![Patents Patents](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/patents_64.png)
![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click 836
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?"
April Fool's (Score:5, Funny)
Re:April Fool's (Score:5, Insightful)
yes go ahead and -1 offtopic but i want it at the top...
Re:April Fool's (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer power buttons - Short period = sleep, Long period = Hard off.
Re:April Fool's (Score:5, Funny)
I hope to god Microsoft has not just patented the clitoris.
Re:April Fool's (Score:4, Funny)
I have enough trouble finding information about CAML tags, let alone how to please my girlfriend.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Can Public Domain works be stolen? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Can Public Domain works be stolen? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Where? (Score:4, Informative)
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".
Re:Where? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:April Fool's (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Quad Click...
Qunice Click...
Are still available!!
Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Quad Click...
Qunice Click...
Are still available!!
Not quite...
"Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time..."
Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, but has anyone patented using a specific rhythm? I've got it! Morse code on a cell phone. I here by declare prior art to the whole idea. Whew.
Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Clap Off! (clap clap)
Clap On, Clap Off, the Clapper!!
Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheesh. As if double click wasn't annoying and contrived enough. How about as many as five clicks, and the duration varies between long and short clicks? Is there a prior art in this, like freaking MORSE CODE?
Re:Hmm... BUT!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a "+1 Pity" moderation I can get?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
EFF's Patent Busting Project (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Cheap way to get patents revoked (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Sorta Cheap way to get patents revoked (Score:5, Informative)
Actual cost, if you use a lawyer will probably be in the range of $20K.
Thalia
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Dear Lord... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm hoping that such insane uses of patents will result in the USPTO and Congress waking the hell up and fixing this mess.
Re:Dear Lord... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dear Lord... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dear Lord... (Score:5, Informative)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/ne
Qua
Re:Dear Lord... (Score:5, Insightful)
clicky [uspto.gov]
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Britney....is that you??
Absurdity (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior Art? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone have specific examples?
For the millionth time... (Score:5, Insightful)
WHO CARES?
They can have so many patents that they have to start holding them in their asscracks. Exhibit 1: IBM, the Little Linux guy's friend on Slashdot.
They problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them. Which, in any sane court (yes, I know those are in dwindling numbers these days) won't happen.
By all means, let them run amok and waste money on BS patents. Just make sure that the first time they get challenged they actually go down. If the challenge fails, THEN there's a problem.
Re:For the millionth time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why have a patent office anyways? Why not just go the Copyright route, and let everyone and his aunt patent everything they like, and duke it out in the courts.
The USPTO was created for a friggin' REASON . They are NOT doing their job by just rubberstamping everything that crosses their desk. They are being negligent in their duties, and should be held accountable by the Congress. Sheesh, only an Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer would grant this patent....
More to the point... (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft have an excellent record as far as I know, of never initiating a patent battle. MS' patent portfolio is used purely for defensive purposes.
Sure, they're anti-competitive greedy bastards, and they may decide to start trying patent litigation some day, but I think they're happier making their money by selling products.
Re:More to the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be so, but regardless of whether they enforce it, Microsoft still has an unfair advantage over other companies.
You could as easily argue that competitors who might actually have a fair reason to take Microsoft to court could be unfairly put off by Microsoft's overly inflated defensive patent portfolio that could be unleashed on them at any time. That is what defensive patents are there to do, after all.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For the millionth time... (Score:3, Informative)
I cannot believe this crap... (Score:5, Funny)
Next up:
Microsoft tries to patent the Internet.
Al Gore files suit.
Double-click patent? (Score:5, Funny)
The news is wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey guys, don't worry... I don't think this patent can be used by Microsoft to destroy Open Source. So, it's better to laugh at it.
Now, we have got one more example to show people how ridiculous software patents are.
First Post!!! W00t! (Score:5, Informative)
TFA states that patent revolves around giving other options when holding the click, and uses the default program when double clicked...Smells like Apple, anyone?
Furthermore, it's not as if they patented the motion of clicking a mouse button twice, as the poster makes it seem....Don't sound the alarm yet people....
If you want to get scared, worry about that last part of the article which states that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system....How are they going to swing that one? Higher fees on XP (tough sh!t, I use SuSE) ? Online scans for people with FAT and a bill in the mail?
FAT Filesystem (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I may not be popular for saying this, but MS did actually invent the FAT file system (ok, they purchased it, when MS bought rights to the QDOS OS, and renamed it MS-DOS).
So, if they were awarded a patent or copyright or whatever it is on FAT, at least they have a moral leg to stand on.
The patent on various ways of clicking a mouse? I don't care if its for PDAs, or what it selects, or whatever. Every possible way of clicking a mouse as been thought of, and there is no original, patentable work to do.
