Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click

kaluta writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Microsoft was granted a patent for double-clicking on April 27. The patent in question is 6,727,830 and says, amongst other stuff: 'A default function for an application is launched if the button is pressed for a short, i.e., normal, period of time. An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time. Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time, e.g., double click'. So this is what we have to look foward to in the E.U. now?"

April Fool's

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

Surely it's April Fool's day somewhere in the world for this to happen.

Hmm...

[peterprior (319967)]

This is just twice as stupid as Amazon's 1-Click patent...

...I'll get my coat..

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[jackb_guppy (204733)]

Triple Click...
Quad Click...
Qunice Click...

Are still available!!

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[thestarz (719386)]

Triple Click...
Quad Click...
Qunice Click...

Are still available!!

Not quite...

"Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time..."

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Qunice Click... Are still available!! Not quite... "Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time..."

Sure, but has anyone patented using a specific rhythm? I've got it! Morse code on a cell phone. I here by declare prior art to the whole idea. Whew.

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[patchmaster (463431)]

I think you might be on to something here. Why complicate the human/computer interface with that silly keyboard thing? Let's simplify things by going back to that Apple mouse with one big button. You can indicate to the computer what you want it to do by tapping out various patterns with that one key! Working on a document? Just tap out the patterns for the letters you want. (short-click)(short-click)(short-click) S (long-click)(long-click)(long-click) O (short-click)(short-click)(short-click) S (Sorry, only Morse code I remember.)

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

"Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time..."

Sheesh. As if double click wasn't annoying and contrived enough. How about as many as five clicks, and the duration varies between long and short clicks? Is there a prior art in this, like freaking MORSE CODE?

Re:Hmm...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Laugh all you will but this is serious.

That technology was first observed in digital watches of aliens held in Area 51. It is alien technology!

Don't believe me, ask yourself this:

Could mere humans have thought up the concept of clicking twice!

Re:Hmm...

[RealityMogul (663835)]

Seriously, the company I work for, has a function in our COMMERCIAL software package that requires a triple-click in order to do something. It's been there for about 8 years now - so we already got prior art =P

Is there a "+1 Pity" moderation I can get?

Re:Hmm...

[Bri3D (584578)]

Yeah, so does every other app on the planet that handles text. One click->move cursor, two->select word, three->select paragraph.

Re:Hmm...

[Master of Transhuman (597628)]

Aaahh, somebody explain to me why Microsoft would want a patent that applied only to clicking on their own hardware?

So if I make a PDA and doubleclick on an app to run it, I don't owe Microsoft money?

Yeah, right...that's how Bill thinks.

LOL

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm breaking patent laws right now...and again...whoops I did again :p

Re:LOL

[by Anonymous Coward]

whoops I did again :p

Britney....is that you??

Absurdity

[weekendwarrior1980 (768311)]

Now here we have the powers that be granting patents based on how we move or interact? One more reason Patenting process should be thoroughly revised.

For the millionth time...

[the_mad_poster (640772)]

WHO CARES?

They can have so many patents that they have to start holding them in their asscracks. Exhibit 1: IBM, the Little Linux guy's friend on Slashdot.

They problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them. Which, in any sane court (yes, I know those are in dwindling numbers these days) won't happen.

By all means, let them run amok and waste money on BS patents. Just make sure that the first time they get challenged they actually go down. If the challenge fails, THEN there's a problem.

Re:For the millionth time...

[Quixote (154172)]

They[sic] problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them.

Then why have a patent office anyways? Why not just go the Copyright route, and let everyone and his aunt patent everything they like, and duke it out in the courts.

The USPTO was created for a friggin' REASON . They are NOT doing their job by just rubberstamping everything that crosses their desk. They are being negligent in their duties, and should be held accountable by the Congress. Sheesh, only an Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer would grant this patent....

Re:For the millionth time...

[jcr (53032)]

They problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them.

Not quite. If the holder of a bullshit patent wants to take you to court and cause you to spend a pile of cash, they can do so since the issuance of the patent pretty much protects them from sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit.

Win or lose, they can litigate to distract a competitor from competing with them, or try to get you to pay them off to avoid the cost of litigation.

The solution here is simple, but very difficult: demand that your congresscritter introduce and vote for IP reform legislation. Rolling it back to what we started with in 1789 would be a good start.

-jcr

I cannot believe this crap...

