Microsoft Seeks Patent On Virtual Desktop Pager 716
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?"
You may want to mention that (Score:5, Insightful)
Protest to the Patent Office (Score:2, 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.
Re:vtwm (Score:2, Insightful)
Although as far as my recollection goes it was called tvwm (Toms Virtual WM)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:-1, Insightful)
They haven't. They don't do business that way.
There are plenty of folks suing them over frivolous patents. Perhaps their latest rash of applications are more defensive than offensive.
Re:abstract (Score:5, Insightful)
Inform them of prior art! (Score:1, Insightful)
Software using this has got to go back around 10 years or so... what have we got:
Sun Microsystems OpenLook Virtual Window Manager (olvwm)... in use prior to 1992
FVWM... in use prior to 1994 (cant find exact date)
any more that date back a reasonable time?
I've already sent a message to 'usptoinfo@uspto.gov' with the subject Patent '#20030189597 Virtual desktop manager'
Re:GNOME/KDE Ripoff? (Score:1, Insightful)
You can file a patent application on someone else's technology, and shame on the original inventor for not doing so. (That's the idea, I don't agree with it).
But to use someone else's trademark on your application is a clear violation of copyright and trademark law.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS *doesn't* have a patent on this! (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, if only MS would get havily penilized for not providing readily available prior art. Unfortunately, I think they just lose in court the first time they try to enforce the patent, and everyone loses except the lawyers.
Can I buy stock in lawyers? They always seem to win when everyone else loses.
Um how about the DOS filesystem patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:1, Insightful)
They didn't invent that, and they don't deserve the patent.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Re:Abolish Software Patents by Lobby (Score:2, Insightful)
Patent applications and claims (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like Apple's Expose. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more like a feature of several linux WMs where you have a section of the "toolbar" that displays a grid representing your virtual desktops. On each section of the grid are smaller rectangles representing open windows on that desktop. Hence, the "each pane contains a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop."
At least, that's my take on things...
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how long before they try to patent mount points and symlinks?
Prior art referenced in patent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who are talking about the old x-windows multiple desktop switch tools are correct: and Microsoft is well aware of them. They are claiming a particular version where there is a tray icon (without preview) that summons a dialog which shows all the desktops in scaled format for selection. I use the alt-tab powertoy that I'm pretty sure this is based on: as I alt-tab I see a reduced picture of the app I'm selecting to (except my X-Window client, which it can't read).
Personally, I don't see this as a patentable advance, but they are claiming that showing a full rendition of the desktop in reduced form is different from showing shaded areas where the windows are.
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-$100k on that.
In fact, most likely, Microsoft is filing patents in order to allow them to get a portfolio for cross-licensing. And that, in itself, is anti-competitive because it ends up keeping people out of the market. It just happens that most of the big companies are in on that kind of anti-competitive behavior.
Is the patent being misunderstood? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if you are running 4 virtual desktops, and you indicate you want to see all your desktops, your screen would be seperated into 4 sections, each displaying a smaller version of each desktop complete with the apps that are running on them.
This is NOT the same thing as the Gnome/KDE applets that let you click to change desktops...
Re:Truth about linux co$t (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
So SUBMIT the prior art (Score:3, Insightful)
This page [bitlaw.com] has pdf's of patent office forms, including one about prior art. The USPTO website also seems to suggest that prior art is something that has been patented in this example [uspto.gov].
If people really care about this and aren't just into recreational bitching, then write the patent office a letter with the appropriate details so that the clerks at least have the opportunity of being made aware of this stuff.
Patent application (Score:2, Insightful)
The abstract is only informational. If you want to know the scope of the invention M$ wants to protect, please read the claims.
Re:This has got to stop (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's not defendable, it will be settled. Most people can't fund a court case against a giant like Microsoft unless they're another giant, in which case they won't be sued anyway.
Re:its not a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
While that's true, I wonder if the easiest way to fix the patent system or at least to significantly band-aid it would be to permanently reject any patent for which initial submission has obvious prior art that dates back more than 10 years prior to the claim. At the very least that would eliminate a ton of the claims like this without having to waste everyone's time in cycling processes of reivew an revision.
Full screen pager with fvwm2 in 1997? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only claim to this patent *application* that appears to me to have any merit at all is the one for the full screen display of the pager. I don't recall ever having seen one of those (but that doesn't mean they didn't exist).
And even that claim is questionable. It appears to me that the FvwmPager might have been able to do that in 1997 with the proper configuration. Some people believe that fvwm2 config files are turing-complete :-)
Question:
Response:
How big a difference is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The first X Windows desktop I remember seeing something like this with was Enlightenment, back in ~1998, whose pager had miniature screenshots of all your other desktops. I'm sure Microsoft is updating the screenshots more frequently and zooming to them more smoothly, but since even Enlightenment's improved version of the pager is too obvious an idea to deserve a patent, in a sane world "Enlightenment + more eye candy" wouldn't stand a chance.
