|
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.
|
|
Authored by: spuluka on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:05 AM EDT |
If needed.
---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- How are software patents advantageous to the USA? - Authored by: DeepBlue on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- But only in the US - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT
- Both ways - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- Both ways - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- No defence would be necessary. - Authored by: aug24 on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:33 AM EDT
- Looking in the wrong direction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:12 AM EDT
- What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:37 AM EDT
- Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- How are software patents advantageous to the USA? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- How are software patents advantageous to the USA? - Authored by: spuluka on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- They are not - they might be advantageous to *some europeans*! - Authored by: aug24 on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:31 AM EDT
- How are software patents advantageous to the USA? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 08:36 AM EDT
- We he said "Europe" he meant "SAP" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- Kagermann is taking a short term view - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- European disadvantatge - Authored by: micheal on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- Don't assume this SAP is talking sense - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- How are software patents advantageous to the USA? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- How are software patents advantageous to the USA? - Authored by: keithl on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- Software patents are advantageous to... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 04:15 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Downside for MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 12:21 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|