Google, Apple, Microsoft Sued Over File Preview

ClaraBow writes with this excerpt from MacWorld: "A small Indiana company has sued tech heavyweights Microsoft, Apple, and Google, claiming that it holds the patent on a common file preview feature used by browsers and operating systems to show users small snapshots of the files before they are opened. ... Cygnus's owner and president Gregory Swartz developed the technology laid out in the patent while working on IT consulting projects, McAndrews said. The company is looking for 'a reasonable royalty' as well as a court injunction preventing further infringement, he said. ... Cygnus applied for its patent (#7346850) in 2001. It covers a 'System and method for iconic software environment management' and was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in March of this year."

Two words:

[GrahamCox (741991)]

Two words: prior art.

And plenty of it. We had live preview icons in an app in 1989.

Re:Two words:

[by Anonymous Coward]

What you dismiss so glibly in two words is actually hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of highly technical legal arguments.

Re:Two words:

[McFadden (809368)]

Why not surprise those you around you with a lawsuit this Christmas? The gift that just keeps on giving.

Re:Two words:

[catwh0re (540371)]

It's a gift for the lawyers really... who is dumb enough to go against three litigiously-experienced heavy weights with a frivolous patent lawsuit.

Re:Two words:

[sgbett (739519)]

Weight of money does not necessarily add credance to a particular viewpoint.

What they are patenting is now considered obvious, perhaps not at the time, but given that it was only granted recently (ie after several independant parties had made this discovery, thus making it "obvious" in its field) its hard not to see this as just another patent troll.

Re:Two words:

[Schemat1c (464768)]

Weight of money does not necessarily add credance to a particular viewpoint.

You're from Earth right?

Re:Two words:

[r7 (409657)]

It was originally applied for in 1998

That'd be at least 5 years after Lotus Magellin did it, and IMO, did it better than anything MS or Apple does today.

Lotus dropped Magellin when Windows 3 came along, so most of today's techs don't know about it, but it is still
surprising their legal research overlooked it.

Re:Two words:

[Score Whore (32328)]

Reading the patent, what they have patented is a third party application that grabs a screen shot and allows you to select the document you desire to work on via that screen shot. One aspect that doesn't seem to exist anywhere in Windows or Mac OS X:

The present invention provides an improved method and system for storing, navigating and retrieving files and documents in a computer system. A method by which this is accomplished includes the following: the use of graphical representations of the documents and applications as viewed on the screen at the time of `capture`, a Snapshot Navigator Menu that automatically appears when the mouse pointer is directed to the edge of the screen and disappears when the mouse leaves the visible area of the Snapshot Navigator Menu.

To me this sounds like they patented a computer program.

However, if their argument is that any kind of preview for file browsing is covered, then they are a number of years late to the party. In 1994 xv was doing this with it's visual schnauzer, providing thumbnails of all your images, etc.

Re:Two words:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Two good things that would prevent cases like this from wasting people's time:

1. Patent reform.
2. Loser pays.

Patent reform only works if unfair cases are being brought to court, argued, and won in a way that is contrary to the intent of the system. It is premature to say that this suit is anything more than a paper tiger. Bring up the patent on the Patent Application Information Retrieval [uspto.gov] system. Look at the rejections, amendments, and arguments. Significant changes were made to the patent claims, gutting much of their scope. The company bringing these suits is delusional if they think they have a case that can settle for anything more than nuisance tribute, especially from such high profile veterans of more balanced legal battles. What kind of patent reform would keep someone from trying to enforce a weak and narrow patent? Would they be less likely to try to enforce it if it was even weaker and narrower? Should we only allow patents that are strong and broad? Should it matter that many patent applicants only want very narrow patents, and many dont' really care if they would have much valuable in litigation?

As for loser pays...what makes you think that is such a good idea? Record companies use the threat of attorney fees to press defendants into early settlements. Would it be alright for Google or Microsoft to sue smaller companies, or individuals, based on flimsy patent claims, but win because their potential attorneys fees could be astronomical...perhaps significantly more than any reasonable royalty for the patent? How about if they faced smaller companies with strong patents and potentially good cases, but those smaller companies decided not to try to enforce their rights because of the possibility of being bankrupted if the suits failed?

