If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Microsoft being sued by company that holds the world wide exclusive rights to rectangles with sharp corners   (news.cnet.com) divider line 152
    More: Sick, Windows Live Tiles, Windows Phone 7, Microsoft, Microsoft Surface  
•       •       •

22707 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 3:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-31 04:10:43 PM

stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?


From the patent:
A tile is different from a window because a tile will typically be smaller in size, allowing the user to view multiple tiles simultaneously if desired.

A tile provides an at-a-glance view of the current status of the program or file associated with it but does not necessarily have the large number of active areas associated with windows such as title bar, menu bar and scroll bars. Therefore tiles lead to a reduction in clutter on the display screen because many tiles may be displayed simultaneously without overlapping with one another in the way that windows must necessarily do.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-31 04:10:54 PM
Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons.

Like the "active icon" of xterm in the 1980s.  It shrunk the font size to 1 or 2 pixels when iconified so the icon was a functioning minature terminal.
 
2012-10-31 04:14:26 PM

MarkEC: FTA: "Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons. A Tile is different from an icon because it can be both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information."

The Recycle bin in windows fits that description and has been around a lot longer than that patent. Prior Art, case dismissed.


The recycle bin doesn't provide a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information (its contents), but rather merely indicates the presence or absence of underlying information, while remaining agnostic to the substance of that information.

But that's just the description. To invalidate a patent, you have to go to the claims, and specifically, you need to find one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element in the claims.
Sure, the recycle bin is prior art - it's in the same art, and it's prior. But does it teach every element in the claims? If not, that's not sufficient to dismiss the case.
 
2012-10-31 04:16:26 PM

NutznGum: That's nothing, Apple just patented displaying a map on a mobile device. I guess that's one way of fixing Apple Maps.....


No, they didn't. And since "Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art, it couldn't infringe that patent, at least in its 2006 form.
 
2012-10-31 04:17:35 PM
Patent Trolls versus Microsoft.

Wow. I really gotta cheer Microsoft on this one. The patent trolls really don't know what they're getting into with these guys.

leavinglaw.files.wordpress.com

Microsoft has a direct in with Satan, I hear. It's how they got Windows ME to release.
 
2012-10-31 04:18:12 PM

sp86: Tellingthem: Academi

Jesus Christ, I missed that one. What will they be next week?


Dunces With Guns
 
2012-10-31 04:18:31 PM

BeesNuts: gweilo8888: BeesNuts: At least patent law allows a small timer to invent something like the slap chop and then sell off the idea to a manufacturer.

No, it doesn't. If the slap chop was anything any major manufacturer wanted, they'd just have strangled its inventor in the courts with an endless succession of lawyers and cases, all the while selling an inferior knockoff product themselves.

The patent system isn't about the small timer, and it hasn't been for decades. The patent system is now about persuading one megacorp not to encroach on another megacorp's territory, and about making the lawyers stinking rich.

Well, obviously it's been bought and paid for. but a *functional* patent system would indubitably protect the interests of smaller inventors.

But mainly, the crux of the issue I have with patent law, is that it fundamentally denies consumers any sort of choice. Allowing someone to carve out a patent with a 17 year shelf life in an industry like computing is insanity, obviously. And yeah, the issues with have with patent law enforcement are numerous and ridden with corruption...

So let's talk:

Abolish ALL patent law. Just boom. Wake up tomorrow and the idea had never existed.

Better world/Worse world?

I'm leaning towards better... but... idk. It's a very complicated territory to navigate, IMO. But I love talking about it.


You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.
 
2012-10-31 04:19:57 PM

Theaetetus: NutznGum: That's nothing, Apple just patented displaying a map on a mobile device. I guess that's one way of fixing Apple Maps.....

No, they didn't. And since "Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art, it couldn't infringe that patent, at least in its 2006 form.


Actually, they did.
 
2012-10-31 04:20:18 PM

Theaetetus: NutWrench: According to some folks over at SlashDot, Surfcast is a company that makes no products or sells any services. In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company." A quick visit to Surfcast's unimpressive website seems to confirm this. So I guess the question is: should a company that produces nothing of value be able to sue for "patent infringement?"

Companies like MIT, Georgia Tech, Johns Hopkins, or Cornell University, who do millions upon millions of dollars of research funded by patent license fees?


