Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses

ScooterB writes "According to TechDirt, Microsoft has patented having the action of a button determined by how long the button was pressed. From the patent listing, it seems to be targeted towards PDA's and other handhelds." Whether patents like this are the chicken or the egg, this relates to an MSNBC article submitted by prostoalex which says "United States Patent and Trademark Office is overwhelmed with incoming requests," and that "Unless the budgeting increases, the review process for a patent could double to 5 years."

I guess no one at microsoft...

[pr0ntab]

has played a handheld and/or console game.

Ever.

Whatever, ignore, continue. Who are they going to call on it?

Palm did it first...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the Tungsten series, pushing the navigator button quickly does an app-defined action. Holding it for a second or two switches to the launcher. How is this not prior art?

Recipe for Bureaucratic Success:

[Malor]

1. Do such an inept job at screening patents that it quietly expands their scope.
2. Watch as a whole industry is created out of filing for these new patents.
3. Watch incoming volume of new patent requests increase astronomically.
4. Whine to Congress about insufficient resources.
5. Swill at public trough.
6. Hire more workers.
7. Get big raise because you now manage many more workers.
8. Profit!!

uh?

[Therlin]

Like when on a Mac, if you hold the one mouse buttom for a longer amount of time, you get a menu? Or when I press and hold a button on my radio to set the memory?

Mac mice

[donnyspi]

Mac mice are known for their one buttonness. Hold down the button to achieve the same effect of a right-click. Hmmm...

Re:Prior Art

[leonardluen]

every single watch i have ever owned has done this! you have to hold the set button for a number of seconds before it lets you set it...this by far predates microsoft's empire!

5 year review process?

[gabe]

Does anyone else besides me think that this could be a GOOD IDEA on their part? Maybe if they actually took their time to process the patents and run exhaustive prior art checks most of these silly patents they're awarding would be preemptively tossed in the trash.

For crying out loud...

[Chmarr]

... my digital wristwatch of EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO was doing something like this... you needed to hold down one of the buttons for 2 seconds to get it into 'set' mode.

Re:Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes (oblig. Onion )

[Anonymous Coward]

The source...
http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:ZhF3hhvPgwQJ:w ww.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html [66.102.11.104]

Re:5 year review process?

[Crazy Man on Fire]

I don't think they'll actually be reviewing the patents for five years, they just have so many to review that it will take them five years to get to each one. Once a patent gets to the front of the queue, they'll still just pull out the "Approved" stamp and pass it on.

USPTO overwhelmed, their own fault

[Old Wolf]

Maybe if they didn't grant so many patents for obvious and existing things, there wouldn't be so many people jumping on the bandwagon!

How about

[2names]

many many years ago...

Elevators were operated by people who held down a button or a switch. The length of holding determined which floor you went to. This type of tech is ancient.

RTFPA

[v_1matst]

Read The F&#@ing Patent Application

please go and read the actual patent app. before posting ignorant comments. You might find that your digital watch, cell phone, mouse, pda or whatever has nothing to do with what they are trying to patent.

I dislike MS business practices as much as the next guy, but please be informed....

Re:stop watch

[rabiteman]

This patent would surely never hold up in court, so it's only useful for intimidation tactics.

That's the point.

Defensive Patents ...

[BaronAaron]

Don't blame Microsoft, blame the patent system.

Microsoft, being the nice fat company they are, is a ripe target for patent lawsuits. If I was them I would also patent all the idiotical things I could get away with, because if I don't someone else will. Use the system or it will bite you in the ass.

I highly doubt Microsoft would ever try to enforce this patent on anyone ... But there are plenty of smaller companies out there that make money by hitting up the big guys on these silly patents.

So anyway the patent system is broke, we know this, what are we going to do about should be the question ...

Mobile phones are prior art too

[saikou]

Closer to PDAs are mobile phones. Look for the tapereel/voice mail icon on button '1'. Hold it, and you're calling your voicemail. Not hold it, and... well... you pressed '1' :)

Yeah, yeah...

[Xentax]

...this is another bad patent. At least some people paused to notice that it's not THAT rediculous (compared to, say, patenting reverse auctions on the internet, or Amazon's one-click checkout patent, etc.), just another classic case of why just because it's being done on a computer or on the internet does NOT make it new and non-obvious.

However, I wonder what else a company like MS, or IBM, or Intel can do in a situation like this -- namely, one where they're doing things that haven't been done before that, while NOT patentable in "our" sense of the term, are nevertheless things that DO get patents from the USPTO.

I mean, if you want to do something, and *someone* will patent it because our broken system lets them, shouldn't you try to patent it first? That's what most corporate patents seem to be these day -- defensive patents.

It's the nobody's out there that are really abusing the system -- SCO, Eolas, etc. I'm not really saying they're forcing Microsoft's hand (or IBM's, or Intel's, or AMD's, or NVidia's, etc.) -- but I *am* saying that I think these large research-driven companies are exercising good business sense by trying to defend themselves against the more flagrant abusers of the patent system.

Sooner or Later (I'm guessing Later), even the cost of doing business with defensive patents and cross-licensing will reach that point that the big guys will push for Patent/Trademark reform, and these sorts of problems will finally go away. But, IMHO that day is years away, and the targets for patent abuse have to defend themselves in the meantime.

I just wish one of the big patent powerhouses like MS or IBM would step up and drive a challenge against the existing patent status quo -- either via a Constitutionality argument, or lobbying Congress to get REAL patent reforms going, *something*. It's a gamble right now, sure, but business is all about risk and reward, and the payoffs for being able to get out of the patent litigation minefields that any technology company finds itself in these days would be worth it.

Xentax

tired of bad patents? lets DOS the patent system!

[jparp]

here's how:
We need to set up some kind of open source org for generating and funding silly patent applications. With some sympathetic venture capital, we may be able to clog the patent system for the next 50 years!

Not that im gonna do it. Just think it would be neet if someone tried. Of course, the org would have to have protections from not actually inforcing the patents.

The goal here isn't to make good patents. Just to clog the system, so we need not think to hard about them.

just an idea,.

limited power computing devices?

[NaugaHunter]

Would a digital watch count? I'm pretty sure my first one would do different things from how long the button was pushed. Granted, it was only generally how it knew you wanted to set the time and switched modes, but it was a pretty limited computer.

Simpler Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

"United States Patent and Trademark Office is overwhelmed with incoming requests," and that "Unless the budgeting increases, the review process for a patent could double to 5 years."

Or better yet, rather than increasing the budget, the P&T Office could start REJECTING MORE patents, and we could get rid of algorithmic patents altogether (software and business practice). That would QUICKLY cut down the load.nstitutionally) much better.

Re:Illustrating a point with extreme examples.

[gusmao]

I belive you are mistaken, patents actually are one of the greatest inventions to incentivate intellectual production. According to economists, and even empirically, is easy to observe that unless you have a strong incentive to produce and the rights to your production assured, its very unlikely that you will move a finger to do anything at all. That's what happened for instance in the russian revolution, when all excedent grains were confiscated by the government. The farmers stopped planting, and millions starved.

You can arque that in the free software movement, one doesn't get nothing for the work he is willing to do. That's not true, there is still strong incentives for some contributors, like peer recogntion for instance. Unfortunatelly, profit is still the most appealing incentive to production, and patents are the mechanism that guarantee that the creator can profit from his invention

It is not the patent idea that is wrong, is the process of granting them that should be improved and revised to refrain this kind of stupid thing from happening again

Other Examples

[Xformer]

With a Palm OS device, if you just hit the Address Book button, it takes you to that app. If you hold the button down longer, it tries to beam a record that's been designated as a "business card", if such a record exists.

I don't know how long they've been doing this, exactly, though I doubt it was after M$ started producing PDAs, much less filed for this patent.

Seems they're trying to patent the concept of double-clicks as well... they bloody stole that from Apple!

Re:As an aside...

[Rick the Red]

A company could submit a software patent, and in the time it takes for the patent to go through, another company could have gone from square one to implementation to market and to obselesence(sp) before the first one has had the patent processed.

That's good. Because they can't sue you for patent infringement until the patent is granted, and if you've already sucked all the $$$ out of the market and gone out of business before their patent is granted, there's nothing left of you for them to sue. Maybe -- just maybe -- companies will have to go back to delivering products in order to make money. They won't be able to let others deliver products then sue them for their profits (although I must admit, as a business model suing successful companies seems much easier than becoming one yourself. Damn ethics -- why was I cursed with honest parents!!!

Of course, you're all correct, BUT

[daveatwork]

We are missing the point a bit here. Of course, you are all totally correct, this isnt anywhere near a new thing, but we are missing the whole patent issue. I know you all understand this as well as cookies, but ill say it anyway. Patents protect an IDEA. They dont protect the end result. Hell, imagine if Hoover could patent clean carpets, no one else is allowed to invent a sucky upy thing, since it's patented!

This is exactly the problem with a load of software patents. They dont patent HOW something is done, that patent WHAT is done. It's like trying to patent staying dry and warm, and therefore preventing anyone else building houses! I do believe there are some valid software patents, but that should NOT stop someone else getting to the same result by doing it differently. Just because some guy invented RSA security, does not stop some other guy inventing a totally differnt way to use the same algorithm.

Microsoft can patent the source they used to time this button, if it uses some cool new timing algorithm that works without needing the internal clock, but no way should they be allowed to patent the actual result, a timed button.

And honestly, i dont blame microsoft, i blame the fucking stupid patent clerks and judges who let things like this through. Microsoft are just using the system, we all would given half a chance. You patent people should wake the fuck up and engage brain!

