Microsoft Seeks Patent On Virtual Desktop Pager 716
ihabawad writes "Microsoft has a patent on file for this really cool new technology called 'virtual desktops' where you see a 'pager' on the screen. Read all about it by searching under "Published Applications" for patent #20030189597 at the US Patent and Trademark Office. You know, I had a dream that I was using such a thing once; what was it called? -- yes, FvwmPager! Weird, eh?"
nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:4, Informative)
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Informative)
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:4, Informative)
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:4, Informative)
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Funny)
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. WE THOUGHT YOU MEANT VENEREAL DISEASE.
X virtual desktop window managers much older (Score:4, Interesting)
Here [visi.com] is an interesting family tree of twm descendants, showing the first virtual desktop window managers appearing in 1990/1991.
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Informative)
Beats anything in powertoys hands down.
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Funny)
If you actually had a separate monitor for each desktop, it would be hard to call them virtual at that point, wouldn't it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
this is a patent application (Score:5, Informative)
As this is only an application, it does not have patent protection.
joke (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope you're kidding. Not only is the USPTO generally incompetent, they're generally overworked to the point that they have something like half an hour to research a given application. They most certainly will NOT be spending 18 months researching this.
The number of ridiculous patents being granted is stunning, and given the crack MS legal team, I have no doubt this one will too.
If I had means of collecting bets from /. readers, I'd propose a bet.
its not a joke (Score:5, Informative)
I work as an examiner.
The claims presented in this application will likely be signifigantly different if it becomes allowed.
Examiners usually have 10-40 hours based on paygrade to fully examine a case. Keep in mind experts don't need as much time to search, and unless you have a proper legal background to understand the metes and bounds, you may not realize how narrow or broad the claims actually are.
I can not comment on office policy, or validity of the claims for this, or any other patent application.
Re:its not a joke (Score:5, Funny)
>>I work as an examiner
Boy, you are in trouble now!
Wait, shouldn't you be reviewing patents instead of posting here?
Re:its not a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
While that's true, I wonder if the easiest way to fix the patent system or at least to significantly band-aid it would be to permanently reject any patent for which initial submission has obvious prior art that dates back more than 10 years prior to the claim. At the very least that would eliminate a ton of the claims like this without having to waste everyone's time in cycling processes of reivew an revision.
Re:its not a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
A method for doing X "on the Internet.
<sigh>
Re:its not a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
That is so extreme that it will never be considered. I do think that a "bad faith application" should carry a penalty. It sounds as if companies are currently gaming the uspto; they must hope to get an examininer who, for whatever reason, lets something through with a lot broader scope than be should be allowed.
So maybe a bad faith application shuts down the application process (with loss of all filing fees) and a penalty, based on the number of previous offenses by the filing entity, is charged to the filing entity.
Supposedly that the problem is that the uspto needs money and that refusing patents does not make them money. Here is a way that they can get paid for granting patents and sometimes get paid for shooting down patents.
Re:its not a joke (Score:4, Informative)
PTO fees [uspto.gov]
Re:joke (Score:4, Insightful)
And the PTO is not incompetent. Overworked, yes. Incompetent, no. I guarantee you 99% of the people posting on slashdot don't even look at a patent before crying foul. Of the 1% left, 99% of them only read the abstract and not the claims, the claims being what is considered enforceable/infringeable.
IANAL, IANAExaminer, but I deal with both daily and the ingorance of the
Re:joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for pointing this out. Tried a few times before; but the message doesn't seem to get through. With respect to publishing after 18 months: the US (this time) followed worldwide tradition.
I might not be completely agreeable though with the stated competence of the USPTO. Having been an examiner until 7 years back, they had a tendency to be politically correct; more than legally correct. And how do you distinguish between incompetence and overworked ? When our car comes back from a shoddy repair I don't bother if the mechanic was incompetent or overworked. And I wouldn't know; badly repaired is badly repaired. A horribly granted patent remains a sore; for the industry and the consumer.
