IBM Patents Checking a Box

theodp writes "What do you call it when you drag a pointer over a checkbox to select or deselect it depending on its original state? Answer: US Patent 7,278,116. On Tuesday, the USPTO awarded IBM a patent for Mode Switching for Ad Hoc Checkbox Selection, aka Making an 'X'. Isn't this essentially the same concept as the older Lotus Notes selection model that IBM was recently asked to reintroduce?"

If someone patents something stupid, do we care?

[KingSkippus]

First of all, it's not just "checking a box." It's clicking to toggle a checkmark, and dragging across a bunch of other checkboxes to toggle them all on (or off, depending on the state of the first one you clicked).

Second of all, I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, it really bothers me in a cosmic sense that there was a patent granted for something so patently stupid. (Pun slightly intended.) I'm sorry, but this falls squarely in the realm of obvious to me. I mean, really, are programmers expected to patent every single frickin' thing they do out of fear that someone else might? Because that's the world we're living in, and I'd really like for it to change.

On the other hand, I'm sorry, but the Lotus Notes selection model is one of the most frustratingly stupid things I've ever encountered in my life. Almost every other piece of software follows the old click-first-item, shift-click-last-item model. (Or ctrl-click individual items.) It's been in use since... Well, as long as I can remember using a GUI, and I'm really hard-pressed to think of any other way that selections work. Except for Lotus Notes, where they use this asinine system of selecting messages which means that if I have several pages of stuff to select, I have to scroll past each. and. every. one. Frankly, if IBM is the only company that can do this and it prevents any other company that has the bright idea from implementing something like this, then I can almost bring myself to say that this is a good thing.

Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care

[HTH NE1]

This is another example of a really obvious patent that adds NOTHING to advance the state of the art.

At the very least there should be a "de minimis non curat USPTO" grounds for rejecting patents like this ("the USPTO is not interested in trivial matters").

What'll really infuriate you about Lotus...

[Mongoose Disciple]

I spent the better part of last year working at a client site that used Lotus Notes for e-mail, and thus, so did I, at least for their corporate stuff. I found it incredibly frustrating to use and frequently wished I could use something with a more satisfying user experience. Say, pine or elm.

One of my lifelong best friends worked as a developer for IBM at the time, so naturally the next time I saw him I bitched at him about how much I hated Notes and asked how he could stand it. His reply? "Oh, I wouldn't know about that. We use Outlook."

I'm sure there must be some (maybe even most) departments of IBM that use Notes, but man. To foist that dog food on the world and not even eat it yourself? That's the devil right there.

I'm puzzled at this patent, but no more than I am about Notes in general.

Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care

[rainman_bc]

This is another example of a really obvious patent that adds NOTHING to advance the state of the art.

With the way Patent lawsuits are going, don't blame IBM for this. They literally patent the hell out of everything they can to avoid being sued themselves. They're a patent suit target.

If you don't like IBM's actions, phone your representative for patent law reform as it's the government's own fault for the sad state in which patent law exists today.

Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care

[dgatwood]

The reality is that IBM has a huge patent portfolio. You can't urinate on a computer without violating one of their patents. Why do they need junk patents like this one? If IBM is truly doing this defensively, they should be be phoning their representatives instead of filing such dubious patents. Instead of trying to change the system, they are taking advantage of the brokenness, and that's wrong.

IBM should drop this patent or release it into the commons or something. It should never have been granted, and profiting from wrong is still wrong.

Re:But, is it really for "checking a box"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, i'm taking a digital ip law class right now and some of the stuff you'd think is obvious (such as amazon's one click patent) when you actually read the patent you'll find the claims aren't for what a sensationalized title says it is or its something that seems obvious in hindsight but obviously wasn't because no one was doing it before the patent was filed.