Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Yahoo Patents 'Smart' Drag and Drop

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jan 22, 2008 09:23 AM
from the will-wonders-never-cease dept.
Patents Software Businesses The Internet Yahoo! IT
Unequivocal writes "According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Yahoo has filed a patent for 'smart' drag and drop. From the article: 'A computer-implemented method for manipulating objects in a user interface, comprising: providing the user interface including a first interface object operable to be selected and moved within the user interface; and in response to selection and movement of the first interface object in the user interface, presenting at least one additional interface object in the user interface in proximity of the first interface object, each additional interface object representing a drop target with which the first interface object may be associated.' How do these patent claims differ from normal drag and drop? In pretty trivial ways if at all, but it may be hard for a patent examiner to understand that trivial changes in drag and drop user interface are not in fact novel enough to warrant a patent. If Yahoo gets this patent, they'll have a mighty big stick to shake at competitors."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Yahoo patents "smart" drag and drop by Unequivocal (155957)
This discussion has been archived.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.

Yahoo Patents 'Smart' Drag and Drop 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Wouldn't this describe NWN interface?
    Drag, choose option, drag some more..

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SQLGuru (980662)
      What about the task bar in Windows 95 and beyond? I can drag a file from an Explorer window to the task bar, make a Window get focus so I can drop it on that Window......

      I don't understand from TFA (which I read...I did not read, however, TFPA) what makes their system so smart? Is it the pop-up text that says "Move to Top"? Or just that it does what I want it to do?

      Layne

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695)
        How is anybody supposed to program anything with the way these patents are worded? I have no clue what they are even talking about. Each patent should be able to explain something in plain english as to what they are actually patenting.
    • This also sounds a lot like Photoshop's guidelines that they've had for several years. There's got to be more to this patent than this.
  • A large mug is what I'd call whoever granted this patent. Isn't it just a normal drag and drop crossed with some context sensitivity?

  • No they won't (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:28AM (#22137370) Homepage Journal
    If Yahoo gets this patent, they'll have a mighty big stick to shake at competitors."

    No they bloody well won't.

    I have the patent [uspto.gov] for shaking a stick at competitors.

    • Re:No they won't (Score:4, Funny)

      by phobos13013 (813040) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @10:05AM (#22137736)
      Maybe so, but *I* hold the patent on misdirected links, soooo, as my team of lawyers race after you for my millions... we will just call it even!
    • >I have the patent for shaking a stick at competitors.

      I'm sorry Rooseveldt beat you to it. By the way, the KDE drag and drop interface used to present a mini menu that let you decide to copy, paste, etc...

      This patent/application deserves to die a grisly death.

  • Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by DustyShadow (691635) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:30AM (#22137386) Homepage
    They've applied for this patent. It has not granted yet. Seems like a small point but it isn't.
    • "Seems like a small point but it isn't."

      Have you SEEN some of the patents they've put through in the last 5 years? This most definitely IS a small point.

  • Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Have Blue (616) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:31AM (#22137396) Homepage
    How is this different from spring-loaded folders which have been in MacOS since before it was X?
    • Better question how is this different than Finder's varible icons? The trash can becomes an eject icon when you select an external volume?
    • IBM had desktop objects that did similar things in OS/2 over a decade ago. Everything on the desktop was an object and depending on the type of object being dragged and the drop target of the object different behaviors could be initiated. Of course Yahoo could add "On the Internet" to this description and STILL get a patent for it, assuming that IBM doesn't already have one. I wouldn't make that bet personally, seeing as how IBM is one of the biggest patent powerhouses in the world and has probably already

  • Hey, something just occurred to me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:33AM (#22137410) Homepage

    Patent tax revenues are backdated to the day of filing. So patent trolls are claiming that all those inventions that were suddenly extant and infringing on day 0 didn't exist as prior art on day -1. They just appeared fully formed overnight.

    How can anyone working in the patent racket sleep at night? It must be where lawyers end up when even child molesters, cannibals and politicians won't employ them any more.

    • How can anyone working in the patent racket sleep at night?