The independent claims will be discussed, eventually slightly modified and granted; I bet quite some money on this outcome. Patent business is a monkey business. Whatever they get - and they will get something - they can always use it to strangle the competitors: would you / Gnome / KDE / enlightenment have the funds to go to court against Microsoft ? So, there won't even be a need to make the patent stand in court; just a few letters and Longhorn will have workspaces and desktops while OSS won't (any more). Cease and desist: the honestly conducted business of the future.
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is in the patent system... once the system is in place, however flawed, you can't blame people for trying to get the most out of it, because they're competing with other people who are trying to make the most of it. Shaking our fists at MS will no good, it just means that somebody else will benefit from a flawed system. But the consumer loses either way.
The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Starfish Dashboard...
Several different pieces of shareware at the time Dashboard95 came out...
FVWM...
GNOME...
KDE...
Simply put, they shouldn't have filed this one.
Patent Abuse = Slander of Title? (Score:5, Interesting)
B. They cost us, as a community, time.
C. They're gambling on getting it through under radar, and if that happens it'll cost lots of folks money to fight it.
So there's a monetary component to this.
Meanwhile, Microsoft KNOWS they don't have actual title to this, and are submitting it in effort to take title to this idea FRAUDULENTLY, as they KNOW they don't have title.
That sounds to me like slander of title, and is ACTIONABLE, correct?
And while it's hard to figure out who needs to do the actual suing, damages to the community could be set as a fraction of legal fees expected as an average of Microsoft's expenditures on patent actions.
And it would put the fear of God into some of these slanderers of title we've been talking about for the past year(s).
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Insightful)
There do seem to be some improvements listed. Foremost appears to be the ability to view a scaled version of the desktops in full screen instead of just the little icons in the pager. For instance, with 4 virtual desktops, they describe a scaled view where each desktop is essentially 1/4 of the screen. If you have two browser windows open in two different desktops, such a view would enable you to visually determine which is which. I don't remember seeing such a feature in other VWMs. They also describe animating the transition between this view and the full desktops via shrinking/expanding the active desktop.
While this does seem to be an improvement over existing pagers, many will argue its triviality. I personally suspect it's still enough to get the patent issued and drag someone into court...
Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows (Score:5, Informative)
The Enlightenment [enlightenment.org] window manager does that already. Look at the lower left corner of of this screenshot [enlightenment.org].
There is a key difference (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the patent document, the key point is that the users hits a key and all the desktops are scaled within the window using animation. So if I have a 3 x 3 virtual desktop and hit the desktop view button, my screen is shrunk to (say) the top left 9th of the screen and 8 other mini desktops become visible. If I select another desktop it zooms towards me filling the screen. They make a number of references to background images and I guess animating 9 different background images for the demo above would look very cool.
I haven't seen this implemented before. The nearest is Mac OS X.3 which allows all application windows to be minimised and switched between, I use it a lot and it is excellent, particularly if you have a number of quicktime movies or similar playing. As I recall, Apple patented this and I think this is Microsoft's answer
How big a difference is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The first X Windows desktop I remember seeing something like this with was Enlightenment, back in ~1998, whose pager had miniature screenshots of all your other desktops. I'm sure Microsoft is updating the screenshots more frequently and zooming to them more smoothly, but since even Enlightenment's improved version of the pager is too obvious an idea to deserve a patent, in a sane world "Enlightenment + more eye candy" wouldn't stand a chance.
Re:There is a key difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Come to think of it, that could be useful... :-)
Another thing I've been thinking about when using virtual desktops with Xinerama, is the ability to connect any arbitrary virtual desktop with any screen. Rather than having them side-by-side (or whatever), you use the pager to click on the desktop you want to appear in which screen. Anybody know of a WM that does this?
Besides, isn't it common to have references to previous relevant systems in a patent application...? I mean, if it were real, they should at least give a reference to the old FVWM pager.... (Actually, the FVWM pager was a killer app for me when I first discovered UNIX 10 years ago).
Re:Post link to site! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure if that was irony or stupidity. Anyway, here's a clickable link to the patent. [uspto.gov]
You may want to mention that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft will probably get this patent and go on to sue anyone using the technology out of existence.
Embrace and extend.
Um how about the DOS filesystem patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Informative)
Just because most of these never make it to court is hardly an excuse either. Honestly, how many open source developers do you think could afford to face Microsofts high-paid lawyers in a patent case?
