Microsoft Patents Timed Button Presses 552
ScooterB writes "According to TechDirt, Microsoft has patented having the action of a button determined by how long the button was pressed. From the patent listing, it seems to be targeted towards PDA's and other handhelds." Whether patents like this are the chicken or the egg, this relates to an MSNBC article submitted by prostoalex which says "United States Patent and Trademark Office is overwhelmed with incoming requests," and that "Unless the budgeting increases, the review process for a patent could double to 5 years."
As an aside... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait...
Re:As an aside... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As an aside... (Score:2)
Re:As an aside... (Score:4, Funny)
I have a 30 year old piano that plays notes at different volumes depending on how long you hold the key.
Re:As an aside... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As an aside... (Score:4, Funny)
Larger fonts would be nice (Score:4, Funny)
It makes me so frustrated that I want to force a hard shutdown by holding the power button down for three seconds.
Re:As an aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As an aside... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, wait a minute... Mom, is there something I should know?
Re:As an aside... [RTFP] (Score:3, Insightful)
To add to this -- contrary to popular belief, this patent has nothing to do with operations performed by a stylus or mouse. It is carefully restricted to focus on HARDWARE-based buttons of a PDA. Anybody who has a Pocket PC should know what I'm talking about. A similar frame of reference for the rest of you: Most everybody has seen (or
Re:As an aside... [RTFP] (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess no one at microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever.
Whatever, ignore, continue. Who are they going to call on it?
Re:I guess no one at microsoft... (Score:3, Funny)
Judging by the Xbox, I'd say no.
(OK, that's not true - the Xbox is pretty sweet. But the joke doesn't work any other way).
Future "Pressing" Patents (Score:3, Funny)
Shirt Pressed By Iron
Iron Pressed By Muscleman
Muscleman Pressed By Time
Time Pressed By Space
Space Pressed By Gravity
Palm did it first... (Score:3, Insightful)
Recipe for Bureaucratic Success: (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Watch as a whole industry is created out of filing for these new patents.
3. Watch incoming volume of new patent requests increase astronomically.
4. Whine to Congress about insufficient resources.
5. Swill at public trough.
6. Hire more workers.
7. Get big raise because you now manage many more workers.
8. Profit!!
Re:Recipe for Bureaucratic Success: (Score:2)
Whine to Congress about how they are getting flack for not doing their jobs properly, because Congress doesn't let them keep more than a fraction of what they collect in revenues.
Where (Score:5, Funny)
stop watch (Score:2)
IIRC, a patent can be overturned if it is later shown that the invention was obvious or that prior art existed. This patent would surely never hold up in court, so it's only useful for intimidation tactics.
Re:stop watch (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the point.
Re:Where (Score:3, Informative)
I know the modern nokias have this(at least the s60 models) and the older models have at least part functionality of this as well. also on text typing if you press a button for a long period of time the number on the button is entered to the text that was typed.
siemens has used for years a keylock that is activated with long press of # for example as well.
-
uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:uh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:uh? (Score:2)
Re:uh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also like the explanation that my sibling posts made -- if a device doesn't have limited power, it must have infinite power.
Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd call that "prior art" and "limited power computing device."
Re:Prior art (Score:4, Funny)
But only when you're in Soviet Russia, right?
The claims require more than that (Score:3, Informative)
(c) opening an application if the application button is released prior to the expiration of a threshold time limit; and
(d) opening the application and automatically causing the application to display the last known state of the application if the application button is pressed, without being released, for a period equal to or in excess of the threshold time limit.
A lot of people here
Illustrating a point with extreme examples. (Score:3, Interesting)
obvious is right.... (Score:5, Informative)
Damn, another stupid patent. Yes I looked at the application and saw that the scope was narrow, but come on, just in front of me right now I have:
Sharp Zaurus: The "Cancel" button sends an ESC char to the OS, but if you press and hold it, it turns the unit off. Also if you press the button while it's off, nothing happens, but if you press and hold, it turns on again. I believe the various application buttons can also be programmed with different apps for press vs. press-and-hold.
VIA Mini-ITX motherboard: I have it set in the BIOS to sleep when the power button is pushed. But if you hold the power button for several seconds, the power light flashes and it powers down.
CRT iMac: power button does sleep, unless you hold it down, then it blinks and powers off.
APC SmartUPS: holding down the power-off button turns the unit off, but if you press-and-hold down for several more seconds, it turns off the battery charger too (you can hear the relay click off inside).
