>IMO does not matter what the claims are.
Really? As a patent attorney I am used to the claims being exactly what counts in infringement litigation. The Register has cleverly posted the abstract which is most excellent in generating outrage but it is the claims, specifically the independent claims, that count. And there are 4 independent claims: 1, 15, 18 and 20.
1. A method for accessing files in a data storage system of a computer system having means for reading and writing data from the data storage system, displaying information, and accepting user input, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) initially creating in the computer system a category description table containing a plurality of category descriptions, each category description comprising a descriptive name, the category descriptions having no predefined hierarchical relationship with such list or each other;
(b) thereafter creating in the computer system a file information directory comprising at least one entry corresponding to a file on the data storage system, each entry comprising at least a unique file identifier for the corresponding file, and a set of category descriptions selected from the category description table; and
(c) thereafter creating in the computer system a search filter comprising a set of category descriptions, wherein for each category description in the search filter there is guaranteed to be at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of category descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search filter.
Reordering the steps might be a legal way around since the features recite "thereafter" which causes estoppel.
For all the outrage here I do not see any constructive analysis on Ask Patent, in fact presently there is noting about the patent there: