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?"

Xerox and Apple

[nvrrobx]

I think Xerox and Apple defintely qualify as prior art.

There are days when I think the USPO really needs to wake up.

First Post!!! W00t!

[thewldisntenuff]

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?

And slashdot posted a story about it April 28th

[PetoskeyGuy]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/28/198242 [slashdot.org]

I can't wait to see all the NEW comments on it.

Um....

[CyanDisaster]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Apple have a GUI before Microsoft, and if so, wouldn't one be able to open an application merely by doubleclicking on it? Next thing you know, Microsoft's going to try patenting the Start menu as 'a menu allowing a user to quickly find and launch applications.' or something like that...

Hope be with ye,
Cyan

14 posts, and nobody has read the patent?

[b0rken]

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.

Re:Xerox and Apple

[justMichael]

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 ;)

This is not a patent on "double-click"...

[borgheron]

this is a patent on the idea of launching different functions depending on how and the length of time a user presses a button.

Now, of course, the patent is ridiculous, but it cannot be read so broadly.

GJC

No, but it is a repost from last week--sigh

[Overly Critical Guy]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/28/198242 [slashdot.org]

read the patent

[wolfywolfy]

it's not actually double clicking

One such palm-type computer is Microsoft's Palm-size PC. The Palm-size PC has a touch screen display. A stylus is used to input data into a user interface displayed on the touch screen display. The user interface is similar in appearance to a Windows user interface displayed on a desktop or laptop PC. A taskbar, used for launching application programs, is displayed at the bottom of the touch screen display. Applications are launched by using the stylus to select the desired application from a taskbar menu. Using a stylus can be cumbersome for users. Therefore, as an alternative to launching applications by using the stylus, the Palm-size PC contains a plurality of buttons (called application buttons) that are used to launch the more common applications installed on a Palm-size PC. Applications can be launched in a variety of states. In the past, the actuation of an application button caused an application to be launched in a particular state, for example a view state. The user was required to take further steps to invoke additional application functionality, such as opening a document. It is desirable to more easily launch applications in various states. The present invention is directed to increasing the functionality of application buttons so as to accomplish this result.

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Aphrika]

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:An attack on OS X?

[Rick Zeman]

This sounds like Microsoft is gearing up to go after OSX, which uses the long click to emulate a two button mouse.

My hazy memory says the original Netscape is the prior art for holding down the mouse and then getting a contextual/different action depending on the duration.

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[thestarz]

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..."

RTFP (Read the Fucking Patent)

[Meridun]

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?

Atari 1040ST

[kippa]

I was 11 years old and discovered WTF a "double click" was by reading the F'ing manual. Microsoft was not involved...or were they? What is this horseshit?

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Lt.Hawkins]

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]

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?

Re:Xerox and Apple

[MouseR]

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.

This is sanity calling

[cheesee]

Did anybody reading the patent application before bothering to post?

Therefore, as an alternative to launching applications by using the stylus, the Palm-size PC contains a plurality of buttons (called application buttons) that are used to launch the more common applications installed on a Palm-size PC. Applications can be launched in a variety of states. In the past, the actuation of an application button caused an application to be launched in a particular state, for example a view state. The user was required to take further steps to invoke additional application functionality, such as opening a document. It is desirable to more easily launch applications in various states. The present invention is directed to increasing the functionality of application buttons so as to accomplish this result.

They are not patenting double clicking, or clicking or something that will infringe on your god given rights to click on whatever you want. They are patenting using specialized buttons on a specialized device to launch applications in a different manner depending on how the button is pressed. It's not exact a wide ranging, world destroying patent folks.

But then again, Microsoft was mentioned, that word alone seems to make the average slashdotters IQ drop about 80 points.

I hate to burst people's bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is a valid patent.

Its a non obvious use of timed button presses.

If you just hit an application button on a PDA it opens the application.

If you hold it for more than a second it opens a different document based on the length of time the button is held down.

If you read the patent it is actually a very specific application of the technique.

It only applies to "limited resource computing devices" aka PDAs.

Re:Prior Art... duh!

[foobsr]

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

CC.