There are advocates of loser-pay [manhattan-institute.org], but loser-pay skeptics [timesonline.co.uk] seem to be well-versed in the pros and cons of loser-pay systems. While loser-pay could have a positive effect on the American legal system, it is by no means a common-sense no-brainer.

Re:Two words:

[lysergic.acid (845423)]

you're missing the point. these non-inventions should never have been granted in the first place. that is what needs to be reformed about the current system.

things like file previews are currently patentable, and it's within the patent holder's rights to sue. whether you think it's contrary to the intent of the system or not, it's how the system works. right now the USPTO is wasting millions of dollars of tax payers' money each year by granting patents on trivial/obvious software features, which inevitably leads to frivolous lawsuits by patent trolls--who often win.

just look at the case between Creative and Apple [theappleblog.com] regarding file menus. the only thing that's different this time is that the defendants have much more legal muscle than the claimant (which is a separate problem with the legal system). so even if Cygnus loses this suit, that doesn't mean that when a corporate juggernaut like Apple/Microsoft file similar claims of patent infringement that they will lose.

Re:Two words:

[ralphdaugherty (225648)]

It's going to be expensive to fight these patents one by one that were rubberstamped for years. We need to throw out all software patents and return to copyright protection like we had.

  rd

Re:

[oDDmON oUT (231200)]

What can be easily said, or thought to be intuitively known, may not have been legally codified, and therein lies the rub.

You can cite the Lexmark patent [patentstorm.us], elements of Apple's HIG [patentstorm.us], peruse the citations in one of Jakob Nielson's papers [useit.com] that would seem to support prior art, or just search Patent Storm for "iconic systems [patentstorm.us]" and seeing results dating back more than a decade figure this is a wash. Right?

While IANAL, what seems to make this patent different is that it is for a *system* involving multiple icons at

Re:Slashdot v. Patent Lawyers

[Doctor_Jest (688315)]

And yet... patent trolls are still patent trolls. See a program Cygnus is pitching that is being "infringed"? No? PATENT TROLL. Sorry... time to call a spade a spade. Even if you read the "whole" document.

Wonderful

[by Anonymous Coward]

claiming that it holds the patent on a common file preview feature used by browsers and operating systems to show users small snapshots of the files before they are opened

The page [patentstorm.us] for this patent at patentstorm.com shows users a small snapshot of the patent before it is opened.

Re:

[MichaelSmith (789609)]

I worry about sites that have a 'preview' option before posting content, they must be next ...

We should all agree not to preview for the time being, lest sourceforge get sued.

Wait a minute...

[Jason Pollock (45537)]

I thought Cygnus was bought by Red Hat? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat [wikipedia.org] On November 15, 1999, Red Hat acquired Cygnus Solutions. Ah, this is "Cygnus Systems"... I can see where there might be a small bit of confusion there.

Re:Wait a minute...

[MrZaius (321037)]

Quite - Of all the news sites not to make the distinction....

Economy is in deep shit, this is a symptom

[roman_mir (125474)]

Economy (not just US economy, but especially US) is in deep f.cking shit. This is a symptom. You see, very little is actually produced in the US at this point, but more regulations, lawsuits, patents, various copyrighted materials like movies/music are still made there (I live in Canada, we are not far away from this problem here also, except that our movies/music sucks even more.)

When there is nothing to produce except for more laws/regulations, meaningless, useless, obvious patents and lawsuits, and also the greenback, at this point you have to ask yourself a question: how is this economy, that borrows so much from the rest of the world and then buys the products from the rest of the world going to pay the freaking debt? What is it, 10 trillion in debt at least?

Anyway, I read TFPatent [patentstorm.us] and thought to myself: holy shit. In 1998 I worked on a system for a purchase basket for a promotions company and I had to display thumbnails on the HTML page too.

In fact various stores and also porn sites would be great at showing prior art to this BS patent.

Re:

[RockMFR (1022315)]

The patent troll in question, which won't win this suit, is based in Detroit. They are likely completely out of money and have nothing to lose.