      Duh. You don't need to sleep if you don't have a soul. ;)
  • Every windowing system in existence? How could Yahoo! possibly implement a drag-and-drop interface without the support of a window system that has already implemented it (whether they use the window system's native drag-and-drop or not)?
  • EVE:
    -click on some object on screen (typically ship in space) and hold mouse button down
    -several "drop targets" appear around selected object
    -by "drag and drop" one of these "drop targets" can be selected. Each "drop target" launches a specific activity, like locking weapons on, unlocking target....
    "Drag and drop" in parentheses because the selected object is not visibly dragged, only the mouse cursor moves.

    Overall, this is not quite the same but might be similar enough to count as prior art. That is, if it
    • That was a noble attempt at finding prior art, sadly it is in vein as they don't give two fucks about prior art, all they care about is what the load of bull patent they shoved through says. This is a prime example of why all software patents are bullshit, there is no way you should be able to patent mathematics, specifically algorithms.
      • I have to agree. Although it's too bad really, I'd love to own a patent on the flavor of statistics where you pull a number out of your @$$ and claim it as a percentage of the population that believes/does X. I'd make a killing on at least 90% of the forums out there.

      • This is a prime example of why all software patents are bullshit, there is no way you should be able to patent mathematics, specifically algorithms.

        The software == mathematics argument loses some wind when used to attack a patent application such as this one. Mathematics describes universal truths. This application describes a user interface feature. Mathematics are exact, and often uses specialized notation to avoid ambiguity. This application uses a lot of words to describe several concepts and use

      • Not all software patents are bad, but bad ones like this are.

        software engineering still has room for creative, news ways to perform functions, hence, there is still room for innovative, creative ideas that should be protected. However, patent applications like this one simply degrade the patent process. Clearly this patent should not be awarded and should be summarily dismissed, but there is a process in place that has to be followed.

        What I would like to see is a heft fee slapped on people who file

    • Overall, this is not quite the same but might be similar enough to count as prior art. That is, if it was present in EVE before March 29, 2006. Unfortunately others have to confirm or refute this as I started EVE in December 2006, after the date of the patent application :-(

      The functionality of EVE that you described could support an argument that at least some of the claims are obvious given the state of drag-and-drop technology. You are right to be careful about the dates when the functionality exist

    • Except for "dragging" the initial item, this is the same actions as a pop up menu. Your Eve example is a pop up menu. And there are circular pop up menus, and menus drawn as lots of floating icons, and menus that don;t appear until you start to drag or you hesitate. Some of these are already patented, so not only is their prior art, there may be patent violations here!
  • I would think that someone should send a copy of the Microsoft and Apple APIs and corresponding documentation for implementing "Drag and Drop" in Windows and in MacOS 9 / MacOS X. I suppose that this documentation would count as "published" because everyone who wants them can download them from the Internet. Actually, you would have to find versions as they were available at the time the patent was filed, plus any previous versions. Anything that is in either of these APIs would have to be removed from the

  • A way to fix all of this (Score:5, Funny)

    by PJ1216 (1063738) * on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:48AM (#22137546) Homepage
    Patent Examiners should post ALL technology-related patents onto Slashdot and then just wait to see what WE have to say about it =P

  • Apple has clear prior art, I'm sure others too (Score:5, Informative)

    by Maury Markowitz (452832) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:48AM (#22137552) Homepage
    People are asking about traditional drag-n-drop or drag-n-menu, but let's try to be specific to the claims made. After reading them I am convinced Apple's "spring loaded folders" match the description. They were released in the 1990s, I believe in OS8.

    "A computer-implemented method for manipulating objects in a user interface, comprising: providing the user interface including a first interface object operable to be selected and moved within the user interface;"

    Since this is the "drag", this portion of the patent is prior-arted by just about everyone. Next...

    "and in response to selection and movement of the first interface object in the user interface, presenting at least one additional interface object in the user interface in proximity of the first interface object, each additional interface object representing a drop target with which the first interface object may be associated.'