Re:FAT Filesystem

[10101001 10101001]

Actually, MS's "FAT" patent is over VFAT, not FAT. VFAT, if you don't know, was MS's answer to supporting long file names (lfns). The actual base concept of associating lfns and sfns (short file names) was around in 4DOS well before Windows 95 came out. And I'd assume there are earlier implementations for either DOS or other platforms. The only thing that was ingenious about VFAT was the way in which it encoded the lfn into the directory structure without causing other DOSs to barf. Of course, storing lfn in a file instead of the directory structure would have allowed easier backup from DOS, pretty easy interoperability through a small tsr, and would mean that using non-Windows 9x disk apps on a Windows 9x filesystem wouldn't mean possibly destroying lfn. There'd also probably be a performance penalty for having to cache the lfn file (as if the process of decoding lfn out of the directory structure wasn't a larger performance penalty). So, all in all, what MS did was non-obvious and useful, but it was only non-obvious because of how bad of an idea it is (especially true given that FAT16 has a 512 root entries limit--where that stands for 512 "normal" sfn entries; lfn+sfn take up 2+ entries, which makes it obvious why you'd want to have a subdirectory to store most everything (say Program Files) instead of dumping everything into root).

Re:Xerox and Apple

[aweraw]

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.

My Creative MuVo2 only has 2 buttons... the Pause/Play button can be held for different lengths of time to perform certain functions... I think this qualifies as prior art, and this patent should be vaporized.

Most GUIs made before Windows ever hit the market

[Felinoid]

The dubble click behavure was enherited from a number of GUIs that existed before Windows ever hit the market and I believe it wasn't included in the inital release of Windows.

The history of it is something like this:
A number of systems hit the market. MacOs is successful with a single button mouse.
Other GUIs hit the PC and Geos for the Commodore, Atari TOS for the ST, Amgia Os for the Amiga.
Most systems had two button mice. However MacOs users had 1 button and Commodore 64 users had 1 button joysticks standing in for mice (two button mouse available).

MacOs started to get the reputation of being limited. The single button wasn't enough. To keep up Apple added the dubble click to permit additional behavure. A software hack for a second button. This is not to say MacOs WAS limited but streat talk vs real world has always been on entirely diffrent plains of existence.

At some point Microsoft addopted the behavure into Windows. There was no preticulare advantage to be gained by this.

You will notice that Microsofts patent is on the default fuction where as MacOs uses the dubble click as the "second button" (if I remember correctly).

This is nothing to be proud of.

However The Commodore 64s Geos used (if memory serves) single click to be "select" for cut and paist and dubble click for default fuction (activate the icon, open file, run the application) before Microsoft included this behaubure into Windows.

Sing with me "Prior art"

The dubble click was created to solve a problem found in systems using a single button for a pointer device. Microsoft Windows had no preticulare reason for addopting the dubble click other than to mimic the behavure of MacOs.

This patent should read.
"The hacks implemented in OTHER operating systems copied into Windows to no advantage to the end user."

Unix Window managers typlicly rely on having 2 to 4 mouse buttons and don't use the dubble click byond mimicing the behavure of Microsoft Windows.

Patent suggestion for RedHat: Dubble click mask:
The software technique where a second click done shortly after the first click is "tossed out" this would continue for a third and forth click as well. That if a user clicks an icon many times (nervous habbit) the Window manager reads only 1 click and ejects the rest.

Tech support horror storys:
Tech: Single left click
User: (Click Click) It openned the app
Tech: Close the app. Don't dubble click. Single left click
User: (Click Click)

With Dubble click mask
Tech: :Left click
User: (Click click click click) It worked.
(All the clicks being read as 1 click becouse that is all the user should have done)

the Timex-Microsoft watch PDA

[whovian]

Recalling that wristwatches used to come with calculators built in, I thought it plausible that somebody had long come up with the idea of built-in address books or some-such. Looks as if Microsoft may have some ground here.

Check out this link [bityard.com] that implies about 1997! Article reproduced shamelessly below.

Tue, May 28 2002, 22:07:55
By Ronny Ko
| | Subscribe to Bityard -- FREE!

About five years ago, Microsoft and Timex introduced one of the first consumer PDAs. Although it was convoluted and hard to use, it was still a good start. Five years later, Fossil, a brand of watches has taken another step by introducing the first full consumer PDA-based watch. In this review, we take a look at the pros and cons.