Re:Economy is in deep shit, this is a symptom

[MichaelSmith (789609)]

In fact various stores and also porn sites would be great at showing prior art to this BS patent.

Yes I can confirm from personal experience that porn sites in the mid 1990's used thumbnails.

Re:Economy is in deep shit, this is a symptom

[digitalchinky (650880)]

I'm Australian, I now live in Asia (not Japan), have done for a lot of years so I can safely call bullshit on the skilled labour thing. You can buy quality research, manufacturing, and brains anywhere in the world. You may wish to pull your head out of your own anal passage good man. The rest of the world actually can build some pretty shit hot stuff, all on their own.

Don't get me wrong, like I said, I'm from the west and I'm as fucking smart as all hell (It's a joke! I'm not really that smart, bottom two percent, tops), but enough with the arrogance already, the state of the art doesn't just exist in the 'west', it's everywhere.

You really think the American worker is value for money? Here's a clue for you, good value for money is a bunch of low paid men and women (sometimes children) working the sewing machines and industrial fires for 12 hours a day 6 days a week, all for the lofty sum of $150 USD a month. On the backs of all this one can then sell those wares and gain quite a few orders of magnitude back in pure profit. In comparison the American worker is high maintenance and very expensive from an economic perspective.

Redhat/Fedora has had this for years

[mwilliamson (672411)]

talk about prior art...if this survives the challenge I'm leaving.

patent troll patent

[phrostie (121428)]

doesn't this infringe on the patent troll patent?

Re:

[tobiasly (524456)]

Not only that... check out the screen mockup [arstechnica.com] from the patent! Those are obviously representations of the MS Paint and Excel UIs, as well as shitty MS clipart... can't they sue them for copyright infringement in their patent claim??

Apple Lisa

[WiiVault (1039946)]

Apple and MS have had file previews since Mac OS 1 and Windows 1 back in the 80's. In fact I think the Apple Lisa OS may have been the first- at least for home users.

KDE prior art

[fishyfool (854019)]

Take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KDE_1.0.jpg [wikipedia.org] see the view of the virtual desktops on the top right? KDE has had this feature since at least 98 and I think the beta's had even more. Gregory Swartz just patented someone elses work likely seen while working as a consultant in the working environments of his clients.

Prior Art.

[bmo (77928)]

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.2-Manual/getting-started-guide/index.html [redhat.com]

Copyright © 2000 by Red Hat, Inc.

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.2-Manual/getting-started-guide/s1-managers-kfm.html [redhat.com]

"Show Thumbnails -- If you have images in a directory, selecting this option will show you tiny representations of them. This view is useful if you keep family photos or artwork."

--
BMO

I'll testify ....

[mlwmohawk (801821)]

In the late 1980s I wrote the Windows version of Business & Professional Software's Trumpet Presentation program. In it, I showed iconic representations of presentations.

I'd call that prior art. Just contact me.

Contact you? How?

[Mathinker (909784)]

If you're for real, I suggest that you take the initiative and contact them, considering that

• Your Slashdot account is not configured to reveal an email address or website
• It's not clear that the lawyers involved read Slashdot

Claims

[Dachannien (617929)]

Since people are too lazy to click on the link and read the claims for themselves, I'll post the two independent claims here:

1. A method of accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, comprising the steps of:
capturing automatically one or more graphical representations of one ormore portions of information content of one or more computer files while an application is manipulating the one or more computer files;
creating automatically an icon including selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations ofthe information content of the one or more computer files wherein the icon graphically depicts at least a portion of the information content from the one or more computer files and wherein the icon is created while the application was manipulating theicon's corresponding one or more computer files and includes selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content;
linking the icon to the application and to the one or more computer files based on theability of the application to manipulate the information content of the one or more computer files corresponding to the icon;
storing the icon in a memory;
displaying the icon in a window on a display screen;
invoking the application for manipulatingthe information content of the one or more computer files upon selection of the icon by accessing the more or more computer files by reference to an underlying file system corresponding to the icon and opening the one or more computer files within theapplication.