[AcquaCow (56720)]

Next up:
Microsoft tries to patent the Internet.
Al Gore files suit.

Double-click patent?

[daeley (126313)]

Well, double-dumbass on you! </kirk>

First Post!!! W00t!

[thewldisntenuff (778302)]

Well, before we pull out our tinfoil hats and scream random obscenities at MS, let's RTFA, okay?

TFA states that patent revolves around giving other options when holding the click, and uses the default program when double clicked...Smells like Apple, anyone?

Furthermore, it's not as if they patented the motion of clicking a mouse button twice, as the poster makes it seem....Don't sound the alarm yet people....

If you want to get scared, worry about that last part of the article which states that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system....How are they going to swing that one? Higher fees on XP (tough sh!t, I use SuSE) ? Online scans for people with FAT and a bill in the mail?

FAT Filesystem

[bladernr (683269)]

If you want to get scared, worry about that last part of the article which states that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system

Well, I may not be popular for saying this, but MS did actually invent the FAT file system (ok, they purchased it, when MS bought rights to the QDOS OS, and renamed it MS-DOS).

So, if they were awarded a patent or copyright or whatever it is on FAT, at least they have a moral leg to stand on.

The patent on various ways of clicking a mouse? I don't care if its for PDAs, or what it selects, or whatever. Every possible way of clicking a mouse as been thought of, and there is no original, patentable work to do.

(how is that for a bold statement :)

only for "limited resource computing devices"

[bizcoach (640439)]

Hmm... each of the claims in the patent as it was actually granted [uspto.gov] refers (explicitly or implicitly) specifically to "limited resource computing devices".

Hence general-purpose PCs and bigger embedded systems are safe from this, but small devices such as handhelds are vulnerable?

Prior Art... duh!

[Roguelazer (606927)]

Look, the patent was filed on July 12, 2002. If we can't come up with a single pre-2002 OS that used double-clicking, then we're really, really bad off. I mean, Microsoft itself has used it since about 1991 in Windows...

Re:Prior Art... duh!

[foobsr (693224)]

It goes back even further -- these LED [ledwatches.net] worked that way. Indeed limited resource computing devices from the 70ies. Sic(k)!

CC.

14 posts, and nobody has read the patent?

[b0rken (206581)]

The patent doesn't cover *mouse* clicks. It covers a way to get at least 3 different actions from the "application buttons" on your PDA --- short click, long click, and double-click.

I don't know whether this was being done back in 2002, though I know that Palm enhancements used application button chords back in 2002 or 2003.

RTFP (Read the Fucking Patent)

[Meridun (120516)]

Before I take my life into my hands and play devil's advocate here:

<disclaimer>I think this is a stupid patent and is not sufficiently original to truly deserve protection</disclaimer>

That being said, those who read the patent application [uspto.gov] very carefully will notice that this patent isn't for the general idea of double-clicking, but rather covers a much smaller range. Specifically, Microsoft has been granted a patent on a PDA-type device ("limited resource computing device") that has physical buttons on the outside of the device (i.e. "Mail", "Calendar", "Contacts" etc) that cause different actions to occur based on how long or in which sequence they are pressed.

An example of the patented method in action would be if you created a device on which pressing the mail button once would open a list view of recent emails, pressing and holding it for 2 seconds might initiated a POP3 session to the server, "double-clicking" the button might bring you to a "new email" form, and pressing and holding the button longer than 3 secs would be assume to be accidental and would do nothing.

This does NOT appear to be relevant to any non-PDA device, nor does it appear to apply to any kind of buttons that do not physically exist on the outside of the device. I still think it's pretty stupid and obvious, but it's nearly so stupid as it would appear at first glance.

That being said, does anyone have any specific prior art to overturn this with?

Patenting The Middle Click

[Eberlin (570874)]

I propose owning a patent for middle-clicking in such a way as to extend the middle finger while curling the others.

This "click" does not need to be made on any particular surface. In fact, you could roll down your car window, double-click on your horn, then middle click the air with your arm extended outside said vehicle.

Maybe we should all middle-click Microsoft with both hands as an act of civil disobedience. Needless to say, I don't advice nor advocate doing so while driving.

Isn't an excellent piece of prior art

[ProudClod (752352)]

Stephen Hawking's speech synthesizer, operated by one hardware button clicked for different lengths of time.

Duh? Elevators

[SteroidMan (782859)]

Elevator companies have been doing this for years. Everyone knows that if you push your floors button multiple times that it gets there faster! It's so obvious even 5 year olds know about it!