(how is that for a bold statement :)
Re:FAT Filesystem (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First Post!!! W00t! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, FAT32. FAT is old enough they can't charge on it.
Most of the FAT32 stuff is for Digital Storage, FAT32 increases max card size, and more importantly for most people increases file size past 2Gb. I have a friend at work whose camera decision absolutely required FAT32. He needed to shoot some video with soemthing that looked like a still camera, and needs the
And slashdot posted a story about it April 28th (Score:4, Informative)
I can't wait to see all the NEW comments on it.
Re:And slashdot posted a story about it April 28th (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And slashdot posted a story about it April 28th (Score:5, Funny)
only for "limited resource computing devices" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence general-purpose PCs and bigger embedded systems are safe from this, but small devices such as handhelds are vulnerable?
Re:only for "limited resource computing devices" (Score:4, Interesting)
The Amiga computer, whose UI also supported double-clicking, originally shipped with 256K of ROM, 256K of RAM, and a 7.1MHz MC68000 processor. Does this qualify as a limited-resource computing device? Does my 19-year-old Amiga now infringe on this just-granted patent?
Schwab
Prior Art... duh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Prior Art... duh! (Score:5, Informative)
CC.
14 posts, and nobody has read the patent? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know whether this was being done back in 2002, though I know that Palm enhancements used application button chords back in 2002 or 2003.
Re:14 posts, and nobody has read the patent? (Score:4, Funny)
Welcome to slashdot.
Re:14 posts, and nobody has read the patent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Released on June 12, 2002, you can launch an app by pressing an application button twice within a limited time.
Also see slowlaunch [freewarepalm.com]
Released on May 20, 2002, you can launch an app by holding an application button for a specified length of time.
Neither half of the patent (hey, I read only the abstract, but that's more than you did!) seems to have been novel at the file date, and it's easy to imagine that keylaunch and slowlaunch could have coexisted on the same palm,
Might As Well Apply For A Patent... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not impressed....
Re:Might As Well Apply For A Patent... (Score:5, Funny)
For some reason this reminded me of a
Windows has detected that your mouse has moved. Reboot now for changes to take effect?
but what gets launched... (Score:4, Funny)
Keep 'em coming (Score:3, Insightful)
.. because if they continue to give patents on stuff like this like they've done the last few years, the system is bound to fail. Its just a simple matter of time.
(and now for the obligatory:) What next? A patent for interpreting presses on different keys into machine-understandable signals?
This is not a patent on "double-click"... (Score:4, Informative)
Now, of course, the patent is ridiculous, but it cannot be read so broadly.
GJC
Some easy extra info (Score:3, Interesting)
RTFP (Read the Fucking Patent) (Score:5, Informative)
<disclaimer>I think this is a stupid patent and is not sufficiently original to truly deserve protection</disclaimer>
That being said, those who read the patent application [uspto.gov] very carefully will notice that this patent isn't for the general idea of double-clicking, but rather covers a much smaller range. Specifically, Microsoft has been granted a patent on a PDA-type device ("limited resource computing device") that has physical buttons on the outside of the device (i.e. "Mail", "Calendar", "Contacts" etc) that cause different actions to occur based on how long or in which sequence they are pressed.
An example of the patented method in action would be if you created a device on which pressing the mail button once would open a list view of recent emails, pressing and holding it for 2 seconds might initiated a POP3 session to the server, "double-clicking" the button might bring you to a "new email" form, and pressing and holding the button longer than 3 secs would be assume to be accidental and would do nothing.
This does NOT appear to be relevant to any non-PDA device, nor does it appear to apply to any kind of buttons that do not physically exist on the outside of the device. I still think it's pretty stupid and obvious, but it's nearly so stupid as it would appear at first glance.
That being said, does anyone have any specific prior art to overturn this with?
Patenting The Middle Click (Score:5, Funny)
This "click" does not need to be made on any particular surface. In fact, you could roll down your car window, double-click on your horn, then middle click the air with your arm extended outside said vehicle.
Maybe we should all middle-click Microsoft with both hands as an act of civil disobedience. Needless to say, I don't advice nor advocate doing so while driving.
Isn't an excellent piece of prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh? Elevators (Score:5, Funny)
Are we ready for patent reform yet??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean seriously! Fucking double clicks????
I wonder if the asshat at the patent office realized that he had to double click at least once during the process of filing the stupid patent. Clearly, the people at the patent office are so far out of touch with reality that they can no longer be taken seriously.
So, I propose this for the new patent system (it's un-Slashdot of me, but not only am I bitching about something, I have an idea on how to fix it.)
Public peer review. Open source meets patent reform.
As soon as a patent is applied for, it is placed up on a website for public review. Then, it's up to the public as well as the patent office to try to find any prior art.