WristPDA is the first watch to run on the Palm operating system. The idea is very simple. Instead of carrying your Palm Pilot everywhere, you can download your contacts and appointment directly into your watch. By doing this, you'll never miss another appointment and always have your contacts at your wrist - anytime, anywhere.

The watch comes with an address book, date book, to-do list and memo pad. These are not your full-featured applications since the watch doesn't come with a touch screen. Because of its small screen not a lot of information can be displayed.

When the watch arrived to our labs, our first impressions were that it was a nice looking watch in spite of the fact that it is rather big. Its case size was 44 mm x 50 mm x 15 mm.

When we started pressing the buttons, we immediately notice how hard they are. Firstly, they do not offer tactile feedback. Secondly, the forward and back buttons were hidden away as part of the aesthetics causing us to wonder how we'd navigate around them until we read the manuals. For something this small, it should be quite intuitive.

Unlike the Palm Pilot, the watch comes with a wimpy 8-bit Epson processor. When we loaded the date book in order to check our appointments, it takes a good 45 seconds to load and swift between days. This kind of performance is not good enough for someone who's on the go.

On the bright side, the address book, to-do and memo pad performed adequately since records are displayed quickly.

Fossil has made an interesting compromise for the WristPDA. Instead of building a data transfer port like a cradle, information is transferred in and out of WristPDA via its built-in infrared port. This means that you'd need to use your Palm Pilot in order to transfer information. When we transferred 250 addresses, two weeks' of appointments, memos and to-do lists. The information transfer took over 30 minutes to complete. At times, we were wondering whether the Palm Pilot and WristPDA were working at all since there was not task update bar.

Sometimes the little things make all the difference. And, that's no different for WristPDA. The included Palm application allows you to customize how WristPDA displays data for clock and date. There are four different faces that you can choose and transfer to the watch.

Another great feature is the fact that the watch is water resistant for up to 30 meters.
Thanks to its built-in infrared port, users can use the watch to transfer and store up to 20 business cards.

The watch comes with two lithium coin batteries which can last up to 3 months. After three months, you'll have to spend at least $7 in order to replace those batteries.

Conclusion:

Overall, WristPDA is a great idea. I have always wondered when someone would come up with an intergrated PDA in a watch. It's a great first start but it still needs a lot of work particularly on the buttons and interface navigation.

Press and hold is used on the Mac

[nickovs]

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).

Re:Xerox and Apple

[adrew]

On OS X, click-and-hold is roughly analagous to right-clicking in many applications. For example, in Mozilla, if you click and hold the left mouse button, a contextual menu appears after a short delay. Likewise, doing the same to an icon in the Dock results in a similar menu, which can vary depending on the particular app.

This functionality is probably due to the fact that Apple only includes a one-button mouse with their systems. Another way to get around this limitation is to CTRL-click. This causes a regular click to become a right-click.

I finally just bit the bullet and bought a Logitech scroller. (It works fine without drivers, BTW.)

Re:Hmm...

[Bri3D]

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

Re:Hmm...

[avgjoe62]

GEOS for the Commodore [cmdrkey.com] (and PC) did this even before Windows 3.1

There's more prior art for this than if someone tried to patent sex. However, if the patent is narrowly worded to apply to only Pocket PCs, that could be different.

Re:For the millionth time...

[Flower]

Average cost to fight a bullshit patent is $2M. You honestly think that IBM is gonna fight for every little project on SourceForge? Wait, maybe we can setup a PayPal account....

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Bombcar]

Click and hold your main mouse button on the trash can in the dock on OS X.

It does the same thing as a right click. I don't like it.

Re:Dear Lord...

[QuaZar666]

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:FAT Filesystem

[grozzie2]

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.

Actually, not really. The fat file system is well documented in published media. The MsDos Encyclopedia comes to mind, Microsoft Press.

The extensions for FAT32 are not patentable either, there were numerous other systems available prior to FAT32 that grafted similar extensions onto the file system.