Patent holding shell companies are a hell of a lot different than research universities, and it would be very easy to make the distinction legally if you wanted to try to fix the patent system. For example, you could define your non-practicing entity as a, "for profit entity that..." and you're done.
 
2012-10-31 04:21:12 PM

Antimatter: BeesNuts: gweilo8888: BeesNuts: At least patent law allows a small timer to invent something like the slap chop and then sell off the idea to a manufacturer.

No, it doesn't. If the slap chop was anything any major manufacturer wanted, they'd just have strangled its inventor in the courts with an endless succession of lawyers and cases, all the while selling an inferior knockoff product themselves.

The patent system isn't about the small timer, and it hasn't been for decades. The patent system is now about persuading one megacorp not to encroach on another megacorp's territory, and about making the lawyers stinking rich.

Well, obviously it's been bought and paid for. but a *functional* patent system would indubitably protect the interests of smaller inventors.

But mainly, the crux of the issue I have with patent law, is that it fundamentally denies consumers any sort of choice. Allowing someone to carve out a patent with a 17 year shelf life in an industry like computing is insanity, obviously. And yeah, the issues with have with patent law enforcement are numerous and ridden with corruption...

So let's talk:

Abolish ALL patent law. Just boom. Wake up tomorrow and the idea had never existed.

Better world/Worse world?

I'm leaning towards better... but... idk. It's a very complicated territory to navigate, IMO. But I love talking about it.

You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them.
 
2012-10-31 04:25:21 PM

NutznGum: Theaetetus: NutznGum: That's nothing, Apple just patented displaying a map on a mobile device. I guess that's one way of fixing Apple Maps.....

No, they didn't. And since "Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art, it couldn't infringe that patent, at least in its 2006 form.

Actually, they did.


No, actually, they didn't.
First, as I said, ""Google Maps for Mobile (beta)" was cited as prior art." (it's in the section under the subheading "other references") so therefore the patent can't possibly claim "displaying a map on a mobile device".
Second, the patent doesn't claim "displaying a map on a mobile device". Instead, it claims:
1. A method, comprising: at a computing device with a touch screen display:
detecting a single finger gesture on a marker on a digital map on the touch screen display;
in response to determining that the single finger gesture moves a finger contact area more than a first predetermined distance in a first predetermined time when a finger in the single finger gesture initially touches the touch screen display, moving the digital map on the touch screen display in accordance with the movement of the single finger gesture, rather than displaying a user-selectable region for obtaining information associated with the marker on the touch screen display or moving the marker on the digital map in accordance with the single finger gesture;
in response to determining that the single finger gesture is a single tap gesture that moves the finger contact area less than a second predetermined distance and lasts less than a second predetermined time, displaying the user-selectable region, which when selected initiates display of an interface for obtaining information associated with the marker on the touch screen display, rather than moving the digital map on the touch screen display or moving the marker on the digital map in accordance with the single finger gesture; and
in response to determining that the single finger gesture includes a substantially stationary contact, the substantially stationary contact moving the finger contact area less than a third predetermined distance and lasting more than the second predetermined time, followed by translation of the finger contact area on the touch screen display after the second predetermined time ends, moving the marker on the digital map in accordance with movement of the single finger gesture, rather than moving the digital map on the touch screen display or displaying the user-selectable region for obtaining information associated with the marker on the touch screen display.


That's claiming a very specific combination of gestures for a map display app. It's not claiming displaying a map on a mobile device.
 
2012-10-31 04:28:21 PM
Most aproppiate logo ever?
www.surfcast.com 
/hot
 
2012-10-31 04:33:07 PM

cptjeff: Theaetetus: NutWrench: According to some folks over at SlashDot, Surfcast is a company that makes no products or sells any services. In other words, they're patent trolls, disguised as a "company." A quick visit to Surfcast's unimpressive website seems to confirm this. So I guess the question is: should a company that produces nothing of value be able to sue for "patent infringement?"

Companies like MIT, Georgia Tech, Johns Hopkins, or Cornell University, who do millions upon millions of dollars of research funded by patent license fees?

Patent holding shell companies are a hell of a lot different than research universities, and it would be very easy to make the distinction legally if you wanted to try to fix the patent system. For example, you could define your non-practicing entity as a, "for profit entity that..." and you're done.


