Amiga Demonstration Helps Win Against Patent Troll 239
Amigan writes "Over on Groklaw, PJ is reporting that an actual demonstration of the Amiga OS (circa 1988) on an Amiga A1000 may have been the turning point in the lawsuit of IP Innovation v. Red Hat/Novell."
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
Multiple screens and switching.
this was the original shout out requesting reader prior art:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141 [groklaw.net]
about 10 comments into the discussion someone mentions this is exactly what the amiga had.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20071011205044141&title=M%24+Virtual+Desktop+Manager+licensed+by+IP+Innovation%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=634370#c634821 [groklaw.net]
Re:OS-9 (Score:1, Informative)
LOL...
He obviously meant this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-9
Shanghaiing (Score:1, Informative)
The patent troll had a patent called "user interface with multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects". Presumably, the prior art is the Amiga Workbench 2.0 and above feature referred to in the developer documentation as "Shanghaiing". This allows one application to open a screen and another application to place a window on the screen and assume responsibility for the screen's allocation after the original application quits. Prior to this, only the four color Workbench screen was public to all applications.
Re:Say what? (Score:3, Informative)
Although this is somewhat tangential, I have to mention that what the Amiga had was actually much cooler than the facility to switch between screens with different resolutions. You could slide each screen down by grabbing the bar at the top of the screen with your mouse, to reveal those beneath. So at times, and quite commonly, you would have different visible parts of your monitor displaying parts of screens with different resolutions (and, if I recall correctly, their own color depths as well).
Re:MORE (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MORE (Score:4, Informative)
Your comment is an textbook case of the IP problem--ignorance of the issues that is popularly, and blindly, reinforced as a worthwhile statement.
A copyright cannot be used to protect a useful article. A patent cannot be used to protect nonfunctional aspects of an object. A trademark has limited application and cannot protect objects clearly marked as unrelated. Thus, a design patent (which is usually known as an "industrial design" in most countries and is not a patent in the ordinary sense, having different application procedures, a shorter term, and a narrower scope of protection) bridges any gap that might arise, providing protection for the nonfunctional, distinctive design of a useful object, as well as provides an alternative to seeking independent protection of individual aspects of a creation.
There is certainly some overlap with copyright, but industrial design is not copyrightable unless its form can be separated from its medium--you can't copyright a car. You can copyright photographs, drawings, paintings, sculptures, songs, and stories of the car, but the car itself needs an industrial design registration to protect. In the US, that's called a design patent.
An industrial design registration simultaneously protects creative enterprise, promotes distinctiveness of competing products, and rewards successful integration of art and science. There is little legitimate reason to be upset about having to come up with an original design, given that it is difficult to infringe accidentally.
(And FYI, it's 'something that clearly', not 'something which'.)