As for the patent just granted, changing behaviour based on now long the button is pressed. I'll have to get my notes to confirm dates, but, I worked on a device about 20 years ago, it had a single input button. If you pressed it once, something happened. If you pressed it twice in quick succession, something else happened, and if you held it in for 5 seconds, the device would reset. There was a z-80 processor with 1024 bytes of ram on board, and we had a single input kludged onto it. I believe this would qualify as a 'limited resource' environment, and far predates anything this patent is related to. The device was sold commercially, I believe that qualifies it as 'prior art'.

Digital Watches?

[tigertiger]

If you pressed it once, something happened. If you pressed it twice in quick succession, something else happened, and if you held it in for 5 seconds, the device would reset.

Digital watches have been controlled in this way for decades...

EFF's Patent Busting Project

[tepples]

So your "prior art" means jack squat until someone else tries to invalidate the patent. It's not like the PTO says "oops, our bad, the patent is invalid."

If you report an allegedly bogus patent to EFF [eff.org], it can have the USPTO reexamine the patent and say just that.

Microsoft Did Not Patent Double-Clicking A Mouse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have read the many of the previous comments but have not yet found one that makes this point, so forgive me if I am repeating someone elses words.

If you read the patent (URL in the post, read the english 2/3 of the way down) you will note that the patent specifically refers to PDA/Handheld devices which (In my interpretation) have hardware buttons specially set aside for launching predefined applications (One per button) in different manners.

I find that quite stupid on the part of the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), as I am Australian, and know that the SMH is a popular Sydney newspaper and am wondering who their sources were, and why they haven't done their research :p .

None the less, I will notify them later when I get the chance, if someone else doesn't beat me to it :p .

Joel.

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tripple click is used to highlight a whole line of text. These things are useful, amusingly enough.

Re:RTFP (Read the Fucking Patent)

[0x0d0a]

How anybody thought this was worthy of a patent is beyond me.

Probably the patent originators didn't either.

However, a lot of companies pressure their employees (especially those working in a research capacity) to churn out N patents per quarter, regardless of how valuable they are. It's IP portfolio material, and that's valuable. Making actual discoveries is always a bit dicey -- maybe they come up with something, maybe not -- but if your researchers are churning out ammunition for your legal team, at least they're producing something.

The whole thing nicely sums up what's wrong with the patent system.

IMHO, in a sane patent system, there should be no more than maybe 100 patents granted a year. Why? Because there *aren't* all that many major new ideas coming out in an areas that require lots of research.

Cheap way to get patents revoked

[0x0d0a]

It is possible to request [findlaw.com] that the USPTO re-examine a patent. This does not require suing (and technically, I believe, does not even require a lawyer).

I believe that there are some fees, but I could not find the cost of a inter partes or ex parte reexamination on the USPTO web site (and would appreciate anyone that knows posting -- I'm talking about the cost sans any associated legal costs, if someone gets a law firm to do this).

The re-examination usually relies on new prior art being brought to light.

I'd like to see this system modified to impose the fee (perhaps with some multiplier) on the *patent filer* if the reexamination finds that the patent is indeed invalid, rather than on the party requesting the reexamination. If the process of requesting patent reexamination was streamlined and made zero-cost (if you're correct), this would effectively eliminate the problem of bogus patents.

Re:Hmm...

[michael_cain]

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

Semiseriously :^), did your company publish the triple-click in anything available to the general public (ie, technical journal)? If the description appeared only in material with limited distribution (eg, user manual available only to those who licensed the product), you may not have actually "disclosed" your art, in which case it may not count.

While IANAL, this might well leave you in the position of having to now apply for a patent on your own and show invention prior to the date that MS claims they invented it. If necessary, can your company document when the triple-click idea was conceived and document that you made diligent (ie, continuous) efforts to implement said idea after it was conceived? Surprisingly few companies these days require engineers to maintain the necessary records to build a good patent case: stitched rather than loose-leaf lab notebooks, written in ink, entries dated, initial entries on inventions properly witnessed.

25+ years ago, when I went to work at Bell Labs, all new hires were required to attend a class given by the legal department on how to keep such records.

Re:This is sanity calling

[Anonymous Coward]

When I double-press the Calendar button on my Visor(PalmOS 3.5), Agenda+ opens in week view instead of in day view. That would seem to be what this patent is trying to cover?

