Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Google Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click

Posted by simoniker on Wed Jun 02, 2004 06:48 PM
from the patents-patents-go-away dept.
Patents Microsoft
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 836 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3

  • April Fool's (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:49PM (#9320654)
    Surely it's April Fool's day somewhere in the world for this to happen.
    • No, but it is a repost from last week--sigh by Overly Critical Guy (Score:2) Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:58PM
      • Re:No, but it is a repost from last week--sigh by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @08:21PM
        • Re:No, but it is a repost from last week--sigh by zcat_NZ (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @03:39AM

        • MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Informative)

          by ajs318 (655362) <[ku.oc.dohshtrae] [ta] [2pser_ds]> on Thursday June 03 2004, @04:18AM (#9323618)
          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.
          [ Parent ]
          • Don't confuse patent with copyright by RobWalker (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @06:34AM
          • Re:MOD PARENT UP by mflinquin (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @07:10AM

            • Can Public Domain works be stolen? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Half-pint HAL (718102) on Thursday June 03 2004, @07:32AM (#9324258)
              No, because that would require a law against it.

              But maybe there should be. Take Disney's handling of folk tales and out-of-copyright stories.

              In the case of Snow White, everyone now calls the Dwarves by the names in the film -- Disney owns a copyright in those names.

              Pinocchio -- Disney added the stupid little cricket, and consequently have copyright on it. Many of the Italians hate what has been done to their classic children's book.

              The Little Princess -- Hans Christian Andersen's classic tale of "Can't always get what you want" -- characters renamed, happy ending added, and (a lesson learned from previous releases) the name changed to The Little Mermaid to stop other kids video companies releasing a competing product.

              ...and now children worldwide refuse the original versions of each of these tales because they're convinced that the Disney way is "the right way," and Disney thus has appropriated the rights to some of the most enduring Public Domain works known to man.

              A similar thing happens with folk/public domain music. Do a popular arrangement, and suddenly people will refuse to listen to the original way -- the new way is the "right way". Then anyone wanting to sing it has to buy it off the arranger.

              Public domain work misappropriated. Not technically theft, but I contest that it should be.

              HAL.

              [ Parent ]

              • Re:Can Public Domain works be stolen? (Score:4, Interesting)

                by ajs318 (655362) <[ku.oc.dohshtrae] [ta] [2pser_ds]> on Thursday June 03 2004, @08:18AM (#9324618)
                My point exactly. A work, once it has entered the Public Domain, should be there forever.

                If you look at something over which I have copyright, and make a new work based on it, that will be considered "your own work" if and only if you use less than X% of my material {where X varies dependent upon jurisdiction and circumstances}. Otherwise, I still have copyright over your derivative work, and it's up to me how -- or even if at all -- it's distributed.

                With the Public Domain, as the law stands now, there is nothing to stop you taking a PD work, making one tiny change and claiming it as "your own work" {and thereby being granted copyright on it, and by extension control over distribution}.

                What I am advocating is that there should be a law against that -- there isn't, but there bloody well should be. Once a work has entered the Public Domain, it should never, ever again be the subject of copyright. According to which, Disney's version of Carlo Collodi's Pinocchio should remain in the PD {unless Disney added enough of their own new material to constitute a new work; unlikely, though}.

                Sound harsh? You bet. But if you have benefitted from any of the following: fire, weapons, clothing, shelter, agriculture, mathematics, living in cities, electronics, And Many More; then you have benefitted from discoveries made by others. {Electronics being a very good one. Guess how many patents Michael Faraday ever owned? Do you suppose you would still be using that computer if things had been a little different?} Everything we ever do is based on something else someone else already did, and it seems to me to be supremely selfish and destructive to misappropriate all that good work that put us here, for the sake of a quick profit.
                [ Parent ]
              • Re:Can Public Domain works be stolen? by vidnet (Score:2) Saturday June 05 2004, @08:07AM
              • Re:Can Public Domain works be stolen? by ajs318 (Score:2) Monday June 07 2004, @10:53AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:MOD PARENT UP by st1d (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @10:55PM
          • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:April Fool's by JPriest (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @07:22PM
      • Re:April Fool's by AstroDrabb (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @11:41PM
        • Re:April Fool's by lightknight (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @12:23AM
          • Re:April Fool's by AstroDrabb (Score:3) Thursday June 03 2004, @12:52AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:April Fool's by JPriest (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @12:59AM
          • Where? by warrax_666 (Score:3) Thursday June 03 2004, @02:02AM

            • Re:Where? (Score:4, Informative)

              by julesh (229690) on Thursday June 03 2004, @05:55AM (#9323908)
              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".
              [ Parent ]

              • Re:Where? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Lacutis (100342) on Thursday June 03 2004, @11:02AM (#9326540)
                (http://www.chromotasm.com/)
                I'm not so sure about you, but my computer is a "limited resource computing device". My computer doesn't have unlimited ram, hard drive space or cpu power.