Universities make a lot of profit, and it's also easy to structure a shell company as a non-profit that pays outrageous salaries to its employees. If you think you're done with a definition like that, then you won't have actually fixed anything.
Clearly, from your proposed definition, the issue isn't the fact that they don't make anything, since you don't mind research universities. And since those universities are plenty rich, it can't be that they make money. Rather, the issue is the outrageous damage awards and court costs that effectively amount to extortion, no?

You could fix this one way by limiting damages from the infringer's profits to the patent owner's lost income, represented either by lost sales or by lost license fees, with the latter determined either by previous licenses or by a third party independent expert. Trolls who don't actually sell licenses, but just sue would have no evidence for valuable licenses, and an expert could say "yeah, that's worth a penny per thousand units." Universities who license all the time could point to those licenses.

You could also fix this the other way by apportioning costs based on who loses the suit, probably offset by any procedural delay or cost increases generated by the other party. But that's a little tougher, and could actually be worse for someone who innocently infringes a patent and would currently not have to pay those. That's why I'd prefer the previous solution.
 
2012-10-31 04:33:22 PM
FTA: Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons. A Tile is different from an icon because it can be both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information.

That seems like it is describing widgets on Android.
 
2012-10-31 04:33:41 PM

BronyMedic: Patent Trolls versus Microsoft.

Wow. I really gotta cheer Microsoft on this one. The patent trolls really don't know what they're getting into with these guys.

[leavinglaw.files.wordpress.com image 346x346]

Microsoft has a direct in with Satan, I hear. It's how they got Windows ME to release.


Except this isn't a patent troll. This action is being brought by the company that developed very similar dynamic icon technology. Did MS actually rip them off? I guess we'll find out. MS does have a long history of this sort of thing. Almost everything in Windows is "borrowed" from someone else. They stopped innovating and started imitating long ago. This is why they are almost hopelessly behind Apple and Google in mobile and cross-device technology.

If Windows 8 is a flop, Microsoft will become irrelevant. It sounds like they have some really good ideas with the product, but there is a concern that long-time users of Windows may have significant problems with the new UI.
 
2012-10-31 04:34:28 PM

Theaetetus: Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them.


Exactly. This is why there is absolutely no software or product development or advancements taking place in places with stricter patent systems like Canada.
 
2012-10-31 04:38:13 PM

Antimatter: BeesNuts: gweilo8888: BeesNuts: At least patent law allows a small timer to invent something like the slap chop and then sell off the idea to a manufacturer.

No, it doesn't. If the slap chop was anything any major manufacturer wanted, they'd just have strangled its inventor in the courts with an endless succession of lawyers and cases, all the while selling an inferior knockoff product themselves.

The patent system isn't about the small timer, and it hasn't been for decades. The patent system is now about persuading one megacorp not to encroach on another megacorp's territory, and about making the lawyers stinking rich.

Well, obviously it's been bought and paid for. but a *functional* patent system would indubitably protect the interests of smaller inventors.

But mainly, the crux of the issue I have with patent law, is that it fundamentally denies consumers any sort of choice. Allowing someone to carve out a patent with a 17 year shelf life in an industry like computing is insanity, obviously. And yeah, the issues with have with patent law enforcement are numerous and ridden with corruption...

So let's talk:

Abolish ALL patent law. Just boom. Wake up tomorrow and the idea had never existed.

Better world/Worse world?

I'm leaning towards better... but... idk. It's a very complicated territory to navigate, IMO. But I love talking about it.

You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


That's the case in tech right now, though, just with massive externalities (legal fees) for everyone involved- they cancel out. All this stuff is essentially the same, and they're freely copying off of each other. It's still insanely profitable.

Now, when you're talking about complicated bits of chemical engineering, you might have a case, but in the tech world? Patents impose a cost with no benefit. Especially in regards to software, which should never have been patentable in the first place. The system we have for patenting software would be akin to a copyright system where you could protect not just the text of your book, but anything like it. David McCullough, instead of having protection for John Adams, would have protection for "History books regarding executive branch politics during the Federal Period". Another author might have protection for, "History books regarding operations of the Presidency immediately after ratification". Despite the immense overlap, nobody would think this a strange system, and David McCullough and Ron Chernow (His recent Washington bio) would be suing and counter-suing for 10 million dollars or so.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:44 PM

Antimatter: You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


Complete and utter rubbish. Presented with a choice between similar products at similar prices, people gravitate towards the brand-names that were there first and are best established.