Amiga was first

[lexus99]

I cannot believe it has not been brought up, but actually, I think, the Amiga had double-clicking before Microsoft. Sure, the Apple GUI and the Amiga GUI were very close in releases (Apple was a bit earlier), but the Apple was only single-click at that time. The Amiga was always double click from the get-go.

Not sure when the Atari 800 came out, but if memory serves me correct, the same guy (Jay Minor) who built the Amiga designed the Atari 800 as well. Amiga History [old-computers.com]

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[rabidcow]

Heh, IE already has a triple-click function built in :)

So does Mozilla Firefox. And Word. And SciTE.

It's a common feature wherever there are large amounts of selectable text:
- single click positions caret
- double click selects word
- triple click selects line/paragraph

Sorta Cheap way to get patents revoked

[Thalia]

The cost of filing an inter partes reexamination is $8,800 [uspto.gov]. However, it requires a full request, including prior art references, written in proper format. The prior art references must *address the claims* unlike most of the ranting on Slashdot. And the "real party of interest" must also be named.

Actual cost, if you use a lawyer will probably be in the range of $20K.

Thalia

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! I had one of these. It was black, shaped a bit like an Indy 500 car. The car had a little microphone and responded to sound. You were supposed to use the clicking device, but you also could just clap. (Although clapping would quickly hurt your hands, because you had to do it pretty loud.)

timed and double clicks

[thaWhat]

panasonic manufactured a tuner that made use of this technology in the 90's. I'm sorry microshaft, but in my opinion, you'll have to JUSTY YOURSELVES on this one... panasonic did this one in hard ware as far as I can tell. Also I did the same thing in the same time period, in my AMX progamming stint...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is not exactly "double click"

[deischi]

I don't have the time to read all the 27 claims in detail, but the way I read this (especially claim 18) is that this is about the time the button being pressed. It never mentions the length of the pause between the button presses.

The way I understand a "double click" is that it is is two clicks with only a short time inbetween - it does not matter how long the individual clicks are.

And the thing is only about launching applications on a "limited resource computing device" (whatever that really is).

harald

Re:Hmm... this could take a while

[Naepustus]

Actually, it's not. There already is an international Morse code for that: .-.-

ö is ---.
å is .--.-

Just so you know.

Re:Prior art here:

[taj]

The wayback machine will have archives of tuxia.org if you are interested.

archive.org for tuxia.org [archive.org]

Handy place when you are looking for prior art.

Re:April Fool's

[Arcady13]

The Apple Lisa had softpower back in 1983.

MOD PARENT UP

[ajs318]

At last, someone talking sense. The GPL is a workaround for a bad situation. The problem is that -- under the law as it stands today -- copyright is sacrosanct, whereas the Public Domain is unprotected from pilfering. Anybody can legally take a Public Domain work, make a tiny change, claim copyright on it, and start throwing their weight around in the courts. It should be the other way around: the Public Domain {which belongs to the majority} should be protected from abuse by copyright holders {the minority}. The GPL is a way to use existing copyright laws -- which ordinarily would benefit the minority -- in a way which benefits the majority. Copyright law gives authors {too much, some would say} control over distribution of their works -- the GPL is a way to use that control for good {ensuring that the majority of people have access to works in a fashion similar to the "Enhanced Public Domain" described below} rather than for evil {ensuring that a minority profit from works}.

If the Public Domain were as well protected from what some call "theft" as copyright material, -- i.e. you could make "fair use" of a PD work but not attempt to call it your own -- then there would be no need for the GPL, as all Free software could be dedicated to the Public Domain and then could not be "stolen" by Closed Source authors.

You would be automatically permitted to use up to X% of a PD work in a work on which you claim copyright, but any more than that and the work would belong in the Public Domain; just as you are allowed to use up to X% of someone else's copyrighted work in a work in a work on which you claim copyright, but any more than that and the work is still copyright of the original author. Additionally, any person would have to have the right to investigate any copyrighted work for evidence of misappropriation of Public Domain material {which would have to be made a criminal, rather than civil, offence; and falsely copyrighted works would pass automatically into the Public Domain}.

The important difference is that, unlike a copyrighted work, nobody would be able to give permission to use nore than X% of a Public Domain work in a copyrighted work {unless the would-be pilferer wishes to organise, at their own expense and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, a nationwide referendum on the issue}. This way, the Public Domain would be guaranteed to grow and grow.