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:3, Interesting)
Any company fighting MS toe to toe is soon to find themselves a new CEO.
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are right that Microsoft, so far hasn't done that. They haven't needed to, since they have been able to dominate the industry through other means. So, Microsoft is not guilty of any special kind of abuse of the patent system, they simply abuse it in the same way every large company abuses the patent system.
There are plenty of folks suing them over frivolous patents.
And how is creating more "frivolous patents" going to help with that?
Perhaps their latest rash of applications are more defensive than offensive.
There is no such thing as a "defensive patent": sooner or later, a company has to assert, or at least threaten to assert, the claims in one of their patents if it is going to do them any good. And that makes the patent offensive.
Sometimes people think that a patent is used "defensively" in order to establish priority. That's nonsense--a simple disclosure does the same thing and is nearly free. Even Microsoft wouldn't waste $50k-$100k on that.
In fact, most likely, Microsoft is filing patents in order to allow them to get a portfolio for cross-licensing. And that, in itself, is anti-competitive because it ends up keeping people out of the market. It just happens that most of the big companies are in on that kind of anti-competitive behavior.
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how long before they try to patent mount points and symlinks?
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:4, Funny)
It's not really the Patent Office's job to ensure that every patent is totally original and has never been done before. A patent is only really used when the invention ends up in court. If it's not defendable, it will be nullified. However, who wants to sit across from Microsoft in a courtroom? Maybe if you slip and break your leg on the sidewalk in front of their office building. Even in that case you'd probably end up paying $10,000 to repair the scuffmarks you made in the concrete.
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:4, Informative)
#50 How does one file protest on patents that are pending?
Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved. A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the publication of the application or the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311, whichever occurs first; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible. For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm [uspto.gov] for the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 1900.
Re:You may want to mention that (Score:5, Informative)
from uspto's website [uspto.gov]:
A protest under 37 CFR 1.291(a) must be submitted in writing, must specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed by application number or serial number and filing date, and must include a listing of all patents, publications, or other information relied on; a concise explanation of the relevance of each listed item; an English language translation of all relevant parts of any non-English language document; and be accompanied by a copy of each patent, publication, or other document relied on. Protestors are encouraged to use form PTO-1449 "Information Disclosure Statement" (or an equivalent form) when preparing a protest under 37 CFR 1.291, especially the listing enumerated under 37 CFR 1.291(b)(1). See MPEP 609. In addition, the protest and any accompanying papers must either (1) reflect that a copy of the same has been served upon the applicant or upon the applicant's attorney or agent of record; or (2) be filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.
who wants to do it?!
This has got to stop (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This has got to stop (Score:5, Informative)
Reviewing patent applications to assess if they comply with the basic format, rules and legal requirements, determining the scope of the protection claimed by the inventor, researching relevant technologies to compare similar prior inventions with the invention claimed in the patent applications, and communicating the examiner's findings to patent practitioners/inventors with reasons on the patent ability of applicant's inventions.
Patent Examiners are responsible for the quality, productivity, and timely processing of patent applications, which is the basis of their performance evaluation.
See the actual posting HERE [opm.gov]
I'm not trying to be glib, and I know one person cannot change the world, but with all of the unemployed /.'ers out there, one of you could take a leap and actually apply for this position.
Let us know how it goes.
Seems familiar (Score:5, Funny)
"No Billy, that's not your toy. That's FVWM's toy. Say you're sorry!"
Prior art.. (Score:4, Informative)
Direct Link (Score:5, Informative)
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect
It took ages to find it... *sigh*
-huha
Re:Direct Link (Score:5, Informative)
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
Re:Direct Link (Score:5, Funny)
by huha (755976) on Thursday February 26, @03:41AM (#8385557)
It took ages to find it... *sigh*
Major Corporation... (Score:5, Funny)
... patents idea with lots of prior art.
News at 11.
vtwm (Score:5, Informative)
This was circa 1990, even before fvwm. I think xrooms was earlier still.