Are we ready for patent reform yet???

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

I mean seriously! Fucking double clicks????

I wonder if the asshat at the patent office realized that he had to double click at least once during the process of filing the stupid patent. Clearly, the people at the patent office are so far out of touch with reality that they can no longer be taken seriously.

So, I propose this for the new patent system (it's un-Slashdot of me, but not only am I bitching about something, I have an idea on how to fix it.)

Public peer review. Open source meets patent reform.

As soon as a patent is applied for, it is placed up on a website for public review. Then, it's up to the public as well as the patent office to try to find any prior art.

If prior art is found, the patent is denied. Period. And if the prior art is over 5 years old, it's considered a public domain idea, and no longer patentable. That'll keep idiots like the lawyersquad at MS from patenting other people's ideas. Like double clicks.

Weaselmancer

they're a pair of managers???

[Rasputin (5106)]

The patent holders are an interesting pair. A bit of googling produced the following:

Charlton Lui appears to have been a Microsoft manager turned Canadian Baseball CEO(!) "Mr. Lui co-founded the Tablet PC providing the vision and driving product development while working closely with Bill Gates and top industry leaders." Here [canadianbaseballnews.com] is the reference.

There is a Jeffrey R. Blum who includes the following in his resume: "Microsoft Mobile Electronics Group, Redmond, WA: Lead Program Manager (8/1994-3/2000)" Here [glasslantern.com] is his resume.

If I got the right people (no guarantees there), it looks like they're both *managers* who worked on mobile computing appliances. Managers who take out patents???

Limited domain gets you a patent?

[steveha (103154)]

We've seen too many patents where everybody already does X, and the patent is to "do X on the Internet".

Or the recent patent on burning a CD of a concert, the same night as the concert and selling it after the concert. There's prior art on making music CDs -- but I guess you can patent making CDs in a specific situation.

Now double-clicking isn't patented, but double-clicking the hardware buttons on a PDA is patented.

So we can just patent anything if we specify a narrow domain and apply it there?

I suggest we patent double-clicking with a mouse... on an application with a "metal" skin that looks like a PDA. (Meh. Maybe Microsoft's patent would already cover this one!)

How about patenting the idea of recording a DVD of your vacation... while on vacation.

How about patenting the idea of an SQL database... on a PDA.

How about patenting video conferencing... on a PDA.

It's stupid, but the pattern suggests this might be possible. Start filing your applications now!

steveha

Things Microsoft should be patenting...

[nbahi15 (163501)]

1) Ctrl-Alt-Del
2) Rebooting after installing an application
3) Powering the computer on
4) The arrow pointer for the mouse
5) The hourglass

Re:Xerox and Apple

[justMichael (606509)]

I'm not saying I agree with the patent, but it is for a PDA not a PC.

It's almost funny to see them referring to it as a palm-type device all over the patent app ;)

Re:Xerox and Apple

[MouseR (3264)]

Even for this, Apple has prior art in the Newton. YTou could click a word to select it, double-click ("tap") it to drag, or even double-click on scripted text to convert it to text, sort of like to take freehand notes without without the text recognition engine to later convert it.

Re:Xerox and Apple

[nomel (244635)]

my pda computes, and it is mine...so...seems to fit the PC deffinition to me!

Re:Xerox and Apple

[CaptainFrito (599630)]

Patents can also be deemed obvious if they were anticipated by prior art. In this case double clicking a computing device to make a selection has been long done and is public domain. The size of the computer is an aside. The fact that the device has limited resources is also an aside. One double-clicks with a mouse specifically because it has limited input resources. It is irrelevant that a keyboard could also be used in a PC application, because the same is true with most PDA's. If I made a really really small PC, could I patent the "Enter" key? How about the "shift " or "control" keys? Since they are function modifiers, they expand the limited resources in binary progression: so all have to do is make size of the box an issue and it's innovate? Clearly this patent was allowed because of who filed, not what was filed.

I guess size really does matter after all.

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Aphrika (756248)]

Absolutely, although reading the patent, I was interested to find it titled:

"Time based hardware button for application launch"

Interesting, as it seems to be getting at the idea of launching different applications based on how long you hold down a hardware button, rather than how long you click and hold on the screen. This ties in with the sentence further on which pertains to it being relevant to devices with limited resources, i.e. not very many buttons.