The system as-is is totally broken. It no longer protects the little guy (the supposed reason for making it in the first place), it's a nuisance to the big guy too (a significant portion of their profits is frittered away on defending themselves against patent trolls, trying to buy up a warchest of patents of their own, and defending themselves against nonsense lawsuits from their closest rivals after every product launch), and that's passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices for the products (which is part of *why* third-party, no-name knockoffs are so much cheaper.) The big guy will put up with it though, because it's a nuisance they get to wield against others too--but they'd happily do without it if it were gone and couldn't be used against them either.

It's high time it was fixed, but it won't be, because too many people--and especially, too many lawyers--are getting fat off the status quo.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:45 PM

tomcatadam: Theaetetus: Nah, you just keep everything as trade secrets, invented for your wealthy aristocratic patron. And progress will continue - why, within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings in Europe will own them.

Exactly. This is why there is absolutely no software or product development or advancements taking place in places with stricter patent systems like Canada.


... Your sarcasm actually went completely over my head. With a few minor changes like the grace period, applicant filing, and first to file rather than first to invent (which difference is going away in about 5 months), Canada's system and the US' are almost identical. Could you explain what you meant?
 
2012-10-31 04:41:17 PM

cptjeff: Especially in regards to software, which should never have been patentable in the first place.


Why not? Are there any other industries which should be exempted out from the patent system, regardless of how new and innovative their ideas are?
 
2012-10-31 04:44:39 PM
fark this, I'm taking my life savings and hiring a team of lawyers to patent geometric shapes for me.
 
2012-10-31 04:45:15 PM

gweilo8888: Antimatter: You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.

Complete and utter rubbish. Presented with a choice between similar products at similar prices, people gravitate towards the brand-names that were there first and are best established.


Yeah, like Crush the Castle! Oh, wait...
I meant Tiny Tower! Er...
I meant Farm Town! Um...
Mob Wars? Crap.
Restaurant City? Aw, forget this.

The system as-is is totally broken. It no longer protects the little guy (the supposed reason for making it in the first place)

That wasn't the reason for making it at all.
 
2012-10-31 04:48:15 PM
I'm .patenting hexagon tiles - and don't you farkin' copy me!
 
2012-10-31 04:50:08 PM
I guess Fractal Edged Rectangles are safe for now.
 
2012-10-31 05:08:39 PM

SinisterDexter: I'm .patenting hexagon tiles - and don't you farkin' copy me!


Windows Mobile 6.5 had them, sorry try again
 
2012-10-31 05:09:19 PM
I just noticed that nobody patented electricity. I'm submitting an application now.
 
2012-10-31 05:12:19 PM

Theaetetus: MarkEC: FTA: "Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons. A Tile is different from an icon because it can be both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information."

The Recycle bin in windows fits that description and has been around a lot longer than that patent. Prior Art, case dismissed.

The recycle bin doesn't provide a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information (its contents), but rather merely indicates the presence or absence of underlying information, while remaining agnostic to the substance of that information.

But that's just the description. To invalidate a patent, you have to go to the claims, and specifically, you need to find one or more pieces of prior art that, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element in the claims.
Sure, the recycle bin is prior art - it's in the same art, and it's prior. But does it teach every element in the claims? If not, that's not sufficient to dismiss the case.


You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
4.bp.blogspot.com

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

/Imagining the millions of programmers that did and are still doing the same thing.
 
2012-10-31 05:17:14 PM
Oh FFS. It is like they never dreamed anyone had hit "cascade" which is in win OSes prior to 2000 so they can go eat a cack. I would say that Packard Bell has more grounds for lawsuit than these dbags. Whatever. Best of luck to them and their lawyer against MS's team of pros lol. If they win with MS, then they can take on the big boys at Apple and Linux ;)
 
2012-10-31 05:20:41 PM

Theaetetus: stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?

From the patent:
A tile is different from a window because a tile will typically be smaller in size, allowing the user to view multiple tiles simultaneously if desired.

A tile provides an at-a-glance view of the current status of the program or file associated with it but does not necessarily have the large number of active areas associated with windows such as title bar, menu bar and scroll bars. Therefore tiles lead to a reduction in clutter on the display screen because many tiles may be displayed simultaneously without overlapping with one another in the way that windows must necessarily do.