However, you will owe me money, since i own Thought(TM). oh, and i also own "Correct Answer(TM)" and "Common Sense(TM)", all registered trademarks and patents, thank you...

or...

[ed.han]

what about the text-entry method of most mobile phones? i doubt this is about the PDA market half so much as mobile telephony.

ed

Re:Mac mice

[outZider]

Um, hi. Welcome to 1996. I am your guide, Al Gore.

The system knows what a right click is. In Mac OS X, the native mouse drivers know what it is. It also knows all of the other mouse buttons, and communicates them. The default mouse is one button. Plug in a USB two or whatever button mouse in, badda bing, it works.

I wish people would shut up when they don't know better.

That story is probrably BS

[Anonymous Coward]

5 years? That's ridiculous.

I mean, how long does it take to blindly rubber stamp any piece of paper that shows up on your desk? One examiner could do thousands in a single day.

Re:How could you Albert K. Wong??

[name773]

on a limited resource computing device
first of all, that technically covers every computing device.
but if i take the non-technical definition, does it include large systems whose resources have become limited due to a bloated os/application set?

Re:As an aside...

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative? Well then...

Re:uh?

[booch]

Actually, Macs started out at 7 or 8 MHz. Your typical PDA these days runs at 100 to 400 MHz. Plus, the instructions-per-clock-cycle are better on modern CPUs than the old 68000. So it's very likely that he has a Mac with more limited computing power than a PDA.

I also like the explanation that my sibling posts made -- if a device doesn't have limited power, it must have infinite power.

Prior art

[Obfuscant]

I bought my car in 1987. I installed an electronically tuned AM/FM radio. When I press a channel button for less than 1 second, I tune the radio. When I press it for more than 1 second, the radio tunes me. I mean, the current station is put into the memory.

I'd call that "prior art" and "limited power computing device."

Some day...

[zmooc]

Some day people will hopefully understand that even though it may be pretty hard to read computer programs, they're just something written in a certain language. Microsoft won't sell you a button at all - it sells you a library with instructions especially sorted out by them to instruct your computer to do something. They differ from a book (ok an eBook) in absolutely nothing except for the language they were written in.

Think of it. Theoretically it is possible to write a compiler that compiles the text of a patent to software that implements it. That shouldn't even have to be so very theoretical if version 0.1 only has to be able to compile one certain patent text. Now all of the sudden the patent itself has become a patented piece of software! If we don't stop patenting software now and one day someone comes up with a fucking smart compiler that can do such things, we'll all be uttering patented programs all day.

The lack of a compiler from natural language to software (and vice versa) doesn't make software any less language. Software patents exist thanks to the utter stupidness of people that cannot see the difference between "an apparatus" and "some text I don't understand and I don't have a translator(compiler) for".

Claims are not as broad as you think

[hayek]

If you take the time to read the patent claims, you would see that the patent coverage is nowhere near as broad as the post makes it sound. I really wish the editors would stop posting patent stories to the front page, because they are almost always misleading, if not clearly wrong. At the very least, I think /.ers need a lesson in patent law. As a patent lawyer myself, I'd be willing to answer a few questions to hopefully put an end to the patent ignorance I see here day after day.

Re:Prior Art

[leonardluen]

isn't something that is "obvious" not patentable?
seems to me i can name a lot of items with buttons that do different things depending on how you press it. and one of the posts above this appeared to have a good list of them.

to me this just seems and obvious application of something that has been used in many different devices with buttons, i guess i just don't see why it is patentable, but then again i don't see why the patent office lets quite a few of the patents through...

Re:As an aside... [RTFP]

[GreyPoopon]

Your Palm power button is safe (not on the list), as are the buttons on your wristwatch, Mac mouse, car radio and garden tractor (totally different field of application).

To add to this -- contrary to popular belief, this patent has nothing to do with operations performed by a stylus or mouse. It is carefully restricted to focus on HARDWARE-based buttons of a PDA. Anybody who has a Pocket PC should know what I'm talking about. A similar frame of reference for the rest of you: Most everybody has seen (or owns) one of those "Internet" keyboards that has separate buttons for Email, Search, Browse and Play. These are similar to the application buttons on a Pocket PC. What Microsoft has patented is a method to detect how long these buttons are held down and respond in different ways, depending on the length of the button press. They've carefully limited the scope of their patent to only these "application buttons."

Now, you MIGHT be able to claim prior art with a calculator watch (aka "limited-resource computing device") that did different things depending on how long the buttons on the side were pressed. But I doubt it.

Re:As an aside... [RTFP]

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think that both a mouse and a computer qualify as "limited-resource computing devices". Unless somebody's replaced my PC's 768 MB of RAM with a chip that has an infinite amount, and/or replaced it with an infinitely fast CPU....

Re:As an aside... [RTFP]

[timeOday]

Many watches DO do something different when you hold a button down - they enter a "set" mode (to input the starting position of a countdown timer, or to set the time). I suppose Casio's Databank watches do too.