                The main problem with patents like this is that you can patent something in such broad terms that it can be stretched to fit any definition they want it to fit.
                [ Parent ]
          • Re:April Fool's by Sepper (Score:2) Thursday June 03 2004, @07:57AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:April Fool's by CmdrGravy (Score:3) Thursday June 03 2004, @06:04AM
      • My Palm infringes by Arioch of Chaos (Score:3) Thursday June 03 2004, @01:48AM

    • Re:April Fool's (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ruckc (111190) <ruckc@[ ]oo.com ['yah' in gap]> on Wednesday June 02 2004, @09:55PM (#9321991)
      (http://www.cookeville.com/ruckc)
      Just out of curiosity, since a button on a computer is still a button. Compared to a button on say a watch or alarm clock. Don't cd players, alarm clocks, watches sometimes require you to hold the button down for a short or long period of time to make it do something? I know my watch a Timex Ironman watch requires me to hold a button down for like 1-2 seconds to reset the stopwatch feature. Isn't this the same idea, arn't they taking a previously used idea and trying to patent it?

      yes go ahead and -1 offtopic but i want it at the top...
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:April Fool's by mad.frog (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @11:15PM
    • Re:April Fool's by mog007 (Score:2) Thursday June 03 2004, @12:26AM

    • Re:April Fool's (Score:5, Funny)

      by Walt Dismal (534799) on Thursday June 03 2004, @01:01AM (#9322869)
      "Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time..."

      I hope to god Microsoft has not just patented the clitoris.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:April Fool's by Stephen Samuel (Score:2) Thursday June 03 2004, @01:19AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

      • Re:April Fool's (Score:4, Funny)

        by Pragmatix (688158) on Thursday June 03 2004, @08:10AM (#9324547)
        Can you imagine the poor documentation they will end up putting on MSDN about the clitoris?

        I have enough trouble finding information about CAML tags, let alone how to please my girlfriend.

        [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Ironic by Pan T. Hose (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @11:45AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:April Fool's by denisonbigred (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @01:07AM
    • Re:April Fool's by K-boy (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @06:32AM
    • Re:April Fool's Prior Art?? by lcsjk (Score:2) Thursday June 03 2004, @07:59AM
    • The Onion by bombardius (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @07:59AM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by peterprior (319967) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:50PM (#9320658)
    (http://nermal.org/)
    This is just twice as stupid as Amazon's 1-Click patent...

    ...I'll get my coat..

    • Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Funny)

      by jackb_guppy (204733) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:52PM (#9320692)
      Triple Click...
      Quad Click...
      Qunice Click...

      Are still available!!
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:53PM

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RealityMogul (663835) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @07:58PM (#9321244)
        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

        Is there a "+1 Pity" moderation I can get?
        [ Parent ]

        • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Bri3D (584578) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @08:10PM (#9321332)
          (Last Journal: Sunday September 01 2002, @09:01PM)
          Yeah, so does every other app on the planet that handles text. One click->move cursor, two->select word, three->select paragraph.
          [ Parent ]
        • An issued patent is presumed valid by TheHonestTruth (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @08:45PM

          • EFF's Patent Busting Project (Score:5, Informative)

            by tepples (727027) * <slash2006@pineight.com> on Wednesday June 02 2004, @09:37PM (#9321883)
            (http://myatomic.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 19 2006, @12:31AM)

            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.

            [ Parent ]

          • Cheap way to get patents revoked (Score:5, Informative)

            by 0x0d0a (568518) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @11:05PM (#9322309)
            (Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @04:03AM)
            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.
            [ Parent ]

            • Sorta Cheap way to get patents revoked (Score:5, Informative)

              by Thalia (42305) on Thursday June 03 2004, @01:10AM (#9322897)
              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
              [ Parent ]

        • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

          by IronChef (164482) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @11:19PM (#9322374)
          (http://wrongcrowd.com/)
          I have started to use fractional clicks. You chumps are triple-clicking, but I get the same work done with 1/3 click!
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Hmm... by ezzzD55J (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @03:22AM
          • Re:Hmm... by melatonin (Score:2) Thursday June 03 2004, @04:08AM
          • Re:Hmm... by kfg (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @06:08AM

        • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

          by michael_cain (66650) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @11:39PM (#9322470)
          (Last Journal: Tuesday August 19 2003, @03:49PM)
          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.

