Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Seeks Patent On Virtual Desktop Pager
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 25, 2004 09:37 AM
from the enlightenment-anyone dept.
from the enlightenment-anyone dept.
ihabawad writes "Microsoft has a patent on file for this really cool new technology called 'virtual desktops' where you see a 'pager' on the screen. Read all about it by searching under "Published Applications" for patent #20030189597 at the US Patent and Trademark Office. You know, I had a dream that I was using such a thing once; what was it called? -- yes, FvwmPager! Weird, eh?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You may want to mention that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft will probably get this patent and go on to sue anyone using the technology out of existence.
Embrace and extend.
Parent
Um how about the DOS filesystem patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Informative)
Just because most of these never make it to court is hardly an excuse either. Honestly, how many open source developers do you think could afford to face Microsofts high-paid lawyers in a patent case?
Parent
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are right that Microsoft, so far hasn't done that. They haven't needed to, since they have been able to dominate the industry through other means. So, Microsoft is not guilty of any special kind of abuse of the patent system, they simply abuse it in the same way every large company abuses the patent system.
There are plenty of folks suing them over frivolous patents.
And how is creating more "frivolous patents" going to help with that?
Perhaps their latest rash of applications are more defensive than offensive.
There is no such thing as a "defensive patent": sooner or later, a company has to assert, or at least threaten to assert, the claims in one of their patents if it is going to do them any good. And that makes the patent offensive.
Sometimes people think that a patent is used "defensively" in order to establish priority. That's nonsense--a simple disclosure does the same thing and is nearly free. Even Microsoft wouldn't waste $50k-$100k on that.
In fact, most likely, Microsoft is filing patents in order to allow them to get a portfolio for cross-licensing. And that, in itself, is anti-competitive because it ends up keeping people out of the market. It just happens that most of the big companies are in on that kind of anti-competitive behavior.
Parent
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Informative)
from uspto's website [uspto.gov]:
A protest under 37 CFR 1.291(a) must be submitted in writing, must specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed by application number or serial number and filing date, and must include a listing of all patents, publications, or other information relied on; a concise explanation of the relevance of each listed item; an English language translation of all relevant parts of any non-English language document; and be accompanied by a copy of each patent, publication, or other document relied on. Protestors are encouraged to use form PTO-1449 "Information Disclosure Statement" (or an equivalent form) when preparing a protest under 37 CFR 1.291, especially the listing enumerated under 37 CFR 1.291(b)(1). See MPEP 609. In addition, the protest and any accompanying papers must either (1) reflect that a copy of the same has been served upon the applicant or upon the applicant's attorney or agent of record; or (2) be filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.
who wants to do it?!
Parent
Seems familiar (Score:5, Funny)
"No Billy, that's not your toy. That's FVWM's toy. Say you're sorry!"
Direct Link (Score:5, Informative)
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect
It took ages to find it... *sigh*
-huha
Re:Direct Link (Score:5, Informative)
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
Parent
Re:Direct Link (Score:5, Funny)
by huha (755976) on Thursday February 26, @03:41AM (#8385557)
It took ages to find it... *sigh*
Parent
Major Corporation... (Score:5, Funny)
... patents idea with lots of prior art.
News at 11.
vtwm (Score:5, Informative)
This was circa 1990, even before fvwm. I think xrooms was earlier still.
Re:vtwm (Score:5, Informative)
From the tvtwm man page:
Parent
Re:vtwm (Score:5, Informative)
Sort of.
vtwm was a different fork.
twm was "Tab Window Manager"-- window managers previous to that didn't have the object at the top of the window (called a tab in this case) to do the window manipulation with. However since it was written by a guy named Tom LaStrange, it also was known as "Tom's Window Manager."
vtwm involved a bunch of folks taking twm and adding virtual screen capabilities to it, the same thing Tom LaStrange was doing at Solbourne (remember them?) for swm (Solbourne Window Manager, of course). swm evolved into tvtwm, which is where Tom's name was first "officially" put in the window manager's name: "Tom's Virtual Tab Window Manager."
Parent
CodeTek Virtual Desktop? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure there are differences, but is this patent, if it is awarded, going to allow Microsoft to send C&D letters to every company and organization that has been providing virtual desktop software for years, regardless of platform?
How could such a thing happen?
Dreaming Prior Art ...? (Score:5, Funny)
Can a dream constitute prior art?
