Torvalds Invalidates Microsoft FAT Patent

[HawkMan]

It's a stretch to suggest that it took three years to create / get round to filing it. I don't know the exact rules, but I was under the impression the idea has to be presented or used publicly, not just internally.

So you're saying a news group discussion is worthless anyway then, good to know.

[HawkMan]

there has to be some traction behind it if all these guys are paying them royalties don't you think?

No you have to understand, all these android oem's, they're licensing or cross licensing the patents from MS of the good of their hearts, not because they see the pile of patents MS throws at their desk and know they don't have a chance.they just want to give MS a good chunk of their profits.

[Mr. Gibs]

No you have to understand, all these android oem's, they're licensing or cross licensing the patents from MS of the good of their hearts, not because they see the pile of patents MS throws at their desk and know they don't have a chance.they just want to give MS a good chunk of their profits.

Lol yeah I've always found that funny. And before someone points out that MS is insanely rich and hence if they sue someone they'll generally win, let's take a look at Samsung shall we?

Revenue: $220 billion for Samsung, $69.94 billion for Microsoft

Total assets: $343.7 billion, $108.7 billion

Total equity: $141.1 billion, $57.08 billion

Samsung isn't some tiny company that barely makes it through the year, they're massive. So I'm pretty sure if MS had no case they would have been counter-sued like immediately. But yet HTC, Samsung etc etc pay them royalties.

[simplezz]

I think manufacturers should use ext2. If MS wants to maintain compatibility, they'll just have to write an ext2 driver for Windows. It's not like MS would have to pay royalties to use ext2.

The silly thing is there are already ext2+ drivers for Windows. No one should be using FAT these days as I said. Ext4 is far superior.

[simplezz]

Pretty sure prior art involves more than just a discussion. Torvalds would have had to implement said discussion into a piece of software or something for it to invalidate a patent. Talking about it means nothing.

? 1.501 Citation of prior art in patent files.

(a) At any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, any person may cite, to the Office in writing, prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person states to be pertinent and applicable to the patent and believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of the patent. If the citation is made by the patent owner, the explanation of pertinency and applicability may include an explanation of how the claims differ from the prior art. Such citations shall be entered in the patent file except as set forth in ?? 1.502 and 1.902.

(b) If the person making the citation wishes his or her identity to be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential, the citation papers must be submitted without any identification of the person making the submission.

© Citation of patents or printed publications by the public in patent files should either: (1) Reflect that a copy of the same has been mailed to the patent owner at the address as provided for in ? 1.33©; or in the event service is not possible (2) Be filed with the Office in duplicate.

[46 FR 29185, May 29, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; para. (a) revised, 65 FR 76756, Dec. 7, 2000, effective Feb. 5, 2001]

Source

If that was the only reason they used FAT they would have moved onto NTFS / exFAT.

FAT is better supported across platforms than NTFS. It's also simpler and more compact. Ext4 is its true successor though.

[simplezz]

there has to be some traction behind it if all these guys are paying them royalties don't you think?

Without the FAT patent, Microsoft is going to have a tough time convincing Android makers to enter into licence agreements.

[OOOOOOOO]

Uh ... who cares? You realise Microsoft will probably win on this anyway right?

[simplezz]

So you're saying a news group discussion is worthless anyway then, good to know.

The news group discussion is publicly available, time stamped and irrefutable evidence of prior art. The ITC judge agreed with this. So no, it's not worthless, but the patent in question surely will be now.

[simplezz]

Uh ... who cares? You realise Microsoft will probably win on this anyway right?

Who cares? Well people who like cheaper mobile devices for one. Second, Microsoft has been holding the FAT patent over Linux (not just Android) for years, so this has been a long time coming.

Will Microsoft win? Unlikely at this point. Other judges pay heed to ITC decisions. I don't know how the patent can possibly be valid any more. it's going to be very costly for Microsoft.

[HawkMan]

The news group discussion is publicly available, time stamped and irrefutable evidence of prior art. The ITC judge agreed with this. So no, it's not worthless, but the patent in question surely will be now.

It's not prior art, it's discussion of a possibility, MS had a technical IMPLEMENTATION, that possibly even predates this depending on when they started developement. and even more so when they actually submitted the patent.

and again, more importantly this is ONLY UK

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

The silly thing is there are already ext2+ drivers for Windows. No one should be using FAT these days as I said. Ext4 is far superior.

