Fallout From Japanese Patent On Help Icon 372
MeridianOnTheLake writes "The Tokyo District Court has ordered the destruction of Ichitaro, a software product that is the only serious competitor in Japan to Microsoft Word, and has been on sale since 1985. The ruling is based on the claim of a competitor, Matsushita, that the use of a help icon to invoke a help function infinges on one of their patents. "We are a global enterprise and we are just following international practice to enforce our IP rights," Kitadeya (Matsushita) said." Here's more on the story, as covered by Bloomberg and The Japan Times.
Obvious Question (Score:3, Informative)
A surprising thing is Justsystem shares fell 3 yen, or 0.5 percent, to 600 yesterday - As if nothing happened?
Re:Obvious Question (Score:2, Informative)
For those wondering... (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the patent itself isn't regarding a Help Icon. It is the function where you first click on the help icon/button, and then on the particular function you need help with.
In court, Just System insisted that the Matsushita Patent was for a help ICON, which is usuall an item on the desktop, much like a file or folder, whereas the Just System Ichitaro used a button. The second point was that the "help" key on a keyboard already performed said function, and taking the keyboard to a GUI analogy did not require any insight, but was rather an obvious move as more and more keyboard functions were moved to the GUI.
The lower court found that the "icon" was used loosely and would be found to include the buttons-with-pictures as found in Ichitaro. As for the keyboard-to-gui concept, the court found that it would take more than obvious insight to make the leap, thus it was a valid invention.
Quite obviously, Matsushita was quite pleased that the court bought their story, while Just System was quite pissed off. By appealing to a higher court though, they did not need to immediately follow the ruling.
Whether you think this was fair game or not, keep in mind that this is pretty much what Microsoft did too with Win95 and IE. Keep the court case going long enough that the Win95/IE bundle was no longer relevant.
Re:as if more proof were needed (Score:2, Informative)
The patent was applied for before 1985, it was only awarded in 1998. I'm not sure with the U.S., but in Japan the patent process is notoriously slow, that "Patent Applied" is mentioned on all new items. It seems to work pretty well as a deterant, as no one wants their ass sued off once the patent IS awarded.
That said, Just System WAS insisting that the exact same keyboard function which is not patented is prior art, while Matsushita insists that the same implementation in the GUI required a jump of inspiration, thus justifying the patent.
Re:Obvious Question (Score:2, Informative)
Even more filler? (Score:4, Informative)
By gosh the summary's innacuracy is comparable to Microsoft marketing propaganda. The article does not state clearly "that the use of a help icon" was the cause of the dispute. It does say
The Gnome pics, now this? filler for nerds, stuff that doesn't happen?
Re:That sounds a lot like... (Score:2, Informative)
See msdn [microsoft.com] for more information
Follow the Money.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Matsushita Electric, in close cooperation with Microsoft, will develop a high-performance personal computer suited to the advanced image-processing demands of the 21st century," said Dr. Yoshitomi Nagaoka, vice president of Matsushita Electric's AVC Company..."
Who stands to profit if this software is knocked off the market?
Ichitaro is here to stay (Score:3, Informative)
Some screenshots of the offending icon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Even more filler? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ichitaro and JustSystem (Score:2, Informative)
MS Word has it! (Score:1, Informative)
With that in mind I fired up the oldest version of MS word i had (on a Mac as it turned out).
This image [dodo.net.au] shows Word 6 on MacOS with the click then point style help. Word 6 came out in 1994 four years prior to the patent being filed.
Re:reincorporate in the EU? (Score:1, Informative)
But when you 'import' the word processor into Japan, the patent holder can go to court and the judge will ask you politely to cease and desist. Maybe the patent owner will grant you a license, maybe not. So you'll have trouble legally getting it to Japanese citizens, unless by agreement with the patent holder.
Parent is not flamebait (Score:3, Informative)
The above gibberish is not a parody of Japanese. It is an actual Japanese tonguetwister.
Tokyo -- Tokyo
tokkyo -- patent
kyoka-kyoku -- 'permissions office'
kyou -- today
kyuukyo -- hurriedly
kyoka -- permission
kyakka -- rejection
Re:as if more proof were needed (Score:4, Informative)
could anyone provide one where a software patent was indeed a good thing for an inovative feature?
I think the case of spreadsheets [wikipedia.org], which set precedence for software patents, is a good example of what you're asking. I imagine that software ought to have some of the same qualities of inventing physical things. If an inventor has spent an inordinate amount of time creating something innovative then he or she should be able to reap rewards from it and not have someone come along and rip off their plans and sell it themselves. Inventors should have the option of making a living solely from inventing, otherwise there would be a significant lack of development of technology.
However, many of the software patents that are being introduced that produce such a backlash are such trivial and unimaginative ideas. They actually don't improve technology, but rather hinder its progress, which is the exact opposite of what the whole patent system is meant to achieve. It's supposed to provide incentive for people to innovate, not create bureaucratic obstacles for them.
And there is also the fact that software in it's very essence is different from physical objects. Software can be quickly distributed from just a single copy, while physical inventions have to be manufactured one by one. Software evolves much faster, and subjecting the development of ideas for software to the same slow bureaucratic rules that apply to physical objects can hinder the overall efficiency of the development of software. But whatever the case, people have to be able to focus on creating ideas to improve technology as their main occupation for making a living, and patents are supposed to allow them to do that.
Re:You know, I'm getting a bit tired of this (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Parent is not flamebait (Score:1, Informative)
Anyone who reads Chinese or Japanese can parse the above (that makes maybe 1/10 of the world population). Please restore grandparents karma.
Re:It's a shame (Score:5, Informative)
I'll translate about as much as I can without getting into copyright trouble. The patent includes clicking on one icon displayed somewhere on your console, which attaches a special graphic to your mouse cursor. You then click on another icon or function on your console, and it brings up context-sensitive help. This is specifically distinguished from using context-sensitive help by pressing one special key or icon which is in a constant place, and also from each function embedding an explanation of what it does through other means which do not change the state of the mouse cursor.
The meat of the story is paragraphy #3, although the three screenshots on the front page are understandable even if you don't read Japanese. Due to quirkiness with derivative works law in Japan, tranlating their captions exactly could potentially lead to a lot of trouble. Suffice it to say that the first screenshot shows the offending icon, the second shows the mouse cursor changing as a result of clicking the icon, and the third shows the result of a second click on a generic interface function (an explanation pops up).
Re:It's a shame (Score:4, Informative)
http://ark42.com/freeimage/ShiftF1help.gif [ark42.com]
Re:Patents are atheistic (Score:2, Informative)
Regarding intelligent design...
Intelligent Design have ZERO solid evidence backing it. While Evolution, on the other hand, are backed heavily by numerous evidences. The only things Creationists/Anti-evolutionists managed to do is doubting the existing evidences supporting Evolution. But in the end, the number is still the same.
Intelligent Design: 0
Evolution: At least 1
Start giving the world proof on Intelligent Design, instead of waving the Bible at them and tell them its the truth.
Bible is good as a moral guidance, not reliable as a scientific writing.