Yahoo Patents 'Smart' Drag and Drop 128
Unequivocal writes "According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Yahoo has filed a patent for 'smart' drag and drop. From the article: 'A computer-implemented method for manipulating objects in a user interface, comprising: providing the user interface including a first interface object operable to be selected and moved within the user interface; and in response to selection and movement of the first interface object in the user interface, presenting at least one additional interface object in the user interface in proximity of the first interface object, each additional interface object representing a drop target with which the first interface object may be associated.' How do these patent claims differ from normal drag and drop? In pretty trivial ways if at all, but it may be hard for a patent examiner to understand that trivial changes in drag and drop user interface are not in fact novel enough to warrant a patent. If Yahoo gets this patent, they'll have a mighty big stick to shake at competitors."
NeverWinter Nights (Score:2, Insightful)
Drag, choose option, drag some more..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand from TFA (which I read...I did not read, however, TFPA) what makes their system so smart? Is it the pop-up text that says "Move to Top"? Or just that it does what I want it to do?
Layne
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It is a context menu, except initiated by dragging instead of right-clicking, and instead of a menu it pops up one or more drop targets.
The wording of patents [seds.com] is an attempt to avoid the potential ambiguity of plain English.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) You pick something up and drag it.
2) You drop it in something else.
3) Some new user-interface element pops up, presumably to offer you some options about how the accepting application should handle the thing you just dropped on it.
DS
PhotoShop too (Score:3, Insightful)
Also like Windows (Score:1)
A large mug (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hang on, I'll get right back to you, there's some guy called Satan on the line asking if I know a good heating engineer. And boy, are his teeth chattering!
No they won't (Score:5, Funny)
No they bloody well won't.
I have the patent [uspto.gov] for shaking a stick at competitors.
Re:No they won't (Score:4, Funny)
Truth Be Told (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because investors demand it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry Rooseveldt beat you to it. By the way, the KDE drag and drop interface used to present a mini menu that let you decide to copy, paste, etc...
This patent/application deserves to die a grisly death.
Prior Art (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A project called Open Rico has had an open-source javascript api that does that for a long time, and it works quite well. There is an online demo at: http://demos.openrico.org/demos/drag_and_drop_custom_dropzone [openrico.org] No login required.
Unless there's some way to arrange for the drop zones to not appear until after you start dragging, Rico is not prior art for this patent. It does look like a nice Javascript library.
Re: (Score:1)
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you SEEN some of the patents they've put through in the last 5 years? This most definitely IS a small point.
Prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Aesthetic choice, not technical, not innovative (Score:2)
It's only a guess, but I'd assume because the trash can is not always in proximity to the drive you're dragging. This seems much more like the 'Ring' of options described above, which would appear when you being to move an object. What they are actually using it for is unknown to me, but it'd be interesting to see it and see if it really is a new or interesting idea.
You don't want it to be always in the vicinity of the item you are attempting to drag. That would be annoying (it would distract from what you really want to do assuming you have your dock set up according to how you normally work) and changing the interface out from under a user tends to be confusing, but this is an HCI and asthetic choice, not in any way a technical one.
Having annoying icons chase your mouse around is easy. I did that to some guy at college (many years ago) when I made the "OK" button
Re: (Score:2)
It is a little treasures like this... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Hey, something just occurred to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent tax revenues are backdated to the day of filing. So patent trolls are claiming that all those inventions that were suddenly extant and infringing on day 0 didn't exist as prior art on day -1. They just appeared fully formed overnight.
How can anyone working in the patent racket sleep at night? It must be where lawyers end up when even child molesters, cannibals and politicians won't employ them any more.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh. You don't need to sleep if you don't have a soul.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The year only counts for the inventor (Score:2)
But as far as I know, only the inventor has one year to file after the invention being made public. Anybody else who just reads the publication and tries to grab a patent in the innovation is not entitled to the patent.
So you might need to prove you were the original inventor. Easy enough if you wrote the first article in a science journal, but it might become messy end expensive if you did not make your invention public in such an obvious way.
What competitors? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Seems similar to EVE Online (Score:2)
-click on some object on screen (typically ship in space) and hold mouse button down
-several "drop targets" appear around selected object
-by "drag and drop" one of these "drop targets" can be selected. Each "drop target" launches a specific activity, like locking weapons on, unlocking target....