Re:vtwm (Score:5, Informative)
From the tvtwm man page:
Re:vtwm (Score:5, Informative)
Sort of.
vtwm was a different fork.
twm was "Tab Window Manager"-- window managers previous to that didn't have the object at the top of the window (called a tab in this case) to do the window manipulation with. However since it was written by a guy named Tom LaStrange, it also was known as "Tom's Window Manager."
vtwm involved a bunch of folks taking twm and adding virtual screen capabilities to it, the same thing Tom LaStrange was doing at Solbourne (remember them?) for swm (Solbourne Window Manager, of course). swm evolved into tvtwm, which is where Tom's name was first "officially" put in the window manager's name: "Tom's Virtual Tab Window Manager."
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:vtwm (Score:3, Informative)
James
CodeTek Virtual Desktop? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure there are differences, but is this patent, if it is awarded, going to allow Microsoft to send C&D letters to every company and organization that has been providing virtual desktop software for years, regardless of platform?
How could such a thing happen?
Dreaming Prior Art ...? (Score:5, Funny)
Can a dream constitute prior art?
-kgj
Innovative (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Innovative (Score:5, Informative)
Funny but also (sadly?) true. With the provervial disclaimer IAMAL, but I have worked in R&D labs where were were regularly briefed by the lawyers and harvested for ideas, to be patentable, an idea does not have to be a completely new product area, it just needs to be a way of doing something. So if one step in a process is novel, you can try to patent it. This means, of course, that someone can come around with a different process to do the same thing and they can also try to patent it. In the realm of software, business processes etc. this means that some dubious sounding things can get through - but it also means that there are often work arounds e.g. if one click shopping is patented, add a second step.
Re:Innovative (Score:3, Informative)
Power Toys for Windows XP (Score:5, Informative)
This is available in XP as a power toy.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/
Works fine I guess... never really got used to it myself.
MS *doesn't* have a patent on this! (Score:5, Informative)
This means that the USPTO could still be contacted and instances of prior art be submitted.
Re:MS *doesn't* have a patent on this! (Score:4, Funny)
Patent applications and claims (Score:3, Insightful)
So SUBMIT the prior art (Score:3, Insightful)
This page [bitlaw.com] has pdf's of patent office forms, including one about prior art. The USPTO website also seems to suggest that prior art is something that has been patented in this example [uspto.gov].
If people really care about this and aren't just into recreational bitching, then write the patent office a let
No references (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you for your application fees. Don't call us, we'll call you.
Patently abusive (Score:5, Informative)
Read the patent... (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't make it that much better, but at least make sure you're ranting about the right thing.
Re:Read the patent... (Score:3, Informative)
> trying to patent a pager with a preview of each desktop.
Both vtwm 5.4.5a and fvwm 1.24r have previews in their pagers. Granted, these are the latest versions straight out of apt, but I'll lay dollars to donuts that these major feature enhancements haven't been added in after October of 2003 when MS filed the patent in question.
RTFP, indeed! (Score:4, Informative)
No, they're not - they're actually showing the Gnome pager as prior art (Figure 1c). You have to go up to Figure 5 to see what they're actually claiming: a method to preview your virtual desktops on the entire display. So you'd click a button on your pager to get, say, all your 2x2 desktops displayed simultaneously at half size. The undeniable advantage is that at half-size you'll see a lot more detail than at pager (say, 1/16) size.
If anyone knows of prior art specifically relating to this kind of preview, please *do* contact the patent office. This isn't going to be so easy to defeat as some here are spouting off without bothering to look at the blasted thing. Give the MS-lawyers some credit - they may be evil, but stupid they're not.
enable Virtual Desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
Wtf, is there a way for us to comment on the patent by sending all this prior art somewhere?
-T
Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
(Gets out Soapbox) So why don't we give the USPTO and Congress a good old fashioned snail mail slashdotting and try to convince them that while software copyrights on source code is fine, that software patents are patently stupid.
C'mon - who's with me? Anyone want to step up and coordinate this effort?
Let's write letters and Slashdot the USPTO! And the US Senate! And The House! Here's the USPTO Mailing address -
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
USPTO Contact Center (UCC)
Crystal Plaza 3, Room 2C02
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
http://www.senate.gov for finding your state's senator. http://www.house.gov for finding your district's representative.
