Back in 2009 Microsoft sued TomTom[1] over what appear to be US versions of this patent[2][3] (EU version here[4]) and won. There were subsequently efforts to work around this patent in the Linux implementation of FAT[5].
So in other words, Microsoft stole Linus' ideas, and then asked everyone to pay them for it. At least going by Microsoft's own logic in general.
Frankly, I've always thought it's ridiculous that FAT isn't at the very least a FRAND patent, considering how much monopolistic power Microsoft had in the desktop OS space, and I'm surprised that in the anti-trust lawsuits against them, this wasn't raised as an issue. I guess back then they didn't really enforce FAT patents the way they started doing after Android took off, and saw it as an excellent opportunity for rent-seeking.
Well, patents, much like copyrights, only have value inasmuch as you are prepared to pay to fight it out in court. Copyrights are a little more straight forward, as "invalidation" (absent of plagiarism) is less common (though not unheard of).
Stealing other peoples ideas, that it what today's patent industry is all about.
Today's capitalism itself is about stealing: (Globalization is about) stealing the work power of other people to make as much money as possible with it.
The cynic in me says that even if the patent is thrown out, it will have little effect on the extortion that Microsoft is practicing against Android. They'll just find another vague patent to threaten manufacturers with.
I'm sure they'll try. But what matters most is that their patent threatening was already on shaky grounds to begin with. If someone like Samsung stops paying them, it might have a domino effect, and sooner or later more companies will try to actually test Microsoft's patents in Court. I think it's only a matter of time anyway, especially if this ruling remains permanent, which would embolden Android OEM's.
Microsoft's earnings from Android trolling are not a matter of public record. Each agreement M'soft has made is secret.
In fact, there is no strong, solid evidence that M'soft is making any money at all off Android. When Barnes and Noble's Nook refused to pay the danegeld, M'soft sued and then settled to avoid discovery. Nook actually got paid by M'soft in the settlement, though M'soft ended up with considerable control of the unprofitable Nook in exchange.
Speculation is that HTC agreed to make and market Windows Phone phones instead of paying royalties. If that kind of agreement was common, it's no wonder that all the non-Nokia Windows Phone phones were garbage: They were produced under duress.
Also, my Android 4 devices no longer support any kind of FAT filesystems the way my Android 2 phones did. I think Google already started making FAT optional just so as to avoid paying for patents like this one.
However TFA is being silly in claiming it threatens any significnt portion of MSFT's licensing revenue. Companies that size don't typically license individual patents, they license portfolios of patents.
Now the following is all speculation, since these licensing deals are very closely guarded, but from the few I've heard of: I'm guessing Microsoft's "smartphone" (or maybe the "linux") portfolio has dozens of patents, each of varying value, of which this was just one. So the portfolio's value will decrease a bit, but I'm guessing not by much.
While I do speculate that Microsoft has more vague patents that it's using to sap Android OEMs, I do think this was one of the more prominent patents, as Microsoft itself went on the offense with it (IIRC it tried to get Motorola phones banned for violating it).
It made my day to see that a comment by Linus Torvalds himself made this patent end up in the garbage bin of IP harassments.
>we don’t really have a German or UK or whatever patent system any more, we have a European Union one. So this German case doesn’t apply just to Germany, it applies right across the EU
This has got to be false information. It was mentioned that this was a ruling of the Federal Patent Court of Germany, BPatG. Since when does a German patent court dictate EU patent laws and rulings? does this mean that if a patent court in another EU country ruled the other way that that is now the new EU stance? This makes no logical sense.
"A patent granted by the EPO does not lead to a single European Union-wide patent enforceable before one single court, but rather to independent national patents enforceable by national courts according to different national legislations and procedures."
Not really sure why you got downvoted for this, but I am pretty sure what you say is true right now. While the EU is moving to a unified patent court in the future for now after the patent has been granted it has to be individually litigated in each country as it becomes just a bunch of seperate national patents.
IANAL but maybe this means it could set a precedent that other countries should consider/follow for similar rulings?
Again, I don't really know, feel free to ignore this post.
IANAL, and I am not the one being quoted... with that said, it seems to me that you're reading way too much into that statement, and in the process, more-or-less ignoting the context. To me, what's being implied here is precedent...
As I understand it the EPC requires that certain parts of national patent law are read to agree with the convention. So patentability, novelty and the basic building blocks should therefore be harmonised [to some extent] across member states.
The patent courts therefore take in to account rulings in patent courts of other member states and ruling of European patent boards (I forget the exact terminology, sorry). Such rulings are not binding however. So they form what might be considered a weak precedent. (See for example S6(iii)-(iv), or indeed all of Section 6, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/2006ewcaciv1371.pdf "Aerotel/Macrossan"; it's almost boilerplate in these decisions actually as in "Symbian", http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1066.html)
In this case it is novelty that is at stake. Novelty is novelty, the same tests are used in Germany as in, say, UK because they rely on the European rulings that provided a series of tests to establish that the novelty lies in a suitably technical part of the invention (this born out of interpretation of the non-patentability of "computer programs as such" in Europe).