But Microsoft is never going to support Ext4 (or BtrFS or ZFS or any of the cool file systems other that other OSs use)

Microsoft have already replaced FAT with exFAT (Which is much better), and they've learnt from their mistakes with FAT by patenting the hell out of it (While at the same time allowing 3rd parties to make implementations with MSs own test suites, etc.). SDXC (I think) requires exFAT and FAT support (Which is why Apple included an exFAT driver with the first Mac to include a SD card slot)

Edit: Remember, this patent isn't about the entire file system, it's about the process in which you generate the short 8.3 filenames and long file names, desktop Linux works around it by using one or the other, but not both (And when it uses long file names, it generates invalid data for the 8.3 name)

[simplezz]

It's not prior art, it's discussion of a possibility, MS had a technical IMPLEMENTATION, that possibly even predates this depending on when they started developement. and even more so when they actually submitted the patent.

I think you misunderstand how patents and prior art works. A printed publication is prior art. An implementation is not necessary. The time stamped technical discussion was three years prior to Microsoft filing for the patent (this does not mean Microsoft even had an implementation at the time of filing).

and again, more importantly this is ONLY UK

Did you even read the article?? The ITC is american. This is an american lawsuit (Microsoft vs Motorola).

[Aethec]

As long as the FOSS world isn't able to provide a stable FS, Microsoft will not support it. If Microsoft created an ext2/3/4 driver for Windows, they'd have to update it every time something changes, and use tons of resources that could be better used; a file system is a critical part of the OS since it can corrupt data if it has a bug.

Remember, ext4's driver had a data corruption bug when it was released. (the 2.6.30 Linux kernel decreased ext4 performance to improve file integrity)

Oh, and Ted Ts'o (who invented /dev/random and played a central role in ex4 development) considers ext4 to be a rehash of "1970s technology". (source: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/04/linux-collaboration-summit-the-kernel-panel.ars )

Sadly, FAT still dominates as the default file system to be compatible with everyone, and will continue to do so until a better solution is found. (heck, even Microsoft's XBox 360 doesn't support NTFS...)

That being said, if the patents around it can be dismissed, it might be a good short-term solution. Microsoft has tons of phone-related patents anyway, it's not like they needed the FAT patent to attack Android.

[ichi]

As long as the FOSS world isn't able to provide a stable FS, Microsoft will not support it. If Microsoft created an ext2/3/4 driver for Windows, they'd have to update it every time something changes, and use tons of resources that could be better used; a file system is a critical part of the OS since it can corrupt data if it has a bug.

Have there been many changes in ext2 in the recent years? Or any significative change at all?

Remember, ext4's driver had a data corruption bug when it was released. (the 2.6.30 Linux kernel decreased ext4 performance to improve file integrity)

Oh, and Ted Ts'o (who invented /dev/random and played a central role in ex4 development) considers ext4 to be a rehash of "1970s technology". (source: http://arstechnica.c...ernel-panel.ars )

It's been quite some time since it was released, though, and even while ext4 obviously lacks lots of features you can find in the likes of btrfs (which makes it a "rehash of old technology") you don't really need any of those for a pendrive or a SD card.

Actually you don't even need journaling.

[HawkMan]

I think you misunderstand how patents and prior art works. A printed publication is prior art. An implementation is not necessary. The time stamped technical discussion was three years prior to Microsoft filing for the patent (this does not mean Microsoft even had an implementation at the time of filing).

Rather irrelevant since patent rules now say first to implement, and MS not already has the patent, they WHERE first to implement.

[simplezz]

Rather irrelevant since patent rules now say first to implement, and MS not already has the patent, they WHERE first to implement.

I thought it was first to file, not implement. Besides, I didn't think that applied retroactively. The judge also agreed.

[HawkMan]

Still irrelevant since they never filed.

MS still wins. well the thing is of course that this is about granting patents, MS was already granted this patent, so then it doesn't matter anyway. and if you read the article, the thing that they're actively working on is to get that old judgement turned. not to use it in this case. even though they try to make it seem different since the source is pro FOSS.

but from everything the article says, the likely outcome here is that either it'll be reversed or it'll have no effect whatsoever on this case.

and even so, MS patents against Android is far more than one single patent.