    This is the key. Although other UIs might meet the first portion of this part of the claim, the second is more narrow. Specifically it has to open something near the first that is a drop target. Menus are not drop targets, so they don't apply. Launchers are not related to the original drop target, so they don't apply.

    But spring loaded folders absolutely do. They opened in response to a "hesitant drop" over a folder, creating a new window under the cursor showing the contents folder (as if one had double-clicked it). This window is "at least one additional interface object", it is most definitely "near the first that is a drop target", it is definitely an "object representing a drop target", and finally, it is [related to] "the first interface object may be associated".

    Flush.

    Maury
      • > Is this like when you drag

        Perhaps, but the task bar is not the same as the original or final object. That seems to be key to the patent.

        Maury

  • The subsentence they forgot: (Score:3, Funny)

    by bytesex (112972) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:49AM (#22137554) Homepage
    'on the internet' !

  • After skimming through the patent [peertopatent.org], it seems the "smart" component of this is in bringing the possible drop targets within close proximity to the object being dragged. I vaguely remember reading about a system of that nature in one of my SIGGRAPH conference proceedings a few years back. I don't have time to look it up right now though, as I have to get to work. Maybe later tonight, unless someone else can find it first.

    • After skimming through the patent [peertopatent.org], it seems the "smart" component of this is in bringing the possible drop targets within close proximity to the object being dragged.
      Man, I bet that's not annoying. Much.

      I hate it when damn machines start trying to second-guess me. Whole-word select irritates the hell out of me, so stupid icons flitting around to be 'helpful' will have me spitting blood.

  • Prior LucasArts (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kirth (183) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:53AM (#22137604) Homepage
    Sounds like the interface of a LucasArts-adventure to me. If you pick up a banana the pointer changes and the environment reacts differently if you click on something.

  • Let's get as many of these granted as possible. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scsirob (246572) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:59AM (#22137658)
    If every company submitting such silly and obvious pattent applications gets their way then the system is bound to collapse. Business as the USA knows it will come to a halt, because each and every piece of equipment is being threatened by dozens of lawsuits.

    Fine. Let it happen. China and India will be more than happy to ignore US patents and create new economies on that. It's already happening and stupid stuff like this will only help to make the process go faster.
  • But it looks like this isn't just plain old drag and drop. Can't say if it's patent worthy, or even something with no prior art. Read the article if you didn't get the difference from the description. My summary- It's sort of like they combined a right-click with a drag, popping up drop targets when you start to drag an object (similar to opening a new menu when you right click on something). I wouldn't think it's patent worthy, but that standard seems to have fallen recently...

  • ProTools (Score:3, Informative)

    by log0n (18224) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @09:59AM (#22137662)
    has had this for years. Dragging/dropping in context of what the content is your manipulating - and then initiating an action (or series of).

    Hell, anytime you've burned a CD in OSX by dragging to the trash can and it changes to a burning icon, you've just prior-arted Yahoo.
  • The way I read this, it's describing something similar to.. well, let's take Flickr as a Yahoo example. If you had an interface which you could pick photos on, but really don't have a great deal of space for myriad menus, and click-click-click operation. Imagine you select and drag a photo image, and the user interface darkens and presents a ring of graphical menu items - perhaps a trashcan, or a couple of previews of certain filter effects which you can drag the photo object onto and apply the effect.

    That'
  • Apple's Final Cut Studio. When you drag an item from the Browser over to the Canvas, a number of drop targets pop up, offering the editor a bunch of options for how to integrate that particular item (video clip, still picture, etc) into the timeline. Pretty straightforward stuff. Not sure if Apple has patented it, but it's definitely prior.

  • "trivial" changes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pbhj (607776) on Tuesday January 22 2008, @10:58AM (#22138450) Homepage Journal
    >>> How do these patent claims differ from normal drag and drop? In pretty trivial ways if at all, but it may be hard for a patent examiner to understand that trivial changes in drag and drop user interface are not in fact novel enough to warrant a patent.

    Firstly I think you're confusing novelty and "inventive step". Something is either novel or not, there are no degrees of novelty. . It's very easy to create something novel, by collocation for example, but there must be a synergy between the elements as any application can only cover one "invention". The inventive step is the difference between the "state of the art" and the patent being considered, whether that step is obvious is often the crucial point.

