| |||||||||||||
Long discussions about long namesLong discussions about long namesPosted May 4, 2009 23:07 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)Parent article: Long discussions about long names I don't understand why the Rock Ridge Interchange Protocol (for storing long names on a CD-ROM file system) isn't considered prior art that invalidates the VFAT patents. The VFAT patents are written very broadly, and appear to cover essentially any mechanism that lets you store long names in a database with a name length limit. But this is exactly what Rock Ridge does. The standards documents have 1994 dates, and Microsoft didn't file until 1995. Now IANAL, so perhaps the VFAT patents are written in such a way as to be distinguishable from RRIP.
(Log in to post comments)
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 0:52 UTC (Tue) by vmlinuz (guest, #24) [Link]
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see an example of the species homo engineerius, displaying one of his typical traits by defining a problem, specifying a solution, and thereby declaring that the problem no longer exists.
The parasitical species homo lawyerus enjoys hunting alongside homo engineerius, because it is they who benefit from the gap in perception between problem+solution and solved-problem.
In other words, yes, you're absolutely right. The VFAT patents are almost certainly not valid, should not have been granted in the first place, and should be 'trivial' to defeat - 'trivial' in an engineering sense. In a legal sense, they are currently valid, and can therefore be used to generate millions of dollars in legal fees, intimidate smaller competitors, their engineers, customers, and investors, and generally cause expensive trouble.
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 8:11 UTC (Tue) by vjeko (guest, #44412) [Link]
Fully agree. :D
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 1:02 UTC (Tue) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
The USPTO allows people to start using an invention publically, even selling it, before filing for a patent as much as a year later. Then also, they allow people to apply and say that they were the first to invent the thing in a patent owned by someone else.
It may well be that, following the original nullification of the LFN patents, Microsoft showed that they had invented and used privately (maybe for testing purposes) their long file name technology. Perhaps they showed proof that their invention was before the publication of Rock Ridge. Maybe there was some way that they could argue that the parallel development of Rock Ridge didn't render their method obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. But we'll never know because the hearing was private and so my (perhaps unreasonable) assumption is that the convicted monopolist cheated again.
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 2:00 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> The USPTO allows people to start using an invention publically, even selling it, before filing for a patent as much as a year later. Then also, they allow people to apply and say that they were the first to invent the thing in a patent owned by someone else.
Ya.. but in this case RockRidge is a extension to allow POSIX compatibility with the ISO 9660 file system. Its draft is RRIP 1.1.2 has copyright references from 1993.
So.. we are dealing with multiple patents here:
Then IBM holds a patent on FAT, too..
So only IBM and one of the patents exist prior to 1993... (I would of expected that one to be cross-licensed years ago with Microsoft from the OS/2 days)
But even possibly more important then RockRidge is UMSDOS. Which I remember quite fondly because that was used by the first Linux system I ever used.. which would be Zipslack.
UMSDOS is a method for making FAT POSIX-compliant filesystem for the sake of Linux compatibility. Quite nice for booting Linux from Zip drives.
It was started in 1992 and was accepted into the Linux kernel in 1994 with 1.1.36 until it was dropped in 2.6.11. If I remember correctly it stored extended information in extra hidden files.
-----------------------
So at least with UMSDOS it pre-dates all of Microsoft's patents. With Rockridge it only certainly pre-dates 2 of them.
-----------------------
Now everybody knows there are dozens and dozens of different manners to do stuff in software. This is one of the problems with software patents. To any problem there are thousands of solutions. (and each one is patentable)
So even though Rockridge and UMSDOS cover one way to have long file names it's likely that they do not do it in the same manner that is described in Microsoft's patents. Just a guess, I am not going to try to pretend to understand any of the patent language. So I suppose that would be why they don't immediately invalidate the patents.
----------------------
Probably the read-long-only patch would work great for embedded developers. Since they do not write to the FAT flash, generally, then it's only the users that really care about long file names. When you plug in a device to a PC then it's that PC's software that writes to the flash media and not any software on the device.
Just guessing, but it seems reasonable.
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 3:49 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] But Microsoft didn't patent their own way of storing long names in a length-restricted system. None of the claims refers to anything in particular about their system. Rather, they patented pretty much the very idea of storing long names in a length-restricted system by encoding the filenames.
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 22:48 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] This same concept appears in Kernighan and Plauger's "Software Tools" as early as 1980. And in this text it is proposed as an exercise! Surely the obviousness test is not passed either.
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 4:42 UTC (Tue) by Oddscurity (guest, #46851) [Link] So even though Rockridge and UMSDOS cover one way to have long file names it's likely that they do not do it in the same manner that is described in Microsoft's patents. Just a guess, I am not going to try to pretend to understand any of the patent language. So I suppose that would be why they don't immediately invalidate the patents.Still, reexamination in that case ought to have the effect of significantly limiting said patent's scope.
Long discussions about long names Posted May 5, 2009 13:56 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> The VFAT patents are written very broadly, and appear to cover essentially any mechanism that lets you store long names in a database with a name length limit.
Even when accepting that software patents make sense at all, how can such low level and poor engineering hacks be seriously considered as "non-obvious, inventive steps"? Does your electrician file a patent everytime he finds a clever wiring trick to workaround a badly designed panel? How can honest patent examiners and judges be fouled so easily and so persistently? Why is fixing this problem not as simple as bringing independent university professors in front of a court so they can affirm: "If one of my student had 'invented' this patented solution in a exam, he would have got an average or bad mark".
Has the whole world really gone insane? Or is just a minority of people incredily dragging everyone else in their insanity? In the latter case, can we please all come back to our senses and just ignore them instead of granting them way too much time and credit?
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 16:22 UTC (Tue) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] It's very simple: up until very recently, the US PTO assumed that anything worth must had been patented. So if a new patent application came in and it doesn't directly cover something already patented, then ergo, it must be "non-obvious and inventive". Couple this with SW patent examiners that were fresh out of college (or very inexperienced) and you have a recipe for all kinds of completely obvious and crap patents like pretty much all SW patents in the last 15 years.
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 16:45 UTC (Tue) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
I totally disagree. The case law describing the boundaries of patentability changed and explicitly allowed software patents, but the USPTO examiners completely forgot to look at non-patent textbooks and documentation when deciding what the 'state of the art' was. That meant that the bar for novelty and obviousness are way lower than they should be, resulting in many rubbish patents.
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 16:58 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Interestingly, one of the things that came up at the software patent conference I attended in March is that, as patent examiners gain more experience on the job, they tend to approve more patents. It's the new, green ones who ask the hardest questions. It's not a matter of inexperience; it's more one of being sucked into a system which sees its mission as the granting of patents.
Career paths Posted May 5, 2009 18:15 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] I have met former patent examiners now working for applicants. How many examiners go on to jobs at firms seeking patents? Is approving a patent a way to apply for a job in the private sector, like approving a big contract for DoD is a way to apply for a job at a military contractor?
poor SW patents Posted May 5, 2009 23:15 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> It's not a matter of inexperience; it's more one of being sucked into a system which sees its mission as the granting of patents.
So, even if immoral and barely legal, it is still fine as long as the "system" and the "mission" want it. Translation: we are doomed.
poor SW patents Posted May 9, 2009 20:47 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] It's not a matter of inexperience; it's more one of being sucked into a system which sees its mission as the granting of patents.So, even if immoral and barely legal, it is still fine as long as the "system" and the "mission" want it. Translation: we are doomed No one here as said anything about it being fine.
|
|||||||||||||