MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-06-21 |
| FROM | From: "Inker, Evan"
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] FAT Patent Review May Threaten Linux Foundation
|
FAT Patent Review May Threaten Linux Foundation
By Peter Galli
June 20, 2004
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1615092,00.asp
Worries over intellectual property can make for strange bedfellows. In the
case of Microsoft Corp.'s nearly ubiquitous FAT (file allocation table) file
system, it's Microsoft and the Linux community.
The open-source community has an enormous interest in the outcome of last
week's decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to
re-examine the patent Microsoft holds on the FAT file system, a format used
for the interchange of media between computers and digital devices.
The FAT file system, first developed by Microsoft in 1976, has become the
ubiquitous format used for interchange of media between computers and, since
the advent of flash memory, also between digital devices.
The FAT file system is also used by the open-source Samba software that lets
Linux and Unix computers exchange data with Windows computers, and by Linux
itself to read and write files on Windows hard drives.
Some in the open-source community, like Eben Moglen, who is a Columbia
University law professor, the general counsel for the Free Software
Foundation and a board member of the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat), are
worried that Microsoft could in the future decide to allege that Linux
infringes on those patents and seek a royalty.
That could threaten the very core of Linux, which is licensed under the GNU
General Public License (GPL) and may not be distributed if it contains
patented technology that requires royalty payments.
In its decision to re-examine the FAT patent (here in PDF form) the Patent
and Trademark Office last week said that "a substantial new issue of
patentability, which has not been previously addressed, has been raised ....
In particular, storing a checksum of the short filename in the directory
entry."
PubPat, a not-for-profit public service organization that describes its
mission as "protecting the public from the harms caused by wrongly issued
patents and unsound patent policy," in April requested the re-examination of
the patent.
But not all patent attorneys see it that way. Glenn Peterson, intellectual
property attorney and shareholder with the Sacramento, Calif.-based law firm
McDonough Holland & Allen PC, said that PubPat's primary argument for
re-examination, one of "protecting the public from the predatory
monopolist," is alone not sufficient grounds to grant re-examination.
So the additional argument for re-examination (and consequent invalidation)
of Microsoft's 517 patent is that the subject matter of the patent is
obvious in light of prior art that was on record before the patent was
applied for. There are three patents that predate the FAT patent and, read
together, make the FAT patent "obvious" and therefore not patentable for
failure to satisfy the "novelty" requirement of patentability, Petersen
said.
But those prior patents were also disclosed in Microsoft's application, so
there "are no allegations of 'hide the ball' or anything like that,"
Petersen added. "What PubPat is arguing, essentially, is that the Patent
Office should take another look at the prior art because Microsoft is
harming the public by refusing licenses. This is a highly unusual argument."
That criticism does not faze Moglen, who said that even if the Patent Office
lets the current FAT patent under dispute stand as is, the nature of what it
finds during its examination will be written on what is known in Patent
Office jargon as the "file wrapper"-the docket sheet of activity which
accompanies each patent.
"Just the fact that the file wrapper has all of that is evidence of the
activity that the office has involved itself with in re-examination of the
case is automatically evidence in any proceeding to enforce the patent
against the supposed infringer. At a minimum, the process of making an
enforcement of that patent will be made more difficult by the markings on
the file resulting from the re-examination," Moglen said.
For its part, David Kaefer, the director of Microsoft's Intellectual
Property and Licensing Group, is unfazed by the move, telling eWEEK that
Microsoft has already licensed its FAT specification and patents to help
improve interoperability. The Patent Office often granted re-examination
requests and "they provide an important mechanism to assure high levels of
patent quality," he said.
But Microsoft now has "the opportunity to demonstrate why this file system
innovation deserves patent protection. Microsoft stands firm in its
commitment to work with the USPTO, and we are confident in the validity of
our patents," he said.
Check out eWEEK.com's Linux & Open Source Center at http://linux.eweek.com
for the latest open-source news, reviews and analysis.
****************************************************************************
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This message is provided for informational purposes and should not
be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is
regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required.
****************************************************************************
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