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Hmm... by Kiryat Malachi (Score:3) Thursday June 03 2004, @07:53AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2004, @07:58PM (#9321243)
      Laugh all you will but this is serious.

      That technology was first observed in digital watches of aliens held in Area 51. It is alien technology!

      Don't believe me, ask yourself this:

      Could mere humans have thought up the concept of clicking twice!
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Hmm... by anti-trojan (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @06:21AM
    • Re:Hmm... by Anonvmous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday June 02 2004, @08:03PM
      • Re:Hmm... by avgjoe62 (Score:2) Wednesday June 02 2004, @08:10PM

        • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @09:35PM (#9321862)
          Aaahh, somebody explain to me why Microsoft would want a patent that applied only to clicking on their own hardware?

          So if I make a PDA and doubleclick on an app to run it, I don't owe Microsoft money?

          Yeah, right...that's how Bill thinks.

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Hmm... by bored_geek (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @05:36AM
        • Re:Hmm... by russotto (Score:2) Sunday June 06 2004, @04:22PM
    • Re:Hmm... by Klanglor (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @06:50AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Dear Lord... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sxooter (29722) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:50PM (#9320659)
    Suddenly all those "I'm patenting peanut butter and jelly sandwich" posts are seeming more and more prophetic...

    I'm hoping that such insane uses of patents will result in the USPTO and Congress waking the hell up and fixing this mess.

  • LOL (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:50PM (#9320662)
    I'm breaking patent laws right now...and again...whoops I did again :p

    • Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:56PM (#9320743)
      whoops I did again :p

      Britney....is that you??
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:LOL by Atmchicago (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @09:44PM
    • Re:LOL by Richard Jones (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @12:48AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Xerox and Apple by nvrrobx (Score:2) Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:50PM

    • Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)

      by justMichael (606509) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @06:56PM (#9320740)
      (http://feedharvest.com/)
      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 ;)
      [ Parent ]

      • Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)

        by MouseR (3264) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @07:10PM (#9320900)
        (http://slashdot.org/)
        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.
        [ Parent ]

      • Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Funny)

        by nomel (244635) <turd@noSPAM.inorbit.com> on Wednesday June 02 2004, @07:37PM (#9321107)
        (Last Journal: Sunday October 12 2003, @12:11AM)
        my pda computes, and it is mine...so...seems to fit the PC deffinition to me!
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Xerox and Apple by gid13 (Score:3) Wednesday June 02 2004, @08:03PM

      • Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CaptainFrito (599630) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @08:03PM (#9321280)
        Patents can also be deemed obvious if they were anticipated by prior art. In this case double clicking a computing device to make a selection has been long done and is public domain. The size of the computer is an aside. The fact that the device has limited resources is also an aside. One double-clicks with a mouse specifically because it has limited input resources. It is irrelevant that a keyboard could also be used in a PC application, because the same is true with most PDA's. If I made a really really small PC, could I patent the "Enter" key? How about the "shift " or "control" keys? Since they are function modifiers, they expand the limited resources in binary progression: so all have to do is make size of the box an issue and it's innovate? Clearly this patent was allowed because of who filed, not what was filed.

        I guess size really does matter after all.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Xerox and Apple by ThisIsFred (Score:2) Wednesday June 02 2004, @10:14PM
      • Re:Xerox and Apple by brettper (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @10:19PM
      • Re:Xerox and Apple by scotti (Score:1) Wednesday June 02 2004, @11:18PM
      • Palm has this with the m500 by axek (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @12:51AM
      • Re:Xerox and Apple, and other prior art by stupid_is (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @03:19AM
      • Video Games.... by burnttoy (Score:1) Thursday June 03 2004, @04:15AM
      • Re:Xerox and Apple by plugger (Score:2) Thursday June 03 2004, @07:42AM
      • This is stupid. by Roadkills-R-Us (Score:2) Thursday June 03 2004, @03:36PM

    • Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aphrika (756248) on Wednesday June 02 2004, @07:00PM (#9320800)
      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.
      [ Parent ]