    Looking at the claims (eg http://peertopatent.org/patent/20070234226/overview [peertopatent.org]; assuming they are copied correctly) then they seem to follow a pretty standard formula. Often (and in certain jurisdictions there's a benefit in this) the first claim is intended to be too broad. This means that the applicant gets an extra period of time for amending the patent before it can be granted and hence before fees have to be paid. Other reasons for broad claims are to get an overview of a field from the examiners perspective - they site a spread of patents that knock out your claim 1. The claim 1 in this case is to broad for this however.

    The claims then branch off, methods, devices, systems each incorporating or excluding details of what might be the envisaged product. This way the broadest possible scope of monopoly is sort - it's an adversarial system really. So the article is bunk when it claims to be fighting overly broad patents - the applicant wouldn't want claim 1 to stand as such a patent wouldn't be enforceable as it's clearly invalid wrt the prior art.

    Now back to that quote "trivial changes in drag and drop user interface are not in fact novel enough to warrant a patent". Well the issue if indeed the steps are minor is that drag and drop interfaces are used by a plurality of users in a plurality of places (!). So the field is extremely well worked. A very minor change therefore is critical, it could easily corner the market. Say the change from a static to a dynamic "wait" cursor (egg-timer) - a minor alteration but a very significant one. Now we say such a change is obvious, but we have to assess this question from the time of filing (or more properly the priority date) and from the perspective of the man skilled in the GUI art and in possession of the common knowledge of the GUI field or research. Do citations in the field mean you could produce that inventive step without being inventive. Is it plainly obvious.

    In any well worked field it appears to me that it's perfectly reasonable to argue that any small feature that can't be hit for lack of novelty must be inventive as otherwise it would appear in the prior art. That argument can't easily be refuted; though I think it lacks rigour, personally.

    FWIW.

    [I was a UK Patent Examiner a few years ago.]
  • The most recent game I played, The Witcher, has this interface. Take a weapon from your inventory bag, and the slots you can drag and drop it into in your character (hands, for example, but not the feet) light up. I think that's exactly what the patent means. Yahoo doesn't specify (at least in the /. write-up) that it's web-only, so I predict this being nixed by prior art.

    And my guess is, the 4 month old Witcher is hardly the first application to do this.
    • There may be prior art, but after carefully reading the patent, I suspect claim 1 may hold up. It uses the word 'presenting' confusingly, which can invalidate a claim, but the body of the patent makes it clear that 'presenting' means creating new objects on the screen that weren't there before in that location. If you drag an object, they might pop up a recyle bin right next to it, which otherwise wouldn't even be visible. I'm afraid this claim wont infringe any drag-and-drop application I've ever seen.

      Two points: First, who cares if Yahoo patents some tiny area? This patent is so specific that few will ever feel the need to violate it. Second, this patent sucks because it's a software patent, not because it's obvious. I have several software patents. You need them in the US to protect your company from your competitor's software patents. However, the EU got it right when they rejected the concept. The world would be better off without them.
      • Not an HCI specialist, but it sounds like they really need to look at Green from Sun Labs in the early '90s, which did exactly what you describe.
      • I saw a video that came out of Microsoft a few years ago that did just what you're talking about. They were experimenting with the concept due to icon-based GUIs being so terribly inefficient on large displays or spanned across three or four displays. There were some really cool features shown in that video, I wish I still had a link to it.

        • The way I would interprert the description of the patent is this: as soon as you start to drag an image, icons for GiMP and a trash can would appear next to the icon you're dragging. As soon as you start to drag a text file, icons for vi and a trash can would appear. And so on. In other words, it doesn't cover any of the things you think it does.

          That's not saying there isn't prior art, but it isn't about having drop targets. It's about having source-specific drop targets appear dynamically. It is mor

    • Alias/Wavefront and Maya have a similar interface. You click an object(point, line, spline, polygon, etc) and then right click and you get a "ring" of options. Then move your mouse ever so slightly and you select the action.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.