Slashdot Log In
IBM Patents Checking a Box
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Oct 02, 2007 02:25 PM
from the science-and-the-useful-arts dept.
from the science-and-the-useful-arts dept.
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?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If someone patents something stupid, do we care? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://skippus.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 19 2005, @07:25AM)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
I have actual prior art on this. This is a common UI design in the audio world. If you click on a mute button and drag across multiple tracks, it mutes all of them just like it would if you drug your finger across the mute buttons on a console. Most DAW software I've used does this---BIAS Deck, MOTU Digital Performer, Apple Logic.... the list is almost endless.
This is another example of a really obvious patent that adds NOTHING to advance the state of the art. The very fact that this patent was awarded is further evidence that every cool new idea that could possibly be patented in software has already been done at least once, and probably more than once, and hence, software patents to not do anything to improve the state of the art and only serve to harm innovation and stifle competition in the marketplace.
Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:If someone patents something stupid, do we care (Score:5, Informative)
(http://wrongcrowd.com/)
Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care (Score:5, Interesting)
Why in the name of God would they take the F5 key (the key every other application known to man uses to refresh) and assign to to "Logout"?!?!??!!?
WTF?
Ive been using Lotus (against my will) for 3 years now, and still a few times a month I hit F5 because I just KNOW that I should have that email response by now.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN!!!!!
No, I dont normally invoke the name of God 2 times in an email (Well, I guess thats 3 now). Its just a sign of the wrath Lotus brings out in me.
Re:If someone patents something stupid, do we care (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/)
Wow... (Score:2, Informative)
(http://www.aarondyck.ca/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 03, @10:35AM)
Hey you useless people - it's not the checkbox. (Score:2)
IF YOU SCROLL THE BEHAVIOR CHANGES.
Dear IBM: Didn't you learn to share your drugs? Please be giving me some of that crack.
What do you call it? (Score:4, Funny)
What do you call it when I drag the U.S. software patent system behind my car until it is an unrecognizable bloody mess?
Sorry for the graphic imagery, but I'm really getting sick of this crap.
Alternative. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 06 2002, @03:46PM)
1. Cut a hole in the box.
2. Put your check in that box.
3. Make her open the box.
Anonymous (Score:4, Funny)
Dont touch my patent IBM (Score:2)
Circle Circle Dot Dot, now I got my cootie shot
Obviously (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.infiltrated.net/)
IBM's patented technology is a boon to the Interweb of Googletoolbars worldwide. This extremely proficient alternative to physically filling out a form with a paper and pen method deserves its right in Patentdumb history. The traditional approach of said former technology via the pen and the paper is an approach that is inefficient and expensive. IMB's modular design of the radio button and check button interface allows users to utilize with maximum proficiency, the power of checking a box.
Thank you
THIS AND OTHER SUBSEQUENT POSTS ARE PATENT PENDING
This is just so bad (Score:5, Informative)
I am a patent attorney who tries to get his clients good, valid patents for any technology, including those that are implemented in software.
I really hate to see patents like this being granted, because they are so obviously stupid, and bring the whole system into disrepute.
If this were a granted European patent, it would have any number of oppositions filed against it. (An opposition is a cheap and effective challenges to a granted patent). IMO, no proper patent system should be without a workable system of opposition!
This is a horrible mess, and I wish that there were a way of extracting it from the US patent system in a way that will save IBM the ignominy of having such an obviously bad patent granted in its name.
A
The rest of us have to check them one by one (Score:1)
Prior Art? (Score:1)
(http://www.chibitek.com/)
At a party... (Score:2, Funny)
IBM Guy: Hey man, you know I have an patent?
Party Dude: Really? What does it pertain to?
IBM Guy: The "check box".
Party Dude: The check box? Is that a new microchip technology.
IBM Dude: No man... it's the box, that, you check... on forms 'n shit
Party Dude: Really? That's not that novel...
