ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Microsoft FAT patents"
(→In Germany: * {{translate de|title=WINDOWS - Dateiverwaltung beruht auf, patentfähiger Erfindung |url=http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum) |
(→In Europe) |
||
(28 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{navbox vertical}}[[Microsoft]] has a number of patents on how to deal with filename in their commonly used FAT filesystem. | + | {{navbox vertical}}[[Microsoft]] has a number of patents on how to deal with filename in their commonly used FAT filesystem. These patents have been issued in the [[USA]], [[Germany]], and surely a long list of other countries. |
+ | |||
+ | The FAT patents have the interesting property of being useful only for compatibility with the patent owner. The FAT patents are not otherwise useful; in fact the FAT filesystem is technically undesirable. Those who wish to make use of the patent are clearly seeking compatibility, not innovation or other useful properties. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==In the USA== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In December 2003, Microsoft announced<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20041229090400/http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp</ref> licensing demands of four patents for the FAT filesystem: | ||
− | |||
* [http://www.google.com/patents?id=cLAkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,579,517 US5,579,517] "The '517 patent" | * [http://www.google.com/patents?id=cLAkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,579,517 US5,579,517] "The '517 patent" | ||
− | * [http://www.google.com/patents?id=bUohAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,758,352 US5,758,352] | + | * [http://www.google.com/patents?id=bUohAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,758,352 US5,758,352] "The '352 patent" (The [[EPO]] equivalent is [http://www.google.com/patents/EP0618540B1?cl=en&hl=en EP0618540] ) |
+ | * U.S. Patent #5,745,902 | ||
+ | * U.S. Patent #6,286,013 | ||
− | ==Timeline== | + | ===Timeline=== |
− | * | + | * Autumn 2003: MS starts threatening people<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Reexam_Filed.htm</ref><ref>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/05/1070351761346.html</ref> |
* September 2004: The '517 patent is rejected<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/MicrosoftFAT/Reynolds_517_Rejected_040916.PDF</ref> thanks to the work of [[PubPat]]<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm</ref> and others. | * September 2004: The '517 patent is rejected<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/MicrosoftFAT/Reynolds_517_Rejected_040916.PDF</ref> thanks to the work of [[PubPat]]<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm</ref> and others. | ||
* January 2006: The '517 patent is reinstated<ref>http://news.cnet.com/Microsofts-file-system-patent-upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html</ref> | * January 2006: The '517 patent is reinstated<ref>http://news.cnet.com/Microsofts-file-system-patent-upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html</ref> | ||
− | * January 2009: [[Microsoft vs. TomTom, 2008|Microsoft uses | + | * January 2009: [[Microsoft vs. TomTom, 2008|Microsoft uses its FAT patents against TomTom]] |
+ | |||
+ | ==In [[Europe]]== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The patents granted by the [[European Patent Office]] are: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19941005&CC=EP&NR=0618550A1&KC=A1 EP0618550] - upheld in Germany, see below (equivalent to US5,758,352) - Expired on 2014-10-05 ? | ||
+ | * [http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20011212&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=0618540B1&KC=B1&ND=4 EP0618540] - upheld in Germany by regional court of Mannheim in 2012<ref>http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/with-german-fat-patent-ruling-microsoft.html</ref> Valid till 2021-12-12 ?. [http://web.archive.org/web/20161218033023/http://www.techworld.com/news/apps/german-court-invalidates-microsoft-patent-used-for-motorola-phone-sales-ban-3492693/ Later this patent was again invalidated by Federal patent court of Germany in Dec 2013] | ||
+ | * ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Upheld in [[Germany]]=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | :''(See: [[X ZR 27/07 (2010, April, Germany)]])'' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/German-appeal-court-upholds-Microsoft-FAT-patent-985550.html German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent], The H, April 2010 (also: [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/23/169253 slashdot story]) | ||
+ | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20070315210041/http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86141 Federal Patent Court declares FAT patent of Microsoft null and void], The H, April 2007 (also: [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/03/15/142203/Germany-Rejects-Microsoft-FAT-Patent slashdot story]) | ||
+ | * {{translate de|title=WINDOWS - Dateiverwaltung beruht auf, patentfähiger Erfindung |url=http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&Datum=2010&Sort=3&nr=51702&anz=84&pos=0&Blank=1}} | ||
