering, how is PubPat funded? Clearly their successful challenge of this
patent required considerable effort and resources, researching prior art,
documentation, crafting the USPTO patent challenge and any filing fees at the
very least.

Does PubPat have adeuate funding to continue its vitally important work on
behalf of the Open Source community? If not, how could they explore funding
sources and acquire sufficient funding to continue their work?

Inquiring minds want to know...

GL

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • donate here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 12:12 PM EDT
The big picture
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 12:01 PM EDT
Most of the computer industry does not write software for sale. Indeed, most of
the software that is written is not written for sale, it is used in house. It
therefore makes sense to look at the entire industry, not just software
sellers.

At this time, any balance of payments for patent rights would be in favor of the
US. European software patents would benefit entrenched interests rather than
developers. ie. If I wanted to write some custom software for a customer, I AND
my customer would be on the hook if any infringement was found.

If you take the entire economy into account, software patents are a loser for
Europe. (Of course, I am entirely ignoring the argument about software patents
killing innovation.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What unfounded mockery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 12:14 PM EDT
For those of us who didn't follow the story, I'm curious what the history of the
mockery mentioned in the article is.
<p>
Thanks.
<p>
(A good point on refund clauses. I hope EV1 had one for the SCO stuff. Seems
Sun kinda had their bases covered with their warrants, so they had a no-lose
deal; but EV1 - poor suckers.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Excellent News.
Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT
This couldn't be better - a step in the right direction.

Lets hope all the other silly patents get refused too -
Microsoft have to stopped in their bid to control the
Computer and Internet world at all costs!

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Good news indeed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT
Microsoft's FAT Patent Rejected by Patent Office, At PubPat's Request
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT
Someone in the linked Munich story claims that Linux violates 283 United States
Patents

Anyone know which patents, why they are not being enforced, and how to avoid
this litigious issue before it becomes a problem?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How to decimate productivity
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT
The detailed documents from the case are appalling. Much more work has been expended on drawing up the patent application, challenging the patent application, adjudicating the challenge, and documenting the whole mess, than was ever spent on devising the FAT file system.

The patent process, in addition to the other damage it does, seems to be a way of reducing the collective productivity of creative people by a factor of about 5.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is too new - the real action hasn't started yet
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT
Microsoft will not go out of business on this one. But I think they knew this
was not going to be their business, patents, because the issue was unstable from
the start, back in the hey-day of Unix dominance and Bill Gates writing
traffic-light software.

If you remember, they are required by the DOJ to license their technology,
instead of hording it. So they needed an avenue to license their technology.
Intellectual Property is one of them. But now they do not own this very thing
they claim to ow. In the early days, Linux and Open Source was not an issue. Now
it is. Now there is a threat to what Microsoft believes in and how it is going
to fair as a competitive company. It was sloppy in the early days because it
thought it could afford to, being in monopolistic control. Now they are not. Now
Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates have to pay the piper their due and they find that
this one part of the house is built on sand.

What I am waiting to see is how Microsoft will react to this one. That means a
lot a licenses will not be paid because now they do not own this idea. Also,
what about the licenses already paid? Will this be seen as fraud?

This may not mean implications for software patents. But this will have an
impact on Microsoft, maybe in a logistical manner. And the truth will be
revealed. That is good enough for me. Microsoft can not go forward living on a
lie they have been publically exposed for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

At least its a start but...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 07:46 PM EDT
Noting

Primary Examiner: Black; Thomas G.
Assistant Examiner: Pham; C.

I did a quick search on www.uspto.gov for the other patents approved by this
duo. All database/file system related several years back and (IMO as an expert
in the area), many are doutful as to be claimed as inventions by patent
criteria.

Pham seems to have moved on some years ago but Mr. Black is still going strong
with his name attached to an enormous number of patents, most recently in the
vehicle-technology area.

To my mind, this illustrates the dangers of making such important issues
dependent on the whim and competance of people who can at best be described as
gifted amateurs in the area in which they are assigned the roles of judge and
jury. With little or no public accountability for their actions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )