On last.fm: Taylor Swift photos and free music!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 25 of 101:
Next »
« Previous
Even more ridiculous patents have been justifed by some
Remember a few years ago when somebody claimed to have patented the "pivot technique" of solving the Y2K problem? There was plenty of prior art, some languages such as NOMAD even had it as a built in feature for many years before it was patented, and it was TRIVIAL. It was tantamount to claiming that he's the first person to decide to use an "If" statement in a programming language or use "if-then-else" logic. Any middle school student studying programming understood that if somebody explains a simple business rule, you can implement it with simple code. It was no different from looking at a person's age and using the "pivot" technique to decide it the person was a child or an adult.

But the whole thing made the news in a big way, and some pretty sizable corporations actually agreed to pay royalties since it was cheaper than fighting it.

The FAT system is trivial for anybody who has studied file systems. It's also an obviously limited system for anybody who has made such a study. Anybody who has studied more robust file systems, whether they be on IBM mainframes or Unix or anywhere else knows that you need to keep track of file names and properties and store that information on the disk somewhere, and you need to have pointers to the beginning block, track, cluster, cylinder, or whatever other unit you use to store information. You also need to keep track of other units if a file spans multiple units, keep track of which units are free, and have the ability to reallocate these units as files are created and deleted. A robust system will do far more than this, but FAT does little more than this, and I can't think of anything off the top of my head that FAT does aside from keeping track of where a file is, and keeping track of the chain of clusters and the basic file properties, and of what space is free. So if all file systems do these things, then what is proprietary? It's like saying I came up with the idea of keeping my sofa across from the fireplace with the TV to the left. Yes, MS might have decided on the basic arrangement of this data, but that's a truly trivial task.

They also left out some features that were pretty basic to most computer users of the day, such as allowing for different file formats, fixed and varying length records, the ability for the OS to know where the nth record in a large file resides on disk with true random access, and so forth. DOS required these sorts of things to be done at the application level, or did not allow them to be done at all. They didn't even bother keeping track of file characteristics, but left it up to the users to recognize what sort of file something is by using a naming convention (but even they did not do that with Word until years later) and by putting characters such as "carriage returns" and linefeeds into the data itself. If these most basic features are not even part of the file system, then they can't claim they did very much, and they certainly didn't do anything non-trivial. Nor could they. DOS was designed to fit on a 360k floppy disk with enough room left for the software and data that would be running under it. It was supposed to be trivial.
Posted by: wresnick   Posted on: 10/01/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

FAT patent  crocd | 09/30/04
Removing a patent is a long drawn out process.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Who's trying to remove a patent?  Physco Dude | 09/30/04
Look at the article header  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
All patents are granted...  Physco Dude | 09/30/04
I forgot to add...  Physco Dude | 09/30/04
Yes, you missed a lot..  d_jedi | 09/30/04
But didn't Microsoft just apply for a patent...  voska | 09/30/04
It's up to the Director  IT_User | 09/30/04
No, only Micoresoft can appeal.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Well, actually rule  IT_User | 09/30/04
Re: But didn't Microsoft just apply for a patent... (fix the f*ing forums!)  d_jedi | 10/01/04
Are they removing the patent ..  crocd | 09/30/04
Correct, and that IS a VERY long process.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
incorrect  Physco Dude | 09/30/04
Not appealing, in the formal sense  IT_User | 09/30/04
Please do yourself a favor and read the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
This is a public policy question  John L. Ries | 09/30/04
However...  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
True enough, however...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Not true in this case...  Physco Dude | 09/30/04
Without a patent  IT_User | 09/30/04
Again, read the law on the matter.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
and OFC neither do yours NAG  Always Annoyed | 10/01/04
Even more ridiculous patents have been justifed by some  wresnick | 10/01/04
MS will have to let this one go, or face Eolas again  FilledOut | 09/30/04
Eolas hasn't "let it go".  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
And because they won't let it go...  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
That may be, however...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Microsoft is appealing, no Eolas  Physco Dude | 09/30/04
Mixing up the meaning of "appeal"  IT_User | 09/30/04
Bring it on MS, all your patents will be voided!  Xunil_Sierutuf | 09/30/04
Patent office must have gotten your letters  FilledOut | 09/30/04
Bring it on IBM, all your patents will be voided!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Actually, Ax...  Yen_z | 09/30/04
IBM has many hardware patents that will be unaffected (NT)  Update victim | 10/01/04
When, oh WHEN will ZDNet stop repeating falsehoods  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
I believe they are talking about Samba running on Windows.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Samba runs on Windows?  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
I should have said, a Windows enviornment.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
No, that's not an issue.  mobrien_12@... | 09/30/04
Really? Lets examine that a bit.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
You really don't have a clue about this, do you?  B.O.F.H. | 09/30/04
You failed to answer either question. Why?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
3 things  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
The Samba guys are 'scared' because ...  George Mitchell | 09/30/04
Ok No_Ax, some answers (simplified just for you!)  B.O.F.H. | 09/30/04
Scared...  Patrick Jones | 09/30/04
Mounting the Drive  John L. Ries | 09/30/04
Ok I'm going to try to explain this.  mobrien_12@... | 09/30/04
no-ax question back to you  V Sanders | 10/01/04
You are so clueless, bitty  AmusedAtItAll | 10/01/04
The panent would have no bearing in such a case  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
You lack the knowledge here  voska | 09/30/04
Read my above reply. (nt)  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Like I said, you're in over your head  voska | 10/01/04
You really don't understand whayt SaMBa does, do you?  B.O.F.H. | 09/30/04
Samba implments SMB on Unix based systems!  B.O.F.H. | 09/30/04
If the patent is held up...  BitTwiddler | 09/30/04
And effects 95% of users how?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Maybe not initially  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
You mean like IE?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
IE is going downhill..  d_jedi | 09/30/04
Stagnant, yes.  Anton Philidor | 09/30/04
OK, you got me..  d_jedi | 10/01/04
Free surfer link  Anton Philidor | 10/01/04
Um, not by any reports I've read.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
We read different reports (nt)  CobraA1 | 10/01/04
So you're saying IE's market share is increasing?  d_jedi | 10/01/04
Firefox is slowly making inroads  Michael Kelly | 09/30/04
Change "slowly" to "invisibly" (NT)  Anton Philidor | 09/30/04
Not yet  IT_User | 09/30/04
Thee already are  PA-ITGuy | 09/30/04
Not a problem at all ..  George Mitchell | 09/30/04
I said "without having to install any special software"  PA-ITGuy | 10/01/04
'Patent quality'?! Yo Microsoft, try PRODUCT quality  HypnoToad | 09/30/04
This is good  CobraA1 | 09/30/04
One of four previously issued FAT patents now in question.  Anton Philidor | 09/30/04
re previously granted to Microsoft for a Windows file format.  V Sanders | 09/30/04
Welcome back, Anton the Microsoft perpetual cheerleader!  systemcleaner | 10/01/04
Mixing up the meaning of "appeal"  IT_User | 09/30/04
Thank you, these folks seem to be without a clue on the process.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
Isn't it a little late to be patenting FAT?  John L. Ries | 09/30/04
Sigh,,, they have had the patents for years.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
How recently were they granted?  John L. Ries | 09/30/04
Now having read the decision...  John L. Ries | 09/30/04
FAT is used in SD and Flash media.  B.O.F.H. | 09/30/04
They are not "doing" the patent, it's been in place.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/30/04
This particular patent (5,579,517) has 'been in place' since 1995  George Mitchell | 09/30/04
Thanx for the info  voska | 10/01/04
learn to read!  B.O.F.H. | 09/30/04
ms fighting this just makes them look bad  V Sanders | 09/30/04
Microsoft is and was always a self-serving monopoly.  systemcleaner | 10/01/04
Most companies who believe they can either  FilledOut | 10/01/04
Patenting the uninnovative  michael-t | 09/30/04
The pertinant facts:  George Mitchell | 09/30/04
Another Republican election ploy?  systemcleaner | 10/01/04
No  CobraA1 | 10/01/04
FAT patent - what arrogance  tony@... | 10/01/04
Ban Patents  IT_Critic | 10/01/04
Samba uses a network protocol, not a file format  balsover | 10/01/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Meet Doc

  • Here to help you with your Document Management Needs
  • Doc is an enigma. Born to a Russian ballerina and a German electrical engineer, he grew up in various locations in the United States. He’s seen the insides of more brands, versions, and generations of printer and printer-related hardware than almost anyone.
  • To learn more about this mysterious figure check out his blog on ZDNet and his Workspace on TechRepublic. You’ll be glad you did.
  • Produced by
    ZDNet and