And of course SOFTWARE buttons have been doing this for years (click vs. double-click vs. click and hold). My KDE konsole application has a button that you click for a new session or click and hold for a menu.
The patent office needs to get a clue. PLEASE!!
just to add to the list (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:just to add to the list (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:obvious is right.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Patent Lawsuits are PARTICULARLY EXPENSIVE ones to Litigate. They're going to get a massive array of patents and then in a blitzkrieg, they'll fire out an overwhelming number of cease and desist letters to all the key open-source projects that even remotely resemble one of their patents. The end result is going to be a lot of "settlements" because the cost of litigating will be prohibitively expensive (especially for open-source projects). The settlements will basically read, "take down your website / remove the project and we won't sue you out of house and home".
The average open-source programmer would most likely rather close up shop than try to defend himself from a long-drawn out legal battle with MSFT's attack dogs.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Prior Art? (Score:2)
*smells lawsuit forthcoming*
I think around $200 million would convince me to license my technology to Microsoft.
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes (oblig. Onion ) (Score:3, Funny)
With the patent, Microsoft's rivals are prohibited from manufacturing or selling products containing zeroes and ones--the mathematical building blocks of all computer languages and programs--unless a royalty fee of 10 cents per digit used is paid to the software giant.
"Microsoft has been using the binary system of ones and zeroes ever since its inception in 1975," Gates told reporters. "For years, in the interest of the overall health of the computer industry, we permitted the free and unfettered use of our proprietary numeric systems. However, changing marketplace conditions and the increasingly predatory practices of certain competitors now leave us with no choice but to seek compensation for the use of our numerals."
A number of major Silicon Valley players, including Apple Computer, Netscape and Sun Microsystems, said they will challenge the Microsoft patent as monopolistic and anti-competitive, claiming that the 10-cent-per-digit licensing fee would bankrupt them instantly.
"While, technically, Java is a complex system of algorithms used to create a platform-independent programming environment, it is, at its core, just a string of trillions of ones and zeroes," said Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, whose company created the Java programming environment used in many Internet applications. "The licensing fees we'd have to pay Microsoft every day would be approximately 327,000 times the total net worth of this company."
"If this patent holds up in federal court, Apple will have no choice but to convert to analog," said Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs, "and I have serious doubts whether this company would be able to remain competitive selling pedal-operated computers running software off vinyl LPs."
As a result of the Microsoft patent, many other companies have begun radically revising their product lines: Database manufacturer Oracle has embarked on a crash program to develop "an abacus for the next millennium." Novell, whose communications and networking systems are also subject to Microsoft licensing fees, is working with top animal trainers on a chimpanzee-based message-transmission system. Hewlett-Packard is developing a revolutionary new steam-powered printer.
Despite the swarm of protest, Gates is standing his ground, maintaining that ones and zeroes are the undisputed property of Microsoft.
Above: Gates explains the new patent to Apple Computer's board of directors.
"We will vigorously enforce our patents of these numbers, as they are legally ours," Gates said. "Among Microsoft's vast historical archives are Sanskrit cuneiform tablets from 1800 B.C. clearly showing ones and a symbol known as 'sunya,' or nothing. We also own: papyrus scrolls written by Pythagoras himself in which he explains the idea of singular notation, or 'one'; early tracts by Mohammed ibn Musa al Kwarizimi explaining the concept of al-sifr, or 'the cipher'; original mathematical manuscripts by Heisenberg, Einstein and Planck; and a signed first-edition copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness. Should the need arise, Microsoft will have no difficulty proving to the Justice Department or anyone else that we own the rights to these numbers."
Added Gates: "My salary also has lots of zeroes. I'm the richest man in the world."
According to experts, the full ramifications of Microsoft's patenting of one and zero have yet to be realized.
"Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence,"
Games (Score:2)
The longer I press the button, the higher Mario jumps.
The budget doesn't need to increase (Score:2)
Congress just needs to quit siphoning off the money that the USPTO makes from application fees.
5 year review process? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:5 year review process? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:5 year review process? (Score:3, Funny)
Christ, they'll take my car... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Christ, they'll take my car... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Christ, they'll take my car... (Score:3, Funny)
Press for a short time: get where you're going.
Press for a long time: get a ticket.
Oh My GOD (Score:2)
Tons of things already do this (Score:2)
My keyboard is similar. Press a key and it prints a character, hodl it down and it prints many of the same character. (See below)
a
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Distributed Patent Review (Score:5, Interesting)
Replace reviews with challenges (Score:3, Interesting)
I would also suggest that these chal
For crying out loud... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For crying out loud... (Score:4, Funny)
Sega? Nintendo? (Score:2)
They care? (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
And there's also auto-repeat.