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe if you actually look at the patent application you'll see that they (Microsoft) INCLUDE a representation of both KDE and Gnome implementations in their drawings.
See page 2 (tiff) [uspto.gov] of their application. They're not trying to pretend that virtual desktops don't exist. They're trying to describe a slightly different way of doing it that is related (but not the same) as existing methods.
This application doesn't look like their trying to patent the concept of virtual desktop pagers, but a specific implementation of one. This patent app would fall under the broad cateogory of being an incremental improvement of an existing invention.
The question the patent office will need to face is whether the claims are unique enough that this specific implementation warrants a patent. This patent wouldn't cover all virtual desktop pagers, just ones that use the method they describe in their claims.
This is NOT a patent (Score:3, Informative)
OSS is mentioned in the specification, perhaps you should be less paranoid.
GNOME/KDE Ripoff? (Score:5, Interesting)
On page2. Isnt that a gnome and KDE screendump? You can clearly see the foot and the KDE logo in the right bottom corner.
How is it possible to file a patent on someone elses technology, and use a picture of their product to describe it?
Re:GNOME/KDE Ripoff? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's staright link to the pdf: http://www.pat2pdf.com/20030189597.pdf [pat2pdf.com]
And this is what it says about these figures in patent application:
[0013] FIG. 1A is a pictorial diagram illustrating a desktop of a graphical user interface according to the prior art.
[0014] FIG. 1B is a pictorial diagram illustrating one implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.
[0015] FIG. 1C is a pictorial diagram illustrating another implementa
Sounds like Apple's Expose. (Score:5, Interesting)
A method for a user to preview multiple virtual desktops in a graphical user interface is described. The method comprises receiving an indication from a user to preview the multiple virtual desktops and displaying multiple panes on the display. Each pane contains a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop. Each scaled virtual desktop displays with one or more scaled application windows as shadows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has one or more corresponding application windows that are active.
This really sounds similar to Apple's Expose with its ability to display multiple windows. And it is Expose if you are running a bunch of emulators on a Mac and each "window" is an emulated desktop.
Re:Sounds like Apple's Expose. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more like a feature of several linux WMs where you have a section of the "toolbar" that displays a grid representing your virtual desktops. On each section of the grid are smaller rect
Pager? (Score:4, Informative)
There is a difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this is exactly the kind of trivial difference that disqualifies it from being 'new and non-obvious', so it still deserves to get laughed out of the Patent Office...
Re:There is a difference... (Score:4, Funny)
And, as we all know, obvious [uspto.gov] and stupid [uspto.gov] patents always get laughed out of the Patent Office.
I already wrote one of those for Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote it sometime during the fall of 2001; I don't remember exactly when, but it was last updated Jan 23 2002.
Of course, X pagers had been around long before this one... can the public submit prior art to the USPTO and get MS's patent denied?
Protesting Patents (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the link to the Patent Protest Document. [uspto.gov]
I actually use MSVDM (Score:3, Interesting)
It does have some nice features, though I don't think it is nearly as robust as the OSS version.
One of the biggest problems that I have using it is if I have any office application open and switch desktops, I lose all of my buttons/toolbars in the apps.
The other annoying thing is that you can't cycle through the desktops, it lets you cycle through applications on all desktops, but not the actual desktops. Strange and annoying, yet I still use it from time to time.
Anyone else actually use this product? I think it was grouped into the WindowsXP powertoys section.
Later,
Just another Farmer
Download the whole patent (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the illustrations show a gnome display right down to the foot. What Microsoft seems to be trying to claim is...
1) When you preview, then entire screen is filed with tiled preview images large enough so you can really see what is in each window.
2) The mini-images on the toolbar have the same background properties as the full-scale window.
Not the most innovative patent in the world, but not a slimy attempt to patent the work of others either.
Re:Download the whole patent (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly Enough (Score:5, Informative)
Just my 2 cents.
Borland C (Score:4, Informative)
Here's how we fix the system... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this could help avoid 99% of blatant patent abuse problems.
Prior art referenced in patent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who are talking about the old x-windows multiple desktop switch tools are correct: and Microsoft is well aware of them. They are claiming a particular version where there is a tray icon (without preview) that summons a dialog which shows all the desktops in scaled format for selection. I use the alt-tab powertoy that I'm pretty sure this is based on: as I alt-tab I see a reduced picture of the app I'm selecting to (except my X-Window client, which it can't read).