IBM Dude: Check it... you are on a computer and if you want to indicate that an item needs to be checked... you click on this little box, and, it totally gets checked-off... Way cool, cutting edge shit...
Party Dude: Cool man. Need to get away, um, I mean some beer. Check you later.
That's Fine (Score:2)
(http://www.flying-rhenquest.net/)
For those of you who haven't had an opportunity to actually use Lotus Notes, think of it as Business Herpes.
You ALL are in violation of my US Patent 7,276,517 (Score:2)
(http://www.webgeekworld.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 27 2006, @07:47AM)
that'll teach you to respect patents !
But, is it really for "checking a box"? (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, let's see what IBM really patented. First, for the time being, discount everything before the "claims." Claims protect what the patentee considers his/her invention. There are 15 claims of the '116 patent ("We" usually refer to patents by their last three digits). Claims 1, 6, and 11 appear to be the independent claims. These are, arguably, the broadest claims in that the claimed subject matter is much broader than claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for control of checkbox status, the method comprising:
Now, we come to the crux of the matter. What do these three limitations mean? Honestly, I have no idea. This is when we have to go back and read everything before the claims. Do these three limitations mean merely "checking a box"? Somehow, I don't think so. There seems to be a lot more going on here. For example, what does it mean to "detect[] a mode selection event"? That doesn't sound like merely "checking a box." That sounds like a bit more.
The other independent claims recite a similar limitations. For example, claim 6 recites "means for detecting a mode selection event." What does this mean? I don't know, I haven't read the rest of the patent's specification. Again, however, this seems to be a bit more than "checking a box." I live it up to another reader to figure out what this limitation means.
The lesson to take away here is that the patent stories on Slashdot are sensationalism at its finest. I read Slashdot, and often, I find the stories very interesting. However, the patent summaries are atrocious and are nothing short of informative, if not misleading.
If you think you have prior art that would invalidate this patent, then please, submit it. I invite you to read about the reexamination procedures at the USPTO. You can find them here [uspto.gov].
The views expressed herein are in no way associated with any private entity or government organization
Re:But, is it really for "checking a box"? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.vhemt.org/)
This has nothing to do with prior art or not. I read through about 10% of this, skipping what mostly looked like fillers to make it more technical. This is seriously basic things. You know back in the 80ies when you used the 'pen' in MacPaint, and if you clicked a white square it would 'remember' that it was going to paint everything black, and if you started on a black square it would 'remember' it was going to paint every square white. That this thing goes through shows what sad state the sytem is in. This is what those points means, in practice:
This is when you click the first checkbox.
There are two modes of operation: If the first checkbox is set, you enter the "clear" mode. If it's cleared, you enter the "set" mode.
Now you can drag the mouse, all checkboxes you hit will enter the state you chose with the first click.
I could show prior art; this is how the menus in DirWork 1.62 on my Amiga works, from 1992 (I just checked, to be sure I didn't imagine things). I have no wish to submit this, since doing that would just make people believe that "Hey, the system works! People can submit prior art if they aren't happy, so let's just keep giving out patents like santa on christmas day!". Something else has to be done.
what a country! (Score:1)
On the plus side, no more surveys without IBM licenses.
M.Y.O.B. Accounting has done this for years. (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Just say no... (Score:2)
Pretty much all stories related to company X patenting trivial computing action can be summed up with that. When you have an asinine and completely absurd legal/patent system, don't be surprised when people take that for the example of how they're supposed to act using it.
This is otherwise like... (Score:1)
(http://www.geocities.com/tablizer | Last Journal: Saturday March 15 2003, @01:22PM)
And to think IBM is participating in patent reform (Score:2)
(http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
Simple Work-around (Score:1)
(http://www.geocities.com/tablizer | Last Journal: Saturday March 15 2003, @01:22PM)
Ah Rats! (Score:1)
(http://www.geocities.com/tablizer | Last Journal: Saturday March 15 2003, @01:22PM)
Getting lawyers outof the technology business (Score:2)
What they like to do in court is select a jury that cannot possibly comprehend the case. By doing this it becomes a crap shoot and either side has an equal chance of winning. Patents like this make no sense to anyone other than lawyers who like them as a way yo retrain trade.