If prior art is found, the patent is denied. Period. And if the prior art is over 5 years old, it's considered a public domain idea, and no longer patentable. That'll keep idiots like the lawyersquad at MS from patenting other people's ideas. Like double clicks.
Weaselmancer
I hate to burst people's bubble (Score:3, Informative)
Its a non obvious use of timed button presses.
If you just hit an application button on a PDA it opens the application.
If you hold it for more than a second it opens a different document based on the length of time the button is held down.
If you read the patent it is actually a very specific application of the technique.
It only applies to "limited resource computing devices" aka PDAs.
they're a pair of managers??? (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent holders are an interesting pair. A bit of googling produced the following:
Charlton Lui appears to have been a Microsoft manager turned Canadian Baseball CEO(!) "Mr. Lui co-founded the Tablet PC providing the vision and driving product development while working closely with Bill Gates and top industry leaders." Here [canadianbaseballnews.com] is the reference.
There is a Jeffrey R. Blum who includes the following in his resume: "Microsoft Mobile Electronics Group, Redmond, WA: Lead Program Manager (8/1994-3/2000)" Here [glasslantern.com] is his resume.
If I got the right people (no guarantees there), it looks like they're both *managers* who worked on mobile computing appliances. Managers who take out patents???
Most GUIs made before Windows ever hit the market (Score:3, Informative)
The history of it is something like this:
A number of systems hit the market. MacOs is successful with a single button mouse.
Other GUIs hit the PC and Geos for the Commodore, Atari TOS for the ST, Amgia Os for the Amiga.
Most systems had two button mice. However MacOs users had 1 button and Commodore 64 users had 1 button joysticks standing in for mice (two button mouse available).
MacOs started to get the reputation of being limited. The single button wasn't enough. To keep up Apple added the dubble click to permit additional behavure. A software hack for a second button. This is not to say MacOs WAS limited but streat talk vs real world has always been on entirely diffrent plains of existence.
At some point Microsoft addopted the behavure into Windows. There was no preticulare advantage to be gained by this.
You will notice that Microsofts patent is on the default fuction where as MacOs uses the dubble click as the "second button" (if I remember correctly).
This is nothing to be proud of.
However The Commodore 64s Geos used (if memory serves) single click to be "select" for cut and paist and dubble click for default fuction (activate the icon, open file, run the application) before Microsoft included this behaubure into Windows.
Sing with me "Prior art"
The dubble click was created to solve a problem found in systems using a single button for a pointer device. Microsoft Windows had no preticulare reason for addopting the dubble click other than to mimic the behavure of MacOs.
This patent should read.
"The hacks implemented in OTHER operating systems copied into Windows to no advantage to the end user."
Unix Window managers typlicly rely on having 2 to 4 mouse buttons and don't use the dubble click byond mimicing the behavure of Microsoft Windows.
Patent suggestion for RedHat: Dubble click mask:
The software technique where a second click done shortly after the first click is "tossed out" this would continue for a third and forth click as well. That if a user clicks an icon many times (nervous habbit) the Window manager reads only 1 click and ejects the rest.
Tech support horror storys:
Tech: Single left click
User: (Click Click) It openned the app
Tech: Close the app. Don't dubble click. Single left click
User: (Click Click)
With Dubble click mask
Tech:
User: (Click click click click) It worked.
(All the clicks being read as 1 click becouse that is all the user should have done)
The name of the game is winning ... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) the patent goes unchallenged, thus Microsoft wins by achieving a license to rape and pillage. (unlikely)
2) the patent is challenged, and Microsoft wins, thus strengthening their license to rape and pillage. (unlikely)
3) the patent is challenged and Microsoft loses the challenge, but still wins by weakening the opposition due to the opposition having to spend a larger fraction of their working capital than Microsoft in this non-productive activity. In areas of the marketplace where there is not a large healthy corporation to oppose them, they drive the competition out via the competitors' inability to afford the Microsoft tax of continuous legal action.
The ability of monopolies to buy into the poker game and use their near-limitless wealth to drive the competition out of the game by raising the stakes beyond their opponents' ability to call is one reason why monopolies used to have strict controls placed on them or be broken up. They are beyond the reach of the checks and balances of the free marketplace.
the Timex-Microsoft watch PDA (Score:3, Informative)
Check out this link [bityard.com] that implies about 1997! Article reproduced shamelessly below.
Limited domain gets you a patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the recent patent on burning a CD of a concert, the same night as the concert and selling it after the concert. There's prior art on making music CDs -- but I guess you can patent making CDs in a specific situation.
Now double-clicking isn't patented, but double-clicking the hardware buttons on a PDA is patented.
So we can just patent anything if we specify a narrow domain and apply it there?