Personally, I don't see this as a patentable advance, but they are claiming that showing a full rendition of the desktop in reduced form is different from showing shaded areas where the windows are.
Is the patent being misunderstood? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if you are running 4 virtual desktops, and you indicate you want to see all your desktops, your screen would be seperated into 4 sections, each displaying a smaller version of each desktop complete with the apps that are running on them.
This is NOT the same thing as the Gnome/KDE applets that let you click to change desktops...
Re:Is the patent being misunderstood? (Score:5, Informative)
It can make miniture pictures of all your apps and you can rearrange them, etc.
Checkout my desktop screenshot [submarinefund.com] Note: this is my desktop on 2.21.03 almost exactly a year ago. And I've run E for at least 5 years.
Stop whining and just write to the USPTO (Score:5, Informative)
37 C.F.R. 1.291 [gpo.gov] gives members of the public the right to protest a pending application by simply advising the patent office of any reason why a patent should not issue, including prior art. The essential aspects of this are that you must (a)correctly identify the application; (b)provide a concise explanation of the reason for the protest; and (c)provide a copy of the prior art your protest relies on.
So, rather that the usual pablovian reflex of ranting about this stuff on
Ready
MS wants to patent Linux away (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Mac OS have a feature like this? If so, for how long? Apple is the only company I see spending the money to fight MS on these silly patents.
It doesn't take much to get a patent now adays`. The Patent office doesn't verify crap. I guess they figure to let the companies fight it out in court.
Maybe a bunch of
American business and the American government is going down the drain fast.
DVWM (Score:5, Informative)
The link above points to a patent submission by Bret Anderson (aka MrJukes) on behalf of Microsoft for a Virtual Desktop Manager. Here's a relevent blurb from the patent application itself...
"...each pane containing a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop, each scaled virtual desktop being displayed with one or more scaled application windows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has one or more corresponding application windows that are active."
The patent application was file on April 5, 2002. MrJukes and I have both been writing and writing applications for replacement shells for many years. In 1997/1998, i wrote a shell called Dimension. One of its components that eventually was released by itself (in 1998) was DVWM. It was downloadable from my website between 1998-2002. Below is a link to lokai.net's download page from 2001 (the best i could get via archive.org). Bret Anderson had clear knowledge that this patent application contains prior art. I was definately not the first person to do something like this either.
VWM's and VDM's have been around for a very long time. Enlightement's Pager/VWM/VDM did this at the time as well, however at that point in time, while giving mini-views of the windows on a given desktop, it did not provide a 1-to-1 mini-view like DVWM did to my knowledge (please correct me if i'm wrong).
I believe this to be a pretty low point. A former shell developer lands a job at Microsoft and patents ideas obtained from the shell community and/or elsewhere in free software. I don't know if idea theft is illegal since i didn't patent it myself, but i'm just disgusted that this has happened.
Here's the archive.org view of lokai.net's downloads. You can download the version of DVWM that was hosted at the time which does all the things i describe.
Archive.org view of Lokai.net in 2002 [archive.org]
Here is a screenshot of DVWM from 2001.
DVWM Gif [redf.net]
Here is the source to DVWM from 2001.
DVWM Source [redf.net]
Here is DVWM 1.02 in case archive.org fails to work for you.
DVWM Zip [redf.net]
Here is the skinnables.org orphanware page showing DVWM.
Skinnables Orphanware [skinnables.org]
I'm currently exploring my options to see what if anything i can do about this. I find it to be just flat out wrong. It should be noted that not all things that are wrong are necessarily illegal, but i'll see what i can do.
But how can MS patent if they didn't it? (Score:4, Funny)
It's an application. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:abstract (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:abstract (Score:4, Informative)
Not really. It's kind of like if the Enlightenment pager had Expose functionality. You hit a key, the pager scales to full screen, you pick a desktop.
What's interesting is that the patent application predates Expose by a few years.
Re:Full Screen Preview? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Truth about linux co$t (Score:3, Insightful)