Windows don't necessarily have to overlap; see tile "horizontally/vertically" which go back to... I don't know the date, but certainly before 2000 [and even goes as far as to use the term "tile"] Windows can be arbitrarily resized so "typically smaller in size" has no meaning. The only differentiation actually being drawn here is that they're undecorated... and title/menu/scroll bars are all optional elements of windows so even that doesn't have much meaning. What they describe is a specific configuration of a window and is no more reasonable than someone trying to patent all 640x480 windows.
 
2012-10-31 05:24:23 PM

stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?
The BS with IP laws is just getting ridiculous.
If anything, Douglas Adams needs to sue every tablet maker!!


The Gene Roddenberry estate should sue them all, including apple - tell me WIN8 doesn't look like the displays on Enterprise-D!
 
2012-10-31 05:24:58 PM

StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]


I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?
 
2012-10-31 05:28:17 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: stonicus: How is their definition of a "tile" any different than just a regular app window?

From the patent:
A tile is different from a window because a tile will typically be smaller in size, allowing the user to view multiple tiles simultaneously if desired.

A tile provides an at-a-glance view of the current status of the program or file associated with it but does not necessarily have the large number of active areas associated with windows such as title bar, menu bar and scroll bars. Therefore tiles lead to a reduction in clutter on the display screen because many tiles may be displayed simultaneously without overlapping with one another in the way that windows must necessarily do.

Windows don't necessarily have to overlap; see tile "horizontally/vertically" which go back to... I don't know the date, but certainly before 2000 [and even goes as far as to use the term "tile"]


Yep, you're thinking of tiling window managers. Probably late 1970s.

Windows can be arbitrarily resized so "typically smaller in size" has no meaning. The only differentiation actually being drawn here is that they're undecorated... and title/menu/scroll bars are all optional elements of windows so even that doesn't have much meaning.

Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

What they describe is a specific configuration of a window and is no more reasonable than someone trying to patent all 640x480 windows.

Again, not really. The patent actually has more to do with updating the tiles and how they get their source data. Plus, tiles are relatively narrowly defined such that a window isn't a tile and a tile isn't a window. Doing the same thing with windows or icons would appear to not infringe the patent, since they specifically said that tiles are different than either.
 
2012-10-31 05:32:30 PM

Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?


both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information
 
2012-10-31 05:37:02 PM

Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?


No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional. Especially the scroll bar. What you're suggesting is that if I go into Visual Studio, make a new form, set the border style to none, resizable to false, and scroll bars to none; the only thing standing between me and this patent doing a bounds check on the sides? That's called "docking" and while there's no checkbox for it, it's pretty damn common.

Here, have some 1997:
screenshots.en.sftcdn.net

This. Patent. Is. Garbage.

/Alright, I guess it's technically a "form" and not a "window"
//point stands
 
2012-10-31 05:38:09 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information


Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.
 
2012-10-31 05:39:32 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional.

... Here, have some 1997:
[screenshots.en.sftcdn.net image 550x377]


Maybe that screenshot renders differently on your screen. Is your browser cutting off the top 10 pixels that the rest of us can see?
 
2012-10-31 05:39:58 PM

Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.


The tray area itself the 'grid' and the items with their dynamic appearance the 'tiles.'
 
2012-10-31 05:45:40 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.

The tray area itself the 'grid' and the items with their dynamic appearance the 'tiles.'


The system tray area? I suppose... It's not a bad argument that the system process icon could be a "tile" that is updated to show underlying information, namely the CPU utilization. That one could go either way, since it would be an okay broadest possible reading of the claims, but it wouldn't be consistent with the specification.
It also wouldn't begin to touch most of the dependent claims, which would actually rule out the system tray as anticipatory art.
 
2012-10-31 05:46:54 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional.

... Here, have some 1997:
[screenshots.en.sftcdn.net image 550x377]

Maybe that screenshot renders differently on your screen. Is your browser cutting off the top 10 pixels that the rest of us can see?


If you're suggesting that turning the titlebar off is patentable, then one would be able to patent a specific window size as well, correct? They both consist of altering configuration values in common UI toolkits. Both change the appearance of the window. Why would they be different?
 
2012-10-31 05:49:06 PM
Forget looking for a real job, I'm just going to file a bunch of patents, and become a patent troll and strike it rich.
 
2012-10-31 05:52:36 PM

Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.


Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: Theaetetus: StoPPeRmobile: You mean like Trillian has been doing since 2000?
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x320]

I don't see how that applies at all. Are you referring to that notification popup?

