Two patents covering one of Microsoft's main Windows file-storage
systems are valid after all, US 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 US 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 DOS, 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 organisation 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 GPL, 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 unfavourable 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 organisation 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 ZDNet UK sister site 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.






Talkback
No, no, 10 million? OK!
Well, that's what happens when you have Non-experts vs BullshitArtists and the non-experts do not take advice from experts. It's all the difference between asking a physicist whether you can build a faster-than-lightspeed spacecraft and asking a truck driver (no intention of maligning truck drivers - just pointing out that space propulsion is not their field of expertise).
So, the result may appear to be that if you have a network of Linux and Windows machines then they won't be able to share files etc (doesn't Samba use a version of FAT?).
The solution?
Ditch Windows and move the whole network over to Linux - at least then you won't have to worry about over-zealous monopolies desperately trying to claw your hard earned cash away from you just for the privilege of running their over-priced, over-rated and under-secured software.
If Micro$oft put as much time and effort into making an OS that was actually any good (ie secure, stable, reliable etc) as they do trying to score points against Linux, Windoze may (only MAY) be worth considering...
I used to work on hard disk file management routines when Gates was still at college. I also worked on about 4 "DOS"s before MSDOS appeared as a baby so where is the "not obvious" and "novel" justification come from?
Samba does NOT use FAT. There are FAT drivers in the Linux kernel, so that you can read hard disk partitions that are formatted in FAT. This is useful on a dual-boot system (Windows and GNU/Linux on 1 machine). However, XP and NT can also use NTFS, which isn't patent-encumbered (yet?), but write support for NTFS is very fragile at the moment (but they're working on it). When those FAT drivers are removed from the Linux kernel, nothing is wrong (except that you won't be able to read FAT partitions anymore). Samba uses SMB, a protocol that Windows uses to communicate over a network. SMB is also not patent-encumbered.
I stand corrected.
I still stand by "ditch Windows for Linux" stance though....
Oh what a glorious day! This is the best thing to happen to portable media in a long time.
Many people have been tired of the 4GB file size limit on portable drives for a long time. FAT is pretty much dead on anything over 120GB.
/IF/ M$ starts pushing licensing fees, many vendors are going to start looking for a free solution; even one that may require the installation of a filesystem driver. EXT2 and EXT3 (for drive based media) are perfect for this sort of usage. Stable, Reliable, Open. Vendors will be looking for exactly this.
The FAT file system is not that great anyway. Files that are too large can not be used on it (this excludes storage of video files at a DVD quality bit-rate and frame size that are any significant length), it also lacks the ability to add any REAL security to file - add to that the fact that large hard drive partitions ca not be used. And, it's basically an unstable system anyway (explains why Win95/98/98SE/ME had such a bad problem with crashing, DOS had no such problem, but was kinda limited.). If you want FAT to really be practical at all anymore, FAT32 need it go, and use at least 64 bits instead of 32 (FAT64), but ever this would not fix everything that is wrong with it.
This will be unfortunate if this affects FAT32. Many people use FAT32 for removable drives, which they use with both windows and Linux.