Slashdotted? (Score:2)
Are you saying the US Patent office is the victim of a DOS?
ATX power button anybody? (Score:2)
Seems like it should be invalidated by prior art (Score:2)
Microsoft has done some prior art by themselves! (Score:2)
prostoalex? (Score:3, Funny)
211 total articles submitted and accepted [slashdot.org]?
At this rate, by next year, he'll have more accepted articles than Hemos posted!
And michael said I had no life for simply having over 800 comments.....
To solve the patent offices budgeting problem... (Score:2)
They should fine companies millions of dollars for each ridiculous half-assed unresearched patent filed. That should either slow things down or bring in enough money to deal with crap like this.
BSoD? (Score:2)
USPTO overwhelmed, their own fault (Score:2, Insightful)
yet another reason to support EFF (Score:5, Informative)
Re:yet another reason to support EFF (Score:3, Interesting)
The Patent Busting Project [eff.org]
Doubled to 5 years ??? (Score:4, Informative)
The patent also covers the double click (Score:2)
They also patented the double-click with this. The article does not mentioned it, but look at the details at the patent office site. They stole the whole GUI from Apple--and Apple stole it from Xerox.
Among other annoyances, this patent dilutes my bragging rights for my own patent [uspto.gov].
Me: Yeah, well, I've got a patent.
Person I'm trying unsuccessfully to impress: Yeah, well, so does Microsoft--for double-clicking. Can't be that hard.
RTFPA (Score:3, Insightful)
please go and read the actual patent app. before posting ignorant comments. You might find that your digital watch, cell phone, mouse, pda or whatever has nothing to do with what they are trying to patent.
I dislike MS business practices as much as the next guy, but please be informed....
Mobile phones are prior art too (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I wonder what else a company like MS, or IBM, or Intel can do in a situation like this -- namely, one where they're doing things that haven't been done before that, while NOT patentable in "our" sense of the term, are nevertheless things that DO get patents from the USPTO.
I mean, if you want to do something, and *someone* will patent it because our broken system lets them, shouldn't you try to patent it first? That's what most corporate patents seem to be these day -- defensive patents.
It's the nobody's out there that are really abusing the system -- SCO, Eolas, etc. I'm not really saying they're forcing Microsoft's hand (or IBM's, or Intel's, or AMD's, or NVidia's, etc.) -- but I *am* saying that I think these large research-driven companies are exercising good business sense by trying to defend themselves against the more flagrant abusers of the patent system.
Sooner or Later (I'm guessing Later), even the cost of doing business with defensive patents and cross-licensing will reach that point that the big guys will push for Patent/Trademark reform, and these sorts of problems will finally go away. But, IMHO that day is years away, and the targets for patent abuse have to defend themselves in the meantime.
I just wish one of the big patent powerhouses like MS or IBM would step up and drive a challenge against the existing patent status quo -- either via a Constitutionality argument, or lobbying Congress to get REAL patent reforms going, *something*. It's a gamble right now, sure, but business is all about risk and reward, and the payoffs for being able to get out of the patent litigation minefields that any technology company finds itself in these days would be worth it.
Xentax
How could you Albert K. Wong?? (Score:4, Informative)
What about the whole apple macintosh computer system? A computer with one mouse button. There were so many things that were done by holding the mouse down instead of clicking. And double clicking? That's older then Windows.
I wonder how many of the junk patents that have been approved lately were done by the same people. It would be nice to have a better feedback system for Patent Examiners then expensive lawsuits.
Mod this one -1 obvious.
tired of bad patents? lets DOS the patent system! (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to set up some kind of open source org for generating and funding silly patent applications. With some sympathetic venture capital, we may be able to clog the patent system for the next 50 years!
Not that im gonna do it. Just think it would be neet if someone tried. Of course, the org would have to have protections from not actually inforcing the patents.
The goal here isn't to make good patents. Just to clog the system, so we need not think to hard about them.
just an idea,.
limited power computing devices? (Score:3, Insightful)
keyboard repeat prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
bash$ xset r rate 250 40
Hmm: Let's see - hold down a key for a brief while:
X
Or hold it down for a long while:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RTFC [Read The F*ing Claims] (Score:5, Informative)
If you take the time to actually read what's claimed in this patent (on /.? yeah right...) this isn't as broad a patent as a lot of readers seem to think it is.