-kgj
Innovative (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Innovative (Score:5, Informative)
Funny but also (sadly?) true. With the provervial disclaimer IAMAL, but I have worked in R&D labs where were were regularly briefed by the lawyers and harvested for ideas, to be patentable, an idea does not have to be a completely new product area, it just needs to be a way of doing something. So if one step in a process is novel, you can try to patent it. This means, of course, that someone can come around with a different process to do the same thing and they can also try to patent it. In the realm of software, business processes etc. this means that some dubious sounding things can get through - but it also means that there are often work arounds e.g. if one click shopping is patented, add a second step.
Parent
Power Toys for Windows XP (Score:5, Informative)
This is available in XP as a power toy.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/
Works fine I guess... never really got used to it myself.
MS *doesn't* have a patent on this! (Score:5, Informative)
This means that the USPTO could still be contacted and instances of prior art be submitted.
No references (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you for your application fees. Don't call us, we'll call you.
Patently abusive (Score:5, Informative)
Read the patent... (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't make it that much better, but at least make sure you're ranting about the right thing.
Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
(Gets out Soapbox) So why don't we give the USPTO and Congress a good old fashioned snail mail slashdotting and try to convince them that while software copyrights on source code is fine, that software patents are patently stupid.
C'mon - who's with me? Anyone want to step up and coordinate this effort?
Let's write letters and Slashdot the USPTO! And the US Senate! And The House! Here's the USPTO Mailing address -
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
USPTO Contact Center (UCC)
Crystal Plaza 3, Room 2C02
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
http://www.senate.gov for finding your state's senator. http://www.house.gov for finding your district's representative.
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe if you actually look at the patent application you'll see that they (Microsoft) INCLUDE a representation of both KDE and Gnome implementations in their drawings.
See page 2 (tiff) [uspto.gov] of their application. They're not trying to pretend that virtual desktops don't exist. They're trying to describe a slightly different way of doing it that is related (but not the same) as existing methods.
This application doesn't look like their trying to patent the concept of virtual desktop pagers, but a specific implementation of one. This patent app would fall under the broad cateogory of being an incremental improvement of an existing invention.
The question the patent office will need to face is whether the claims are unique enough that this specific implementation warrants a patent. This patent wouldn't cover all virtual desktop pagers, just ones that use the method they describe in their claims.
Parent
GNOME/KDE Ripoff? (Score:5, Interesting)
On page2. Isnt that a gnome and KDE screendump? You can clearly see the foot and the KDE logo in the right bottom corner.
How is it possible to file a patent on someone elses technology, and use a picture of their product to describe it?
Sounds like Apple's Expose. (Score:5, Interesting)
A method for a user to preview multiple virtual desktops in a graphical user interface is described. The method comprises receiving an indication from a user to preview the multiple virtual desktops and displaying multiple panes on the display. Each pane contains a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop. Each scaled virtual desktop displays with one or more scaled application windows as shadows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has one or more corresponding application windows that are active.
This really sounds similar to Apple's Expose with its ability to display multiple windows. And it is Expose if you are running a bunch of emulators on a Mac and each "window" is an emulated desktop.
There is a difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this is exactly the kind of trivial difference that disqualifies it from being 'new and non-obvious', so it still deserves to get laughed out of the Patent Office...
I already wrote one of those for Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote it sometime during the fall of 2001; I don't remember exactly when, but it was last updated Jan 23 2002.
Of course, X pagers had been around long before this one... can the public submit prior art to the USPTO and get MS's patent denied?
Protesting Patents (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the link to the Patent Protest Document. [uspto.gov]
Download the whole patent (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the illustrations show a gnome display right down to the foot. What Microsoft seems to be trying to claim is...
1) When you preview, then entire screen is filed with tiled preview images large enough so you can really see what is in each window.
2) The mini-images on the toolbar have the same background properties as the full-scale window.
Not the most innovative patent in the world, but not a slimy attempt to patent the work of others either.
Oddly Enough (Score:5, Informative)
Just my 2 cents.
Stop whining and just write to the USPTO (Score:5, Informative)
37 C.F.R. 1.291 [gpo.gov] gives members of the public the right to protest a pending application by simply advising the patent office of any reason why a patent should not issue, including prior art. The essential aspects of this are that you must (a)correctly identify the application; (b)provide a concise explanation of the reason for the protest; and (c)provide a copy of the prior art your protest relies on.
So, rather that the usual pablovian reflex of ranting about this stuff on
Ready
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Informative)
Beats anything in powertoys hands down.
Parent
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Funny)
If you actually had a separate monitor for each desktop, it would be hard to call them virtual at that point, wouldn't it?