16. A method for providing a user interface for accessing a file based on a corresponding icon comprising:
storing a plurality of icons in a memory along with a corresponding plurality of references to an underlying file system for storageinformation for a plurality of files, each icon having an appearance substantially depicting information content from its corresponding file, wherein the plurality of icons were created by capturing automatically one or more graphical representations ofone or more portions of information content of an icon's corresponding file while an application was manipulating an icon's corresponding file and include selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content;
linking an application to each icon based utility on the ability of the application to manipulate the information content of the file corresponding to the icon;
providing a window on a display screen for displaying the plurality of icons;
invoking theapplication for manipulating the information content of the file corresponding to the selected icon upon selection of an icon from the plurality of icons in the window;
accessing the file designated by the reference to the underlying file systemcorresponding to the selected icon; and
opening the accessed file into the corresponding application.

In order for prior art to cover this, either one reference, showing that this was known before the patentee's invention, has to anticipate every one of the limitations in the claim; or, it must have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple references which, when put together, cover every limitation in the claim.

Re:Claims

[mpaque (655244)]

NeXTSTEP 4.0 Alpha; sometimes mis-called Beta on web sites.

The software featured tabs across the screen bottom for various window types. (We cribbed these for Mac OS 8.5 after the merger, as the tabbed window feature.) The Documents tab was a window which presented icons of documents, each of which could be a preview of the actual document, badged to indicate the associated application.

This implementation nicely meets all the claims, but predates the patent application by 5 years. I won't bother going through all the details, but Cygnus is boned. Software patent litigation as a business model is so last decade...

Re:Claims

[dshadowwolf (1132457)]

That actually does, quite nicely, compromise "Prior Art" that invalidates both the primary claim (claim 1) and the secondary claim (claim 16) — all other claims rely, either directly or indirectly, on those two.

In other words, this single piece of "prior art" — if it is validated during a re-examination of this patent — will cause the patent to disappear entirely.

Patent Trolls are a GOOD thing...

[fibrewire (1132953)]

The moment where patent trolls battle it out with large corporations is right around the corner. I feel that this is not only the beginning of a shitstorm, but when it's finished - software patents will be made illogical if not illegal in most countries, and people will realize that it was just a marketing scam that big corporations used to squash the little guys, and then differently designed little guys built to take advantage of an unfair law will take down the big corporations at their own game. Its the way of things, until balance is found. Same with licensing software, same with MPAA and RIAA, and other such BS. No unfair advantage cannot be exploited, which is why free enterprise & the internet kicks ass. Value through innovation will always win. Period.

Re:

[nbates (1049990)]

Hi... I'm the asshole who posted the comment about the four horsemen.

Let me give you an example of why I think patents are not necessary for innovation in software:

http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]

When it comes to software, ideas are cheap and abundant. Patents make sense when they represent something that is difficult to come up with (a diesel engine for example) and that may involve years of R&D.

But if you read that list, you'll see that ideas (even good ones) cost almost nothing, and have no value on its

I wonder if....

[s0litaire (1205168)]

...I can copyright the procedure to engage in ludicrous legal actions on flimsy evidence between parties. 1) Read slashdot 2) Contact lawyers 3) Profit... 4) Sue myself 5) ... :D:D

I got dibs on malloc and free!

[babernat (1429727)]

I'm going to run out and patent malloc and free separately. Of course I would make more money off of malloc than free. :)

Does this company even produce software?

[carlzum (832868)]

Cygnus Systems [cygnus-sys.com] (not to be confused with the Cygwin guys) doesn't appear to produce any commercial software. They look like some kind of software/hardware reseller, providing some business application develop services at best. They applied for this patent in 2001, where's the product they were trying to protect? It's one thing to abuse the system to fight off competition, but registering vague patents with no intention of implementing them is patent trolling at its worst.

Re:Does this company even produce software?

[pammon (831694)]

It would be a big mistake for a company like this to produce any products. These companies exist only to license out IP they buy or otherwise "invent," and to sue non-licensees for patent infringement. If they were to produce a product, they would make themselves vulnerable to a countersuit.

Who needs it?