In case anybody forgets, the original purpose of copyright law was to enhance the Public Domain by encouraging authors to contribute to it -- you were given a limited-term monopoly over your own work, in return for releasing it to the Public Domain for the benefit of everyone.

Re:Where?

[julesh]

The title of the story is "Microsoft Receives Patent for Double-Click". The patent isn't on double-clicking. It's on (1) double-pressing of a button on a "limited resource computing device" in order to open an application and create a new blank document, and (2) pressing for a long period in order to open an application and re-open the last edited document.

Admittedly the idea is still an obvious extension of previous similar ideas and as such shouldn't be patentable, but it isn't quite as bad as patenting "double-click".

Re:Don't confuse patent with copyright

[ajs318]

Point taken; but I was actually responding to a post about copyrights triggered by a poster's signature in a discussion about patents. At least a person has a chance of living to see a patent expire .....

Finally, get a life !

[udippel]

(And me my good karma; as usual when I comment on patents !)

Get a life. And I'm getting tired of those 'wrong' messages. Not only that I have to endure them; worse, with those misleading 'news' we make ourselves / slashdot the laughing bunch of our 'ennemies'.

Do it again, Sam. Okay, I'll do it again:

Seen with professional eyes, this patent might have to be granted or not. It is surely no great invention.
But once and for all: There is nothing in it that warrants the notion of 'Patent for double-click'. Over. Read the claims correctly, even in the light of the description as mandated by patent law. There is a lot of repetion and crap; but nowhere a patent for 'double-click'. It is ridiculous and childish (see above) to shorten the patent to *that*.

And 'we' do us and everyone else in the 'Anti-patent liga' a disservice by such false claims.

Bash that crap of patent application; but bash it correctly. *Then* you'll be taken serious. Not just with a foolish attitude and childish arguments.

Better: give me a decent income to comb all those half-brew emotional 'patent news' before ever they are accepted. (Anybody ??)

The patent - for those too lazy too read - is about one thing: selection through activation time of clickable widgets; nothing else. That is: *length* of continuously pressing it. Here on my Debian Sid I haven't found this feature, yet. The Double-Click only comes in in the Patent in combination and *added* to this checking of duration of uninterrupted 'pressing' the widget. Also this, I have never seen. Or read. But chances are, it *has* been published (or experienced, sold) before the *Filing Date*.

And I encourage everyone who is aware of such, to step forward and make herself known ! *This* would help 'our' course; contrary to those stupid remarks of where the Double-Click itself was noticed before that date. Lost time, wasted time. Simply because neither claimed nor granted !

One day I see such a crap submitted as story from RedMond; and some Cowboy might accept it; and they'll ROTFL; in RedMond. Would be a pity. Let's do much better !

Thanks !

Re:RTFP (Read the Fucking Patent)

[fpillet]

You are right, reading the patent makes it clear that it is directed to handhelds. The patent talks about "long press or multiple presses of a hardware button", ie the Address Book button on a handheld.

And there is very obvious prior art: on Palm handhelds, a long press of the Address Book button starts beaming your business card. This has been there since the beginning (1996/1997) so this largely predates this specific patent.

Re:Hmm...

[Kiryat Malachi]

That's because many patentable inventions these days aren't the kind of thing you develop on notebook paper.

Our legal department has told me they would very much like to go back to the days of signed/dated entries, but that given that 99% of patent work we do is done on a computer, they've pretty much accepted that its going to be computer files and sworn statements to verify date from here on out.

Read the Actual Patent

[lbrlove]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,727,830&OS=6,727,8 30&RS=6,727,830

IANAL, but this patent seems to describe only various click modes for handheld devices, differentiating methods of launching applications.

In other words, this is not about stealing past revenue, but setting up to steal future revenue.

Re:RTFP (Read the Fucking Patent)

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is focusing on prior art to try and show that this patent is frivolous. Some say the patent may be valid because it applies to a restricted context.

In patent law, there is something called the 'genus-species' rule, which specifies that you cannot extend prior art by making it more specific. When you try to do this the patent office is supposed to turn it down saying your application or invention was anticipated by the 'genus' patent. So any prior art for, say, the PC could anticipate an invention meant for a PDA.