Basically, they've patented the following (all being done on a "limited resource computing device"):
Not ingenious, and of doubtful usefulness in my opinion, but certainly not as bad as patenting the very general "having the action of a button determined by how long the button was pressed" where that action could be anything.
Of course, you're all correct, BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the problem with a load of software patents. They dont patent HOW something is done, that patent WHAT is done. It's like trying to patent staying dry and warm, and therefore preventing anyone else building houses! I do believe there are some valid software patents, but that should NOT stop someone else getting to the same result by doing it differently. Just because some guy invented RSA security, does not stop some other guy inventing a totally differnt way to use the same algorithm.
Microsoft can patent the source they used to time this button, if it uses some cool new timing algorithm that works without needing the internal clock, but no way should they be allowed to patent the actual result, a timed button.
And honestly, i dont blame microsoft, i blame the fucking stupid patent clerks and judges who let things like this through. Microsoft are just using the system, we all would given half a chance. You patent people should wake the fuck up and engage brain!
However, you will owe me money, since i own Thought(TM). oh, and i also own "Correct Answer(TM)" and "Common Sense(TM)", all registered trademarks and patents, thank you...
Re:Of course, you're all correct, BUT (Score:4, Interesting)
That's it.
The idea is that it's better to sacrifice the public's ability to utilize a new idea inorder to make it profitable to create new ideas.
Like patented drugs.
A company creates a new drug that is usefull, it can save lives. So they restrict access to the drug to create a profit, then they turn around and take those profits and create new usefull drugs.
The sucky part is that it makes the drug expensive for people that may need it. The good part is that the drug exists in the first place. The company took a risk and created a usefull item from nothingness. Thus it exists.
And because of this then they are free to take the funds created by this patent and create new drugs to patent. If it wasn't for the patent then they wouldn't make money and we wouldn't get new and better drugs as a result.
People who do the innovating are the ones to get money from the innovation and are able then to innovate more.
In fact they HAVE to innovate MORE, otherwise when the patent runs out THEY ARE Shit Out Of Luck.
No more money no more profits.
In a communist country that doesn't have intellectual property laws/rules, then progress is stiffled because the productive members of sociaty have no way to profit, unproductive members benifit equaly to productive ones. Thus productive members have no way to promote new ideas and take risks on their own. Thus over time EVERYBODY suffers.
Just remember the PURPOSE of patents is to promote innovation and progress. NOT to protect ideas. Protecting ideas is what they do, not their purpose. Like when I drive to work, I drive to get to work. I don't drive just to drive, I'd rather just take a nap.
Thus when the patent system is used as a tool to stifle innovation or is simply useless to the majority of sociaty and a drain on it's funds, then it's time to re-examine the patent system and modify it's behavior.
Like for example shorten the life of software patents down to 1 year, instead of the 7 years or whatever. Which is much to long for the fast paced software industry.
Take for example the Jpeg's compression patent. It was valid and usefull for a year or so after it was created, but the creators of the patent all of a sudden suing people years and years later after it becomes a industry standard is obviously counter productive.
"obvious", prior art, open source priot art search (Score:3, Informative)
even if this is meant to apply to virtual buttons, prior art exists in many places: a friend of mine
used to work for Symbol Technology, the bar code scanner folks. he told me about how you determine
if a button is pressed at all; there's an effect he described as "button bounce" where as the button is
depressed, the electrical contact is intermittent for a while until it becomes constant - i.e. don't do anything
until the button has been "on" for 1200milliseconds. he's had to write customized timing code for a variety of
vendors' buttons, since they are all have a bit different 'action'; and since there's generally only one button(trigger)
on a hand-held scanner, they'd have done the same as described in the patent. the extensions
they've applied for seem completely "obvious" to anyone who's had to use/work/design a product with
"limited resources", i.e. buttons.
anyway, deciding what what to do depending on how long a button(real or virtual) has been done for
many, many years:
elevators, digital watches/clocks, PDAs, Apple Newtons and many others previously mentioned.
maybe the patent office should 'open source' the research of prior art(like groklaw?) since they seem to be
incapable of handling any more than a couple of applications per day.
c
Prior art that's at least 30 years old! (Score:3, Interesting)
8 of the buttons selected individual patients (it handled up to 8 CCU patients). Pushing and holding the button for several seconds would switch between a graphical display of EKG abnormalities and displaying a summary of ALL 8 patients (showing HR, recent abnormalities, etc.).
In fact, we didn't even have hardware debouncing on the button; we used the minicomputer to sample the signal line and detect when it stayed stable for several milliseconds and treated that as a transition....