I'm still stuck on dynamically generated buttons. Think I started with those in 1999. May have been 2001, though. Those seem to fit the bill and I can't afford the type of lawyers needed.

In what way do they fit the bill?

both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information

Would depend on the button, I suppose... For example, one that only has the same sort of true or false behavior of the recycling bin mentioned above wouldn't qualify, since it's not providing a view of the underlying information. Additionally, while they'd be a start for a rejection of the patent, a single button wouldn't be enough, since some of the claim is around the grid and refresh of different tiles.


I feel like I should be paid for answering that question.
 
2012-10-31 05:56:34 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Well, not really... They're control surfaces for the window itself. Remove them, and is it still a window? Or is it something different?

No, it's still a window. What you're describing are controls and they are optional.

... Here, have some 1997:
[screenshots.en.sftcdn.net image 550x377]

Maybe that screenshot renders differently on your screen. Is your browser cutting off the top 10 pixels that the rest of us can see?

If you're suggesting that turning the titlebar off is patentable


Nope. I was suggesting that "a window with a title bar" is not an example of "a tile with no title bar," and so a screenshot of Winamp's windows doesn't help to show that tiles were known in 1997.

then one would be able to patent a specific window size as well, correct?

Assuming for the sake of argument that I was suggesting that, then still no. Windows are known, yes? Widths and heights are known too? Then a combination of a known window with a known height and a known width would not be patentable.
Basically, if A, B, and C are known, then A+B+C is not patentable. What you've done is show that D was known, and then are claiming, without evidence, that A is just a trivial case of D. You haven't yet provided any evidence, so your conclusion is unsupported.

Specifically:
They both consist of altering configuration values in common UI toolkits.

... except that you haven't actually shown any such values or configuration that would remove the control surfaces, including the title bar. So you haven't shown that sentence to be true.
 
2012-10-31 06:00:58 PM
Anyways, I've got to go fire up Assassin's Creed, but I'll check back later. :)
 
2012-10-31 06:02:33 PM

Deadmannumberone: WhackingDay: Eventually corporations are going to realize that it'll be far cheaper to employ a crack paramilitary commando squad than the hordes of lawyers it's currently using.

Yeah! Shadowrun.


I love that game.. haven't played in years.
 
2012-10-31 06:14:23 PM

Antimatter: You just made it impossible for any invention to be profitable, as anyone could copy it and sell it themselves.


Why would they even bother? Somebody else would just copy it from them and sell it themselves. A patent has fark-all to do with an inventions "profitability".
 
2012-10-31 06:18:55 PM
And thus begins another "Forever War".

This crap has already cost us nice things and is going to get a lot worse unless The Court grows some testes.
Since that is not going to happen, the Congress must act and define a workable set of new rules.
Since that is not going to happen,,,,
 
2012-10-31 06:20:23 PM
Volvo?

/dnrtfa
 
2012-10-31 06:24:44 PM

Theaetetus: ... except that you haven't actually shown any such values or configuration that would remove the control surfaces, including the title bar. So you haven't shown that sentence to be true.


You don't get it. You have to add those. At the lowest level, the basic UI container is a rectangle. The rest is ADDED. So, it's as you say. but a window as you're thinking of it IS already A+B+C, where A is the undecorated rectangular container. If A wasn't already known, the 'window' as you conceive of it could not exist. I don't need to explain to you how to strip the paint of a car to prove that "car before paint is applied" is a non-obvious idea, do I?

In case I do, it's called (at least in VS C#), FormBorderStyle:
www.perceler.com

In X11, I think it's a matter of setting hints.decorations = 0;

/This is what happens when people who know a lot about law
//Pretend they know anything about other subjects
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-31 06:27:48 PM
In X11, I think it's a matter of setting hints.decorations = 0;

I showed somebody uwm (I think uwm) years after it had gone out of fashion. No title bars or fancy borders. First reaction was, how do you move and resize windows? I still use thin borders and modifer key + button to move or resize.
 
2012-10-31 06:28:03 PM

ProfessorOhki: I don't need to explain to you how to strip the paint of a car to prove that "car before paint is applied" is a non-obvious idea, do I?


Rather, isn't non-obvious by virtue of being a non-obvious derivative of 'car with paint.' Of course, the underlying is as obvious/non-obvious as it was on its own.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report