Parent
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this has to be the first time I've read such a posted patent and come to the conclusion the submitter is absolutely, 100%, right. While I see a few apparently new (but not exactly non-obvious) features (a preview button is on one of the variants), the vast majority of the inventions covered by this patent have abundant prior art, dating back to the late eighties at the latest. And, to the best of my knowledge, while Microsoft has made some of these features available in bonus packs or add-ons or downloadable features since the mid-nineties, I can't recall MS ever bothering to actually include the features by default in their operating systems. It's like they're taking credit for something they've only ever supported grudgingly.
Full marks to Microsoft for blatent patent abuse.
Parent
this is a patent application (Score:5, Informative)
As this is only an application, it does not have patent protection.
Parent
its not a joke (Score:5, Informative)
I work as an examiner.
The claims presented in this application will likely be signifigantly different if it becomes allowed.
Examiners usually have 10-40 hours based on paygrade to fully examine a case. Keep in mind experts don't need as much time to search, and unless you have a proper legal background to understand the metes and bounds, you may not realize how narrow or broad the claims actually are.
I can not comment on office policy, or validity of the claims for this, or any other patent application.
Parent
Re:its not a joke (Score:5, Funny)
>>I work as an examiner
Boy, you are in trouble now!
Wait, shouldn't you be reviewing patents instead of posting here?
Parent
Patent Abuse = Slander of Title? (Score:5, Interesting)
B. They cost us, as a community, time.
C. They're gambling on getting it through under radar, and if that happens it'll cost lots of folks money to fight it.
So there's a monetary component to this.
Meanwhile, Microsoft KNOWS they don't have actual title to this, and are submitting it in effort to take title to this idea FRAUDULENTLY, as they KNOW they don't have title.
That sounds to me like slander of title, and is ACTIONABLE, correct?
And while it's hard to figure out who needs to do the actual suing, damages to the community could be set as a fraction of legal fees expected as an average of Microsoft's expenditures on patent actions.
And it would put the fear of God into some of these slanderers of title we've been talking about for the past year(s).
Parent
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Insightful)
There do seem to be some improvements listed. Foremost appears to be the ability to view a scaled version of the desktops in full screen instead of just the little icons in the pager. For instance, with 4 virtual desktops, they describe a scaled view where each desktop is essentially 1/4 of the screen. If you have two browser windows open in two different desktops, such a view would enable you to visually determine which is which. I don't remember seeing such a feature in other VWMs. They also describe animating the transition between this view and the full desktops via shrinking/expanding the active desktop.
While this does seem to be an improvement over existing pagers, many will argue its triviality. I personally suspect it's still enough to get the patent issued and drag someone into court...
Parent
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Informative)
The Enlightenment [enlightenment.org] window manager does that already. Look at the lower left corner of of this screenshot [enlightenment.org].
Parent
There is a key difference (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the patent document, the key point is that the users hits a key and all the desktops are scaled within the window using animation. So if I have a 3 x 3 virtual desktop and hit the desktop view button, my screen is shrunk to (say) the top left 9th of the screen and 8 other mini desktops become visible. If I select another desktop it zooms towards me filling the screen. They make a number of references to background images and I guess animating 9 different background images for the demo above would look very cool.
I haven't seen this implemented before. The nearest is Mac OS X.3 which allows all application windows to be minimised and switched between, I use it a lot and it is excellent, particularly if you have a number of quicktime movies or similar playing. As I recall, Apple patented this and I think this is Microsoft's answer
Parent
Re:Post link to site! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure if that was irony or stupidity. Anyway, here's a clickable link to the patent. [uspto.gov]
Parent
Re:abstract (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Full Screen Preview? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:This has got to stop (Score:5, Informative)
Reviewing patent applications to assess if they comply with the basic format, rules and legal requirements, determining the scope of the protection claimed by the inventor, researching relevant technologies to compare similar prior inventions with the invention claimed in the patent applications, and communicating the examiner's findings to patent practitioners/inventors with reasons on the patent ability of applicant's inventions.
Patent Examiners are responsible for the quality, productivity, and timely processing of patent applications, which is the basis of their performance evaluation.
See the actual posting HERE [opm.gov]
I'm not trying to be glib, and I know one person cannot change the world, but with all of the unemployed /.'ers out there, one of you could take a leap and actually apply for this position.
Let us know how it goes.
Parent
Re:Is the patent being misunderstood? (Score:5, Informative)
It can make miniture pictures of all your apps and you can rearrange them, etc.
Checkout my desktop screenshot [submarinefund.com] Note: this is my desktop on 2.21.03 almost exactly a year ago. And I've run E for at least 5 years.
Parent