[martin-boundary (547041)]

Who needs file preview anyway? I just use less(1). You can get used to it. I don't even see the control codes. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead...

Are they in Indiana or Michigan?

[bigbigbison (104532)]

The website for Cygnus System, Inc. states: "ygnus Systems, Inc. focuses on the unique computing, networking and application needs of small to midsized businesses and offices in the southeastern Michigan area. " and the bottom of the website says they are in Taylor, MI http://www.cygnus-sys.com/AboutUs [cygnus-sys.com]

If the article confuses Indiana with Michigan then maybe it is confused about the lawsuit as well?

Creating Unity

[pingveno (708857)]

There's a least one benefit to patent trolls like these guys. They unify companies that normally are fierce competitors. Or, as Psycho Dave from Kuro5hin describe another group:

"...what common ground does pretty much every person regardless of their political or religious beliefs have? They all hate the Westboro Baptist Church."

If only

[symbolset (646467)]

If only we could find a way to abolish these Copyright and Patent issues we might have progress, which is what copyrights and patents are supposed to provide.

Re:

[Kent Recal (714863)]

Interestingly if this would pass (which I strongly doubt) and MS, Apple etc. were required to remove the previews - then Gnome, KDE would benefit from that.

It kinda works like this:

1. Idiot sues Apple
2. Apple must remove the previews

1. Idiot sues MS
2. MS must remove the previews

1. Idiot sues Gnome Foundation etc.
2. Gnome, KDE etc. must remove the previews
3. One day later an unofficial patch pops up somewhere
4. Two days later that same patch is wrapped up into RPMs, Debs etc. for one-click install
5. Due to p

Re:

[JTorres176 (842422)]

And then immediately lawsuits are pressed against Canonical, Debian, Novell, and anyone else who allows patented material to be added to their distributions.

Free software still has to follow the law.

Re:So once the big guys are down...

[Kent Recal (714863)]

Step 3, 4 and 5 do not involve Canonical, Debian or any other distro.
The DEBs and RPMs could be hosted anywhere and if they sue the hosters then the packages will just move to bittorrent and p2p.

That's the beauty of OSS at work here. You cannot effectively ban a piece of software that many people find useful.

Re:So once the big guys are down...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Not if its not distributed by anyone in the US. Sure, they have to follow the law, but whos law is the question.

Re:So once the big guys are down...

[JohnBailey (1092697)]

And then immediately lawsuits are pressed against Canonical, Debian, Novell, and anyone else who allows patented material to be added to their distributions.

Which would be immediately laughed out of court. They would only have a case if the distro was offering the software themselves. Anybody can set up a repository anywhere in the world. Just like anybody can offer a Windows based DVD ripper. So why have the MPAA not sued Microsoft? The same reason. They can only control what they offer themselves. If Microsoft included a DVD ripper in Windows 7, then the MPAA might have a case.

Free software still has to follow the law.

Absolutely... So what law are they breaking?

Re:So once the big guys are down...

[Sebastian Reichelt (1241416)]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but actually, if they are successful, it works more like this:

1. Idiot sues Apple
2. Apple pays money

1. Idiot sues MS
2. MS pays money

1. Idiot sues Gnome Foundation etc.
2. Gnome, KDE etc. must remove the previews
3. One day later an unofficial patch pops up somewhere
4. One month later it becomes apparent that nobody except a few techies uses that patch, and people start to blame "Linux" for lacking an essential feature

Re:So once the big guys are down...

[absoluteflatness (913952)]

One would think that if you posted a Wikipedia link, you'd at least have had time to read the first sentence of the article: "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law..."

Anyway, patent trolls rarely go after free software projects because they lack the money to dole out a big settlement. The various media standards and many other fairly standard features of Linux distros are patent-encumbered up the wazoo. Some projects actually have some fear of litigation and disable features or distribute source-only (FreeType's bytecode interpreter comes to mind), but that's fairly rare.

Re:Perfect time to know what Obama's take

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

now we're going to have 4 years of latent, homo-erotic references to Obama

Um, I think you're the only one that sees anything homo-erotic in the OP's post. I wonder what that could signify? (not that there's anything wrong with it)