While I can see that this will get people's backs up if it impedes on double clicking, I don't think it does. I think it's aimed more along the lines of Apple's iPod interface controller patent - it's trying to carve out a control method for mobile devices.

I can see how this would be useful on a PDA for instance when the start menu is longer than the screen size (as in PocketPCs), but personally I'd prefer a jog dial...

On a side note, the story does seem to be scaremongering to a degree - this certainly isn't about patenting double clicking.

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

I do use a hardware button to click on my screen.

Bruce

Nokia 5510 prior art - was (Re:Xerox and Apple)

[jon_eaves (22962)]

I call "Prior art".

I don't know about any other phones, but my 5510 had the facility that I could press '1' and it would enter the #1, but if I held down '1' it would call the speed dial entry for #1.

Clearly this fits into the "limited resource environment", the "hardware button" and everything else. If this isn't a very, very specific example of prior art that is meant to be covered by this patent then I'm screwed if I know what else could be.

Yes Virginia, the patent office is staffed by morons.

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Lt.Hawkins (17467)]

If thats the case, I've seen prior art. A panasonic walkman I once had, included a single-button remote control. Click, and it changed presets. Doubleclick, and it did something else. Tripleclick, and it did a third thing. Hold it down, and it switched to the tape player, which had its own modes. Small learning curve, but a great one-button interface.

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Ann Elk (668880)]

Interesting, as it seems to be getting at the idea of launching different applications based on how long you hold down a hardware button, rather than how long you click and hold on the screen.

You mean like, pressing and holding a mouse button?

Press and hold is used on the Mac

[nickovs (115935)]

Press and hold on your mouse might not do anything but it does on mine, and has done for years. It brings up the context menu on the Mac without you having to use the ctrl key. Not only has this been the case on the Mac for many years but I seem to recall it worked last time I used a Xerox Star system (which was a very long time ago indeed).

Microsoft does own this idea

[gosand (234100)]

Interesting, as it seems to be getting at the idea of launching different applications based on how long you hold down a hardware button, rather than how long you click and hold on the screen.

Yep, Microsoft does own this technology, or at least they made it popular. That hardware button is the computer's reset button.

Re:Microsoft does own this idea

[bonhomme_de_neige (711691)]

Yep, Microsoft does own this technology, or at least they made it popular. That hardware button is the computer's reset button.

They certainly did popularise pressing the reset button "...multiple times within a short period of time..." ...

Re:Xerox and Apple

[grozzie2 (698656)]

The patent covers a couple of things, one of them is the 'holding the button down for a longer period to signify a different action', and the other is the double click.

For some prior art, go back to the 1800's, and talk to a telegraph operator. Ask them how a morse code key works, and, the difference between a long click, and a double click.

This patent is a blatant example of why the rest of the world just has to start ignoring patents issued in the USA, they have no meaning. American business is so concerned about intellectual property protection, they should consider that honoring patents is an all or nothing deal, and with stupid stuff like this being granted, the rest of the world cannot afford to honor this kind of silliness. There are many many examples in the real world of 'click once to do one thing, twice to do something else'. Anybody that flies airplanes into small airfields at night knows this (just one real world example). Click you microphone 5 times to turn on the runway lights. Depending on the setup, once they are on, 3 clicks for brighter, 2 clicks for dimmer, is common. This methodology was around long before microsoft plugged thier first mouse into a computer, it's a method that pre-dates the pc. It's common, and it's OBVIOUS, and it was long before the pc even came into the equation, or any 'limited resource' environment as discussed in that patent.

Go forth into the real world, there must be thousands of devices in this world that have a single button for input, and differing numbers of 'clicks' or 'presses' on that button, have different meanings.

Re:Dear Lord...

[QuaZar666 (164830)]

someone already patented the Peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/net ah tml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l= 50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6004596.WKU.&OS=PN/6004596&RS=PN/ 6004596

Qua

Re:Dear Lord...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Sex: Patent pending (I may never use this but what the hell.

Re:Might As Well Apply For A Patent...

[cant_get_a_good_nick (172131)]

Might As Well Apply For A Patent ... for mouse movements.
For some reason this reminded me of a .sig I used to see here:
Windows has detected that your mouse has moved. Reboot now for changes to take effect?

Re:And slashdot posted a story about it April 28th

[mikael (484)]

It's time somebody patented double posting a story to slashdot.