It puts all programmers at a disadvantage because at any time we can be attacked by someone's legal beagles.
Maybe we can ask for a patent on a business model based on patents on obvious ideas an prior art?
RMS (Score:2)
(http://www.karastathis.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 05 2005, @07:51PM)
Prior Art (Score:1)
(http://www.mightyware.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @10:18PM)
This is gonna go viral. (Score:1)
with patents to press,
it's easy to do.
Just follow these steps:
1: Put a check in a box
2: Patent checking that box
3: ????
And that's the way you profit!
Public Shame..... (Score:1)
Seriously, I would LOVE to see a site go up dedicated to the absent minded idiots who think this stuff is innovative. It would be easy too. Just find the name of the clerk (public information), and post the name of the clerk and the bad decision on the internet for all to see. If they found out that their stupid decisions we being publicly and openly shown, I think that they would take there jobs more seriously. Plus the backlash and furor that would arise out of the posting of the names and decisions would bring massive attention to both the sheer, staggering ineptitude of the USPTO and patent abuse by companies.
The baseless lawsuits from the clerks (public posting of public information IS LEGAL. Period.) and backlash from the USPTO would make this a self-promoting issue, and the only ones who could lose would be the clerks, USPTO, and the companies who abuse the patent system.
It would be a cheap shot, but what have the clerks, USPTO, and companies been doing for years?
I think it would be WELL worth it.
Yet more prior art (Score:3, Funny)
That's it. (Score:1)
Now, let's see...
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
That's the first one off...
Broke this patent two weeks ago (Score:1)
<script type="text/javascript">
var CheckBoxMultiSelect = {
mouseIsDown: false,
checkBoxIsChecked: false,
initialCheckBox: null,
setMouseIsDown: function(elem, event, value) {
this.mouseIsDown = value;
if ('INPUT' == elem.nodeName) {
this.initialCheckBox = elem;
this.checkBoxIsChecked = !elem.checked;
}
else
this.initialCheckBox = false;
},
onCheckboxMouseOver: function(elem, event) {
if (this.mouseIsDown) {
if ((this.initialCheckBox) && (elem != this.initialCheckBox)) {
this.initialCheckBox.checked = this.checkBoxIsChecked;
this.initialCheckBox = null;
}
elem.checked = this.checkBoxIsChecked;
}
}
}
</script>
<body onmouseup="CheckBoxMultiSelect.setMouseIsDown(this, event, false)">
<input
</body>
Do I have to remove this code now?
And once again (Score:1)
Making an "X" (Score:1)
one coder's impression on claims... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 28 2007, @04:33AM)
claim 1: preseting checkboxes according to previous state or user preferences, etc.
Claim 2: Click and drag across the checkboxes toggles them. It doesn't say Toggle to a specific state (i.e., the state of the first box in the drag).
Claim 3: Click and drag again, but this time, toggle to the state of the first box.
Claim 4: "XOR" click and drag.
Claim 5: Some gibberish about interaction between drags when clicking and dragging more than once.
Claim 6: Describes standard gui events for a checkbox; is generic enough it describes both X and Windows.
Claim 7: Adds "drag" to the idea of checkbox events, and tying 'drag' to toggling the checkbox.
Claim 8: Seems to repeat earlier claims; don't see a diff other than way it's expressed.
Claim 9: Store "prev" state of checkbox, toggle or not to the state opposite the first check box's state.
Claims 10-15: using a computer to do this, and storing 'preferences' on disk. This is just a 'game level reset' function, narrowed down to the concept of a single set of checkboxes rather than the whole game level. Also includes 'logging' to log the click-and-drag events that occur.
A very long time ago, I did this in Visual Basic on a user desktop app. Yup, it's a bogus patent.