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:joke (Score:4, Insightful)
And the PTO is not incompetent. Overworked, yes. Incompetent, no. I guarantee you 99% of the people posting on slashdot don't even look at a patent before crying foul. Of the 1% left, 99% of them only read the abstract and not the claims, the claims being what is considered enforceable/infringeable.
IANAL, IANAExaminer, but I deal with both daily and the ingorance of the
Re:its not a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
A method for doing X "on the Internet.
<sigh>
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Now...if I had a seperate monitor for each desktop, that would be cool.
MS wants to patent Linux away (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Mac OS have a feature like this? If so, for how long? Apple is the only company I see spending the money to fight MS on these silly patents.
It doesn't take much to get a patent now adays`. The Patent office doesn't verify crap. I guess they figure to let the companies fight it out in court.
Maybe a bunch of
American business and the American government is going down the drain fast.
Re:its not a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem seems to me to be this idea that patent attorneys have that the goal of a patent submission is to test the waters of what you can get, and then revise downward. Why not put the burden on the submitter to make sure that they claims are reasonable and make it worth their while to be overly narrow in order to ensure that it doesn't get rejected?
Re:its not a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
It reminds me of something that an executive producer once said (I think it was JMS talking about his time on Murder She Wrote, where he was not producing, but had some authority as a writer, perhaps story editor or some such). Someone came to him with a "story idea". He asked for details and the guy said, "Amnisia". He replied, "ok, what's your idea?" They guy was confused and said again, "Amnisia" as if that were, in and of itself, a story idea. The pitch, needless to say, was over.
Patents are sort of the same. People are used to throwing noise at the patent office like "Widget on the Internet" and they really seem to expect that this noise is worth someone's valuable time to review. Is it going to become necessary to establish a reputation system? Should people be charged more to submit based on how likely it is that their patent will be a joke?
Re:joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for pointing this out. Tried a few times before; but the message doesn't seem to get through. With respect to publishing after 18 months: the US (this time) followed worldwide tradition.
I might not be completely agreeable though with the stated competence of the USPTO. Having been an examiner until 7 years back, they had a tendency to be politically correct; more than legally correct. And how do you distinguish between incompetence and overworked ? When our car comes back from a shoddy repair I don't bother if the mechanic was incompetent or overworked. And I wouldn't know; badly repaired is badly repaired. A horribly granted patent remains a sore; for the industry and the consumer.
The independent claims will be discussed, eventually slightly modified and granted; I bet quite some money on this outcome. Patent business is a monkey business. Whatever they get - and they will get something - they can always use it to strangle the competitors: would you / Gnome / KDE / enlightenment have the funds to go to court against Microsoft ? So, there won't even be a need to make the patent stand in court; just a few letters and Longhorn will have workspaces and desktops while OSS won't (any more). Cease and desist: the honestly conducted business of the future.
FvwmPager? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, does ANYONE still have faith in the Patent Office? Does it still provide ANY functionality other than letting big companies sue everyone? Do they WORK for MicroSCO?
The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Starfish Dashboard...
Several different pieces of shareware at the time Dashboard95 came out...
FVWM...
GNOME...
KDE...
Simply put, they shouldn't have filed this one.
slashdotting the US Patent Office (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:joke (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a lack of an US movement against software patents. But everybody in Europe shall better support AEL and FFII and the others.
http://wiki.ael.be
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Others I haven't actually seen before, though I would say they do fall under "obvious to someone skilled in the art". Well they are obvious to me - several were always on my "i'd love to do that" list and i had on the cards, but simply X didnt provide the horsepower or api to do it, so it was left out for practical reasons. They are simple effects like "take a snapshot of your screen and then just scale it up and down as an animation transition". It's really BASIC stuff done repeatedly in many ways. E has done this for pagers, well parts of them. It did it with induvidual windows - it'd scale and zoom in on a window as you moused over it (within the pager) so you could better make out the thumbnail contents.
Now what I don't know is if you can deny a claim when sufficient parts of it art prior art and most of the rest is obvious to someone skilled in the art.
IMHO the USPTO should try and keep some experts in fields on retainer - at the very least start a search on existing experts who work and develop/create within those fields. if they get an application that falls within that field, fire off some e-mails and ask the people who are the real experts for known prior art or obvious. The USPTO calls the final shots, but at least they get some good informed responses. If they wanted guaranteed response times they could pay them on retainer too. Since it is a filed patent application and public knowledge, there is no harm in making these questions public BEFORE it gets granted and then has to be tested in court.