This would appear to be VERY similar to the claims in the patent.....
Some day... (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it. Theoretically it is possible to write a compiler that compiles the text of a patent to software that implements it. That shouldn't even have to be so very theoretical if version 0.1 only has to be able to compile one certain patent text. Now all of the sudden the patent itself has become a patented piece of software! If we don't stop patenting software now and one day someone comes up with a fucking smart compiler that can do such things, we'll all be uttering patented programs all day.
The lack of a compiler from natural language to software (and vice versa) doesn't make software any less language. Software patents exist thanks to the utter stupidness of people that cannot see the difference between "an apparatus" and "some text I don't understand and I don't have a translator(compiler) for".
OMFG... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to grant every single idiotic patent that comes your way, you might as well just replace it with a motion-activated tape player that says "Patent Granted!"
On a more serious note, I want to know how on earth they could possibly review a patent for *five years* and not see glaringly obvious prior art from at least 20 years ago. They can't all be this stupid, can they? *whispers in my ear* I'm going to go cry now...
Y'Know, I think I'll apply for a patent on "A means to generate an electromotive force by motion of a conducting material through a magnetic field" and for "A means to drive said conductor through magnetic field by union of carbon and oxygen atoms." Not only is it glaringly obvious, but the level of scientific knowledge required to understand it is far beyond anything these morons are capable of. Then you'll all have to pay me for the alternator in your car
prior art (Score:4, Informative)
My HP41 programmable calculator, in use since 1981, was and is a "limited-resource computing device" with (physical) buttons associated with applications (functions). For every button and application there was a period during which the application's name would be displayed for a predetermined period if the button is pressed and held down, and activated if the button was released during that period, but if the button was held down longer, the display would go to 'null' and the application would not be activated on release. (It was a valuable HP41 feature to enable the user to check and get a reminder of what a button would do, without committing to the operation.)
It seems to be only on the last point -- what happens after delayed release -- that the Microsoft patent claims appear to differ
in detail from the HP41.
But the actions specified vaguely in the MS claims do not appear to be matters of principle, let alone invention, they are just choices about which alternative action should happen after delayed release.
I hope this patent would be found invalid at least for obviousness if challenged. But like so many others, MS may calculate on benefiting from the doubt in the meantime, and from the effort and expense of mounting a challenge.
-wb-
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps, but thanks to the way patents work, using it on a PocketPC or mouse driven PC is different 'enough'. Not saying I support it, just saying I've talked to patent lawyers before about those little kinds of deviations.
Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Insightful)
seems to me i can name a lot of items with buttons that do different things depending on how you press it. and one of the posts above this appeared to have a good list of them.
to me this just seems and obvious application of something that has been used in many different devices with buttons, i guess i just don't see why it is patentable, but then again i don't see why the patent office lets quite a few of the patents through...
Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, but thanks to the way patents work, using it on a PocketPC or mouse driven PC is different 'enough'.
I understand this "just add 'on the Internet' to a previous patent and it's a new one" argument, but I think there is more to it in this wristwatch example.
Microsoft, specifically, and many others have been pushing the convergence of many consumer devices by pushing (or proposing to push) their OSes into them. Wristwatches were specifically mentioned as a potential platform for Windows CE at its
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Interesting)
That's good enough for me. For the record, my intent wasn't to defend Microsoft so much as to clarify what prior art would have to be to shoot this cas down. Based on some
Re: Not Prior Art (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
Even on desktop systems, this is old. Plenty of games have used this technique for a long time. Golf, for instance, in which your swing is determined by how long you hold your click.
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:2, Funny)
We can not have a society where everything is for free. We are not in communism.
Other Examples (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how long they've been doing this, exactly, though I doubt it was after M$ started producing PDAs, much less filed for this patent.
Seems they're trying to patent the concept of double-clicks as well... they bloody stole that from Apple!
Re:Soft Power? (Score:2)
Re:Obvious prior art? (Score:2)
There are some toilets out there that qualify...
Re:Mac mice (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mac mice (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mac mice (Score:3, Informative)
Trolling, right? Right-click application support for contextual menus has been around since Mac OS 9.
Or by "system" do you mean the last time you used a Mac?
Re:Mac mice (Score:3, Insightful)
The system knows what a right click is. In Mac OS X, the native mouse drivers know what it is. It also knows all of the other mouse buttons, and communicates them. The default mouse is one button. Plug in a USB two or whatever button mouse in, badda bing, it works.
I wish people would shut up when they don't know better.