I suggest we patent double-clicking with a mouse... on an application with a "metal" skin that looks like a PDA. (Meh. Maybe Microsoft's patent would already cover this one!)
How about patenting the idea of recording a DVD of your vacation... while on vacation.
How about patenting the idea of an SQL database... on a PDA.
How about patenting video conferencing... on a PDA.
It's stupid, but the pattern suggests this might be possible. Start filing your applications now!
steveha
Things Microsoft should be patenting... (Score:5, Funny)
2) Rebooting after installing an application
3) Powering the computer on
4) The arrow pointer for the mouse
5) The hourglass
Prior art: (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was working for my old company (Tuxia), I wrote a linux based system called viper. This had the functionality in the program launcher where if you click on an icon a program will start. But, if you click and hold on an icon for longer than 1 second, a context menu would appear. I quit the in January 2002.
It was mentioned in Linux devices when it was first released to the public (it was open source).
It was hosted on www.tuxia.org (but that is now gone). I still have the source available.
Somehow I know (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior art in Ham Handhelds? (Score:5, Interesting)
There might be prior art in, of all things, amateur radio handhelds. Amateur Radio VHF/UHF handhelds have, for several years, typically carried enough functionality that getting to it all given the limited number of buttons on the radio requires the time-based hardware button tricks Microsoft is describing. For example, on my Yaesu FT-51R (purchased in 1998, 4 years before Microsoft's patent filing, and in fact available before then (actually the even earlier FT-530 uses the same tricks)), saving to a memory requires holding down a button for a second, changing to the memory you want to save to, and then pressing the same button within a particular time. That same button, if merely pressed rather than held, causes other buttons of the radio to perform different functions then if it had not been pressed (but only for a limited amount of time). Hence, different functionality depending the length of time the button is pressed.
Note that these radios are controlled by internal microprocessors, and thus might be considered a 'limited resource computing device'. In any case, the idea of having the functionality of a button change depending on how long the button is pressed preceeds Microsoft's patent filing enough that Microsoft's idea should be seen an an obvious transfer of the idea to an only slightly different device.
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)
It's almost funny to see them referring to it as a palm-type device all over the patent app
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess size really does matter after all.
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish some of us
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Nokia 5510 prior art - was (Re:Xerox and Apple) (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about any other phones, but my 5510 had the facility that I could press '1' and it would enter the #1, but if I held down '1' it would call the speed dial entry for #1.
Clearly this fits into the "limited resource environment", the "hardware button" and everything else. If this isn't a very, very specific example of prior art that is meant to be covered by this patent then I'm screwed if I know what else could be.
Yes Virginia, the patent office is staffed by morons.
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like, pressing and holding a mouse button?
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, this first time I did see this happen was on PocketPC 2000 software where a click and hold popped up the context menu. That's a 'hardware limited' device, i.e. it has no second button, just a stylus.
In any case I'd just like to point out that I'm not defending it - it's another silly patent - merely stating that the story has it wrong.
Press and hold is used on the Mac (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:3, Informative)
It does the same thing as a right click. I don't like it.
Microsoft does own this idea (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, Microsoft does own this technology, or at least they made it popular. That hardware button is the computer's reset button.
Re:Microsoft does own this idea (Score:5, Funny)
They certainly did popularise pressing the reset button "...multiple times within a short period of time..." ...
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:3, Informative)
My Creative MuVo2 only has 2 buttons... the Pause/Play button can be held for different lengths of time to perform certain functions... I think this qualifies as prior art, and this patent should be vaporized.
Re:Xerox and Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
For some prior art, go back to the 1800's, and talk to a telegraph operator. Ask them how a morse code key works, and, the difference between a long click, and a double click.
This patent is a blatant example of why the rest of the world just has to start ignoring patents issued in the USA, they have no meaning. American business is so concerned about intellectual property protection, they should consider that honoring patents is an all or nothing deal, and with stupid stuff like this being granted, the rest of the world cannot afford to honor this kind of silliness. There are many many examples in the real world of 'click once to do one thing, twice to do something else'. Anybody that flies airplanes into small airfields at night knows this (just one real world example). Click you microphone 5 times to turn on the runway lights. Depending on the setup, once they are on, 3 clicks for brighter, 2 clicks for dimmer, is common. This methodology was around long before microsoft plugged thier first mouse into a computer, it's a method that pre-dates the pc. It's common, and it's OBVIOUS, and it was long before the pc even came into the equation, or any 'limited resource' environment as discussed in that patent.
Go forth into the real world, there must be thousands of devices in this world that have a single button for input, and differing numbers of 'clicks' or 'presses' on that button, have different meanings.
Re:An attack on OS X? (Score:4, Informative)
My hazy memory says the original Netscape is the prior art for holding down the mouse and then getting a contextual/different action depending on the duration.