[+] [-] naner|12 years ago|reply
1: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/02/micros...
2: http://www.google.com/patents?id=bUohAAAAEBAJ
3: http://www.google.com/patents?id=cLAkAAAAEBAJ
4: http://www.google.com/patents/EP0618540A3
5: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/vfat-l...
[+] [-] Morgawr|12 years ago|reply
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.minix/0rgZpp...
[+] [-] ErsatzVerkehr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|12 years ago|reply
Frankly, I've always thought it's ridiculous that FAT isn't at the very least a FRAND patent, considering how much monopolistic power Microsoft had in the desktop OS space, and I'm surprised that in the anti-trust lawsuits against them, this wasn't raised as an issue. I guess back then they didn't really enforce FAT patents the way they started doing after Android took off, and saw it as an excellent opportunity for rent-seeking.
[+] [-] ghshephard|12 years ago|reply
The stack exchange guys have a whole site dedicated to finding prior art to invalidate patents. http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/prior-art-...
[+] [-] PythonicAlpha|12 years ago|reply
Today's capitalism itself is about stealing: (Globalization is about) stealing the work power of other people to make as much money as possible with it.
[+] [-] yuhong|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|12 years ago|reply
US5960411 A (One Click Shopping) Dies a year later (filed Sep 12, 1997)
A whole host of idiotic patents should be ending their life in the next several years.
[+] [-] bborud|12 years ago|reply
This nonsense won't stop until we abolish patents. And we really need to abolish patents. Completely. The patent system can't be fixed.
[+] [-] trusche|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aw3c2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehabe|12 years ago|reply
He used to or he is working as a consultant for Microsoft and Oracle. Even though he used to campaign against software patents in the past.
As an old saying goes: He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
Edit: writing English on a Saturday afternoon shouldn't be that hard, right? Wrong! :-(
[+] [-] PythonicAlpha|12 years ago|reply
I people had patented B-trees, there would be no MySQL or other free database and royalities had to be paid on any database of the world.
Or guess, somebody would have patented Quicksearch ... a thousand times more plausible thing to patent.
[+] [-] kintamanimatt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] penguindev|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbuzbee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WildUtah|12 years ago|reply
In fact, there is no strong, solid evidence that M'soft is making any money at all off Android. When Barnes and Noble's Nook refused to pay the danegeld, M'soft sued and then settled to avoid discovery. Nook actually got paid by M'soft in the settlement, though M'soft ended up with considerable control of the unprofitable Nook in exchange.
Speculation is that HTC agreed to make and market Windows Phone phones instead of paying royalties. If that kind of agreement was common, it's no wonder that all the non-Nokia Windows Phone phones were garbage: They were produced under duress.
Also, my Android 4 devices no longer support any kind of FAT filesystems the way my Android 2 phones did. I think Google already started making FAT optional just so as to avoid paying for patents like this one.
[+] [-] jacalata|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaykf|12 years ago|reply
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/VFat-patent-could-be-...
However TFA is being silly in claiming it threatens any significnt portion of MSFT's licensing revenue. Companies that size don't typically license individual patents, they license portfolios of patents.
Now the following is all speculation, since these licensing deals are very closely guarded, but from the few I've heard of: I'm guessing Microsoft's "smartphone" (or maybe the "linux") portfolio has dozens of patents, each of varying value, of which this was just one. So the portfolio's value will decrease a bit, but I'm guessing not by much.
[+] [-] dylz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dchest|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davesims|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belgianguy|12 years ago|reply
It made my day to see that a comment by Linus Torvalds himself made this patent end up in the garbage bin of IP harassments.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] krsunny|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goggles99|12 years ago|reply
This has got to be false information. It was mentioned that this was a ruling of the Federal Patent Court of Germany, BPatG. Since when does a German patent court dictate EU patent laws and rulings? does this mean that if a patent court in another EU country ruled the other way that that is now the new EU stance? This makes no logical sense.
[+] [-] bjelkeman-again|12 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_patent_law
[+] [-] cdash|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Morgawr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1631-|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|12 years ago|reply
The patent courts therefore take in to account rulings in patent courts of other member states and ruling of European patent boards (I forget the exact terminology, sorry). Such rulings are not binding however. So they form what might be considered a weak precedent. (See for example S6(iii)-(iv), or indeed all of Section 6, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/2006ewcaciv1371.pdf "Aerotel/Macrossan"; it's almost boilerplate in these decisions actually as in "Symbian", http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1066.html)
In this case it is novelty that is at stake. Novelty is novelty, the same tests are used in Germany as in, say, UK because they rely on the European rulings that provided a series of tests to establish that the novelty lies in a suitably technical part of the invention (this born out of interpretation of the non-patentability of "computer programs as such" in Europe).
IANA(P)L, this is not legal advice.
[+] [-] losethos|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] losethos|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]