Google, Apple, Microsoft Sued Over File Preview 250
ClaraBow writes with this excerpt from MacWorld:
"A small Indiana company has sued tech heavyweights Microsoft, Apple, and Google, claiming that it holds the patent on a common file preview feature used by browsers and operating systems to show users small snapshots of the files before they are opened. ... Cygnus's owner and president Gregory Swartz developed the technology laid out in the patent while working on IT consulting projects, McAndrews said. The company is looking for 'a reasonable royalty' as well as a court injunction preventing further infringement, he said. ... Cygnus applied for its patent (#7346850) in 2001. It covers a 'System and method for iconic software environment management' and was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in March of this year."
Wait a minute... (Score:4, Informative)
Redhat/Fedora has had this for years (Score:5, Informative)
Apple Lisa (Score:3, Informative)
KDE prior art (Score:5, Informative)
Prior Art. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.2-Manual/getting-started-guide/index.html [redhat.com]
Copyright © 2000 by Red Hat, Inc.
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.2-Manual/getting-started-guide/s1-managers-kfm.html [redhat.com]
"Show Thumbnails -- If you have images in a directory, selecting this option will show you tiny representations of them. This view is useful if you keep family photos or artwork."
--
BMO
I'll testify .... (Score:5, Informative)
In the late 1980s I wrote the Windows version of Business & Professional Software's Trumpet Presentation program. In it, I showed iconic representations of presentations.
I'd call that prior art. Just contact me.
Claims (Score:5, Informative)
Since people are too lazy to click on the link and read the claims for themselves, I'll post the two independent claims here:
In order for prior art to cover this, either one reference, showing that this was known before the patentee's invention, has to anticipate every one of the limitations in the claim; or, it must have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine multiple references which, when put together, cover every limitation in the claim.
Re:Two words: (Score:3, Informative)
What can be easily said, or thought to be intuitively known, may not have been legally codified, and therein lies the rub.
You can cite the Lexmark patent [patentstorm.us], elements of Apple's HIG [patentstorm.us], peruse the citations in one of Jakob Nielson's papers [useit.com] that would seem to support prior art, or just search Patent Storm for "iconic systems [patentstorm.us]" and seeing results dating back more than a decade figure this is a wash. Right?
While IANAL, what seems to make this patent different is that it is for a *system* involving multiple icons at one go (select a bunch of icons at one time, peform an operation on them, and automagically they're re-iconified or something like that).
If other patents dealt with singular icons or methods thereof, and if no one has lined out, in writing, a similar system prior to 2001 (the date of submission), then, well... maybe it's time to pass out the Pepto Bismol©.
Does this company even produce software? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Claims (Score:5, Informative)
That actually does, quite nicely, compromise "Prior Art" that invalidates both the primary claim (claim 1) and the secondary claim (claim 16) — all other claims rely, either directly or indirectly, on those two.
In other words, this single piece of "prior art" — if it is validated during a re-examination of this patent — will cause the patent to disappear entirely.
Re:So once the big guys are down... (Score:4, Informative)
Not if its not distributed by anyone in the US. Sure, they have to follow the law, but whos law is the question.
Re:KDE prior art (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Two words: (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the patent, what they have patented is a third party application that grabs a screen shot and allows you to select the document you desire to work on via that screen shot. One aspect that doesn't seem to exist anywhere in Windows or Mac OS X:
To me this sounds like they patented a computer program.
However, if their argument is that any kind of preview for file browsing is covered, then they are a number of years late to the party. In 1994 xv was doing this with it's visual schnauzer, providing thumbnails of all your images, etc.
Are they in Indiana or Michigan? (Score:3, Informative)
If the article confuses Indiana with Michigan then maybe it is confused about the lawsuit as well?
Re:So once the big guys are down... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:So once the big guys are down... (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong-o. Patents are for preventing others from benefiting from your ideas without acceptable reciprocal benefits determined at the discretion of the patent holder, e.g., royalties.
Contact you? How? (Score:4, Informative)
If you're for real, I suggest that you take the initiative and contact them, considering that
Re:Slashdot v. Patent Lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:KDE prior art (Score:3, Informative)
NeXTSTEP had this probably earlier (Score:1, Informative)
I remember that NeXTstep had this in the Workspace Manager. ou could click a file and push CMD+3 to see a preview of the content of the file, if preview was supported. Preview worked for many file types (.tif, .snd, ...) and where it didn't work, you could write a "preview viewer" for the Workspace Manager as a plug-in.
Obviously, the preview was similar to a screenshot at the last edit stage of the file.
Re:Two words: (Score:3, Informative)