+ | * {{translate de|title=Text of the appeal court decision|url=http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&az=X%20ZR%2027/07&nr=52113}} | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
+ | |||
* [[Microsoft]] | * [[Microsoft]] | ||
* [[Microsoft vs. TomTom]] - where MS forced TomTom to pay for patents, seemingly including their FAT patents | * [[Microsoft vs. TomTom]] - where MS forced TomTom to pay for patents, seemingly including their FAT patents | ||
Line 18: | Line 43: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/ How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent], 27 Mar 2012, '''Wired''' | ||
* [http://www.pubpat.org/microsoftfat.htm PubPat: Microsoft FAT Patent ] (page out of date) | * [http://www.pubpat.org/microsoftfat.htm PubPat: Microsoft FAT Patent ] (page out of date) | ||
* Groklaw report on [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090501191713379 A patch to remove VFAT filename conversion from the Linux kernel], | * Groklaw report on [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090501191713379 A patch to remove VFAT filename conversion from the Linux kernel], | ||
** [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/31491/ the LKML thread] | ** [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/31491/ the LKML thread] | ||
** [http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/26/314 A related FAQ produced by Andrew Tridgell and Linux Foundation] | ** [http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/26/314 A related FAQ produced by Andrew Tridgell and Linux Foundation] | ||
− | * [http://www.techflash.com/ | + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20110710003125/http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/02/QA_Microsofts_chief_patent_lawyer_on_TomTom_and_Linux_40354407.html Microsoft's IP chief on TomTom, Linux and patents], '''techflash''', Feb 2009 |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Line 34: | Line 55: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{footer}} |
[[Category:Example software patents]] | [[Category:Example software patents]] | ||
[[Category:Microsoft]] | [[Category:Microsoft]] |
Revision as of 23:32, 17 December 2016
Microsoft has a number of patents on how to deal with filename in their commonly used FAT filesystem. These patents have been issued in the USA, Germany, and surely a long list of other countries.
The FAT patents have the interesting property of being useful only for compatibility with the patent owner. The FAT patents are not otherwise useful; in fact the FAT filesystem is technically undesirable. Those who wish to make use of the patent are clearly seeking compatibility, not innovation or other useful properties.
Contents
In the USA
In December 2003, Microsoft announced[1] licensing demands of four patents for the FAT filesystem:
- US5,579,517 "The '517 patent"
- US5,758,352 "The '352 patent" (The EPO equivalent is EP0618540 )
- U.S. Patent #5,745,902
- U.S. Patent #6,286,013
Timeline
- Autumn 2003: MS starts threatening people[2][3]
- September 2004: The '517 patent is rejected[4] thanks to the work of PubPat[5] and others.
- January 2006: The '517 patent is reinstated[6]
- January 2009: Microsoft uses its FAT patents against TomTom
In Europe
The patents granted by the European Patent Office are:
- EP0618550 - upheld in Germany, see below (equivalent to US5,758,352) - Expired on 2014-10-05 ?
- EP0618540 - upheld in Germany by regional court of Mannheim in 2012[7] Valid till 2021-12-12 ?. Later this patent was again invalidated by Federal patent court of Germany in Dec 2013
- ...
Upheld in Germany
- German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT patent, The H, April 2010 (also: slashdot story)
- Federal Patent Court declares FAT patent of Microsoft null and void, The H, April 2007 (also: slashdot story)
- German original: WINDOWS - Dateiverwaltung beruht auf, patentfähiger Erfindung (English translations[?]: Google, bing translator)
- German original: Text of the appeal court decision (English translations[?]: Google, bing translator)
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Microsoft
- Microsoft vs. TomTom - where MS forced TomTom to pay for patents, seemingly including their FAT patents
- Litigation
- Example software patents
External links
- How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent, 27 Mar 2012, Wired
- PubPat: Microsoft FAT Patent (page out of date)
- Groklaw report on A patch to remove VFAT filename conversion from the Linux kernel,
- Microsoft's IP chief on TomTom, Linux and patents, techflash, Feb 2009
References
- ↑ http://web.archive.org/web/20041229090400/http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp
- ↑ http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Reexam_Filed.htm
- ↑ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/05/1070351761346.html
- ↑ http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/MicrosoftFAT/Reynolds_517_Rejected_040916.PDF
- ↑ http://www.pubpat.org/Microsoft_517_Rejected.htm
- ↑ http://news.cnet.com/Microsofts-file-system-patent-upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html
- ↑ http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/with-german-fat-patent-ruling-microsoft.html