Revoking Microsofts FAT Patent Would Stir Innovation

 
 
By Peter Coffee  |  Posted 2004-09-30 Email Print this article Print
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Opinion: In its initial rejection of Microsoft's claims regarding the FAT file system, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seems to be rediscovering a law barring "obvious" patents.

Today must mark some sort of milestone in online news. Feeding the single word "fat" to news.google.com on Thursday produced a top-ranked list of stories concerning a file system instead of an obesity epidemic. What could say more about the broad (ahem) reach of low-level PC technologies into everyday life? Todays "FAT" headlines concern a Sept. 16 action by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, here in PDF form, that rejected all four claims of patent No. 5,579,517 ("Common name space for long and short filenames"), assigned to Microsoft Corp. by its six inventors of record.
FAT denotes "file allocation table": a data structure that tells higher-level systems how to assemble scattered strings of bits in a storage device into something that pretends to be a single, conveniently named object.
Those four rejected claims assert the novelty, utility and non-obviousness of mixing DOS-format 8.3 file names with longer, usually more descriptive names in a unified system. A useful thing to do, to be sure. The patent offices action is being ballyhooed, rather loosely, as a major blow to Microsofts pursuit of patent license revenues for ubiquitous technologies. (Microsoft has called its strategy a "commitment to license our IP more predictably and transparently," suggesting—with some justification—that its a more open position to offer licenses explicitly than to leave people wondering whether their use of a technology might put them at risk of litigation.) Read more here about the patent offices decision.
Before anyone rips up their FAT license, they might want to note that the FAT license covers a portfolio of four issued patents, plus rights to technologies for which Microsoft seeks additional patents not yet granted. Not only is the war not over; even this single battle remains to be decided. Its not unreasonable, though, to suggest that this marks a turning point. Microsoft refers to its prospectively-to-be-patented technologies as "FAT file system innovations," but thats the question, isnt it? What constitutes patentable innovation? As opposed to, say, an abuse of the patent system, as a tool for locking customers into a single vendors version of an obvious solution to a widespread need? Click here to read about how the FAT patent review could affect Linux companies. The patent offices action rejects Microsofts claims under 35 USC 103(a), which states that "a patent may not be obtained ... if the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." The patent offices ruling supports that finding of obviousness by reference to various works, including a 1990 PC Magazine article by the estimable Ray Duncan—published almost five years before the now-rejected patents application was filed. Lets cheer any indication that patent examiners are rediscovering 35 USC 103(a), which might also be the weapon of choice against controversial patents such as Amazons oft-reviled No. 5,960,411: the patent on "one-click shopping." More attention to so-called "prior art" would be of great benefit to the credibility of the patent process. It would lower the barriers to innovation: An entrepreneur with genuine innovations to offer would have much less fear of being due-processed to death by a larger, well-established competitor with a big legal budget and a box full of lawfully granted (no matter how obvious) patents. Its not necessary to get into far more dangerous territory, such as the question of whether FATs ubiquity makes it an "essential facility" that ought to be placed in the public domain as a matter of the public good. The patent office specifically declined to consider any such questions in this case, and thats fine—for now. At some point, though, the technology equivalent of eminent domain will have to be defined, if open-source technologies arent to be permanently disadvantaged by having no means of collecting or paying license fees. But thats another question for another time. Check out eWEEK.coms Windows Center at http://windows.eweek.com for Microsoft and Windows news, views and analysis.

Be sure to add our eWEEK.com Windows news feed to your RSS newsreader or My Yahoo page

 
 
 
 
Peter Coffee is Director of Platform Research at salesforce.com, where he serves as a liaison with the developer community to define the opportunity and clarify developers' technical requirements on the company's evolving Apex Platform. Peter previously spent 18 years with eWEEK (formerly PC Week), the national news magazine of enterprise technology practice, where he reviewed software development tools and methods and wrote regular columns on emerging technologies and professional community issues.Before he began writing full-time in 1989, Peter spent eleven years in technical and management positions at Exxon and The Aerospace Corporation, including management of the latter company's first desktop computing planning team and applied research in applications of artificial intelligence techniques. He holds an engineering degree from MIT and an MBA from Pepperdine University, he has held teaching appointments in computer science, business analytics and information systems management at Pepperdine, UCLA, and Chapman College.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Submit a Comment

Loading Comments...

 
Manage your Newsletters: Login   Register My Newsletters























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rocket Fuel