[simplezz]

Still irrelevant since they never filed.

Someone else doesn't need to file for a patent to be invalidated. Prior art is enough.

MS still wins. well the thing is of course that this is about granting patents, MS was already granted this patent, so then it doesn't matter anyway.

Being granted a patent doesn't mean anything. There's a whole graveyard of patents that were granted then invalidated due to prior art.

and if you read the article, the thing that they're actively working on is to get that old judgement turned. not to use it in this case

The ITC judge has already ruled the FAT patent invalid. It's unlikely to get overturned at this point with such obvious prior art.

but from everything the article says, the likely outcome here is that either it'll be reversed or it'll have no effect whatsoever on this case.

The article says nothing of the sort. I'm starting to think you haven't read the article at all. First you claimed it was in the UK, now you're just making things up.

Essex?s ruling is merely an initial determination. It is being reviewed and could yet be reversed by the Commission. But if it?s upheld, it could work against Microsoft as it continues to fight Android and other Linux-based systems that it believes violate its intellectual property.

The article is actually being very cautious, however it bears no resemblance to your statement. It makes me wonder if we're reading the same article lol

and even so, MS patents against Android is far more than one single patent.

The rest of the patents are just padding, and it's trivial to work around them. It's the same in most aggressive patent lawsuits. There's maybe one or two important ones, and the rest are trash. From what I've seen, the only patent that's significant in Microsoft vs Linux is the FAT one.

[BajiRav]

The rest of the patents are just padding, and it's trivial to work around them. It's the same in most aggressive patent lawsuits. There's maybe one or two important ones, and the rest are trash. From what I've seen, the only patent that's significant in Microsoft vs Linux is the FAT one.

I wonder if there is a patent related to EAS?

[Belazor]

The silly thing is there are already ext2+ drivers for Windows. No one should be using FAT these days as I said. Ext4 is far superior.

If you can link me to some drivers that doesn't require me installing and using a mounting software that works 25% of the time (and all other times it simply removes the drive letter of my storage drive, causing endless errors on reboot) then I would be very happy :D

Not being sarcastic thinking none exists, I'm just unable to locate them myself, and the app (I forgot the name, but I'd recognise the UI) was a broken piece of feces.

[simplezz]

If you can link me to some drivers that doesn't require me installing and using a mounting software that works 25% of the time (and all other times it simply removes the drive letter of my storage drive, causing endless errors on reboot) then I would be very happy :D

Not being sarcastic thinking none exists, I'm just unable to locate them myself, and the app (I forgot the name, but I'd recognise the UI) was a broken piece of feces.

I've had no problems with ext2fsd. I'm able to read / write files, and that's enough for me. It would be nice to have built in ext4 support in Windows, but Microsoft only supports their own file systems. At least we have good Linux/Mac/Android file system support.

[butilikethecookie]

Linux: 1

Microsoft: 0

[Belazor]

I've had no problems with ext2fsd. I'm able to read / write files, and that's enough for me. It would be nice to have built in ext4 support in Windows, but Microsoft only supports their own file systems. At least we have good Linux/Mac/Android file system support.

Yeah, that's the app I was having major issues with. Its mounting of attached USB external HDDs is spotty at best, most of the time it flat out didn't work or just crashed. Rebooting produced errors if the drive had been unplugged (don't recall the exact errors), and attempting to un-mount the USB drive would sometimes remove the drive letter for my storage drive (internal) even though I'm reasonably certain I didn't click un-mount for THAT drive letter >.<

Shame a driver akin to, say, iTunes making iPads readable (to a degree, I believe it identifies iOS devices as Camera devices and lets me access images) doesn't appear to exist :(

[ichi]

If you can link me to some drivers that doesn't require me installing and using a mounting software that works 25% of the time (and all other times it simply removes the drive letter of my storage drive, causing endless errors on reboot) then I would be very happy :D

Not being sarcastic thinking none exists, I'm just unable to locate them myself, and the app (I forgot the name, but I'd recognise the UI) was a broken piece of feces.

I don't think I know any FS driver (other than NTFS and FAT) that works properly (and seamlessly) on Windows :ermm:

[simplezz]

I don't think I know any FS driver (other than NTFS and FAT) that works properly (and seamlessly) on Windows :ermm:

That's true. That's one thing about Linux, just about every FS known to man works on it.