Microsoft FAT patent rejected

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's good in
that they rejected something blatantly obvious as being such. On the
downside though, this might mean that FAT will continue to live on. I
had rather hoped that this patent would end up killing off FAT in
favor of something like the Minix file system (also a dead-simple file
system like FAT, but a MUCH more effective one).

Ohh well, another 30 years of FAT it is...
 
Tony said:
I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's good in
that they rejected something blatantly obvious as being such. On the
downside though, this might mean that FAT will continue to live on. I
had rather hoped that this patent would end up killing off FAT in
favor of something like the Minix file system (also a dead-simple file
system like FAT, but a MUCH more effective one).

Ohh well, another 30 years of FAT it is...
Click to expand...

Well, would the Minix filesystem be able to work on a thumb drive?

Yousuf Khan
 
http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm
Click to expand...

HOORRRRAAYY! Can we get a refund please?

Seriously, what's been rejected is the first of several patents to do with
FAT. To quote from pubpat.org:

"Although PUBPAT's filing only directly deals with one patent, the fact
that it is the oldest of the patents in the FAT File System portfolio makes
it more likely that, once it is held invalid by the Patent Office, each of
the other patents will be viewed similarly."

The rejected "'517" only has to do with short/long filename mapping,
attributes and checksum for the short name in the long filename extension.
I'm not so sure that the whole house of cards falls based on that, though I
wonder why M$ chose that as the first set of claims to file. The key to
the FAT file system is the linking of cluster pointers and I don't think
that becomes invalid without prior art and/or the obviousness arguments.

We all know that similar fle systems had been in existence for years before
M$ put its grubby maulers on things... in fact usually much more elaborate
and secure systems but many of the companies which developed them are long
gone, manuals are lost or shredded and internal documentation was often not
public. I've no idea if, e.g., Data General ever filed a patent on its AOS
file system(s)... or Prime on its PrimOS file system. That's only two
companies which I recall off-hand. There were loads of companies selling
mini-computers, all with similar file system mechanisms and in fact, I'm
sure that some of the people who might have successfully testified against
M$'s claims are dead.

The whole thing is a travesty but how to formalize a complaint with
concrete evidence? The fact that the rejection is based on prior art
patents issued and articles written no earlier than 1988 is not a good
sign.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Well, would the Minix filesystem be able to work on a thumb drive?
Click to expand...

Ok Yousuf, please tell us what's so special about FAT and such drives.
I've formatted my Gizmo as NTFS, just to play around with Linux's mind
(payback's a bitch ;-).
 
Umm, isn't FAT close to twenty uears old? Fat12 was part of the
begginnings of DOS, no? What "inventions" have been added since
(assuming there was somehow somehting "new" then), extending the
bit-fields? That's a pretty narrow claim!
Click to expand...

The rejected patent contains 4 claims to do with short/long filename
mapping.... new? I think I'm going to patent how to tie my shoelaces...
unless... damn I'll bet someone else has already done it.<shrug>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Back
Top