"Drag and drop" in parentheses because the selected object is not visibly dragged, only the mouse cursor moves.
Overall, this is not quite the same but might be similar enough to count as prior art. That is, if it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The software == mathematics argument loses some wind when used to attack a patent application such as this one. Mathematics describes universal truths. This application describes a user interface feature. Mathematics are exact, and often uses specialized notation to avoid ambiguity. This application uses a lot of words to describe several concepts and use
Re: (Score:2)
software engineering still has room for creative, news ways to perform functions, hence, there is still room for innovative, creative ideas that should be protected. However, patent applications like this one simply degrade the patent process. Clearly this patent should not be awarded and should be summarily dismissed, but there is a process in place that has to be followed.
What I would like to see is a heft fee slapped on people who file
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The functionality of EVE that you described could support an argument that at least some of the claims are obvious given the state of drag-and-drop technology. You are right to be careful about the dates when the functionality exist
Re:Seems similar to a popup menu (Score:2)
Microsoft and Apple APIs (Score:2)
A way to fix all of this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apple has clear prior art, I'm sure others too (Score:5, Informative)
"A computer-implemented method for manipulating objects in a user interface, comprising: providing the user interface including a first interface object operable to be selected and moved within the user interface;"
Since this is the "drag", this portion of the patent is prior-arted by just about everyone. Next...
"and in response to selection and movement of the first interface object in the user interface, presenting at least one additional interface object in the user interface in proximity of the first interface object, each additional interface object representing a drop target with which the first interface object may be associated.'
This is the key. Although other UIs might meet the first portion of this part of the claim, the second is more narrow. Specifically it has to open something near the first that is a drop target. Menus are not drop targets, so they don't apply. Launchers are not related to the original drop target, so they don't apply.
But spring loaded folders absolutely do. They opened in response to a "hesitant drop" over a folder, creating a new window under the cursor showing the contents folder (as if one had double-clicked it). This window is "at least one additional interface object", it is most definitely "near the first that is a drop target", it is definitely an "object representing a drop target", and finally, it is [related to] "the first interface object may be associated".
Flush.
Maury
Re: (Score:1)
"in response to selection and movement of the first interface obje
Re: (Score:1)
However, the patent clearly covers other UI actions. And more than just "other elements revealing themselves differently". It also covers brand new elements appearing. Take a look at the images that came with the patent application. It shows someone selecting an email message in a list and begin
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is... they will probably get the patent and some jackass will have pockets stuffed with green paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
However, patents are drafted with the most general claims first, then getting more specific. The strategy is that the first claim(s) may fail, but later ones are upheld. This enables the inventor to hedge their bets between too broad (and invalid) and too narrow (someone invents around their claim). It's arguing in the alternative, a (little) bit like a murderer saying (a) he didn't kill the victim; but (b) if he did it was an accident.
Anyway, the
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but the task bar is not the same as the original or final object. That seems to be key to the patent.
Maury
The subsentence they forgot: (Score:3, Funny)
Prior concept from SIGGRAPH? (Score:2)
After skimming through the patent [peertopatent.org], it seems the "smart" component of this is in bringing the possible drop targets within close proximity to the object being dragged. I vaguely remember reading about a system of that nature in one of my SIGGRAPH conference proceedings a few years back. I don't have time to look it up right now though, as I have to get to work. Maybe later tonight, unless someone else can find it first.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate it when damn machines start trying to second-guess me. Whole-word select irritates the hell out of me, so stupid icons flitting around to be 'helpful' will have me spitting blood.
Follow-up:Prior concept from SIGGRAPH? (Score:1)
Prior LucasArts (Score:4, Funny)
My Mac II SE (Score:1, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad patents are a drag... (Score:2, Informative)
ProTools (Score:3, Informative)
Hell, anytime you've burned a CD in OSX by dragging to the trash can and it changes to a burning icon, you've just prior-arted Yahoo.
Re: (Score:2)
patent claims differ a little from normal d&d? (Score:2)
That'
Re:patent claims differ a little from normal d& (Score:2)
So far no Slashdot poster in this thread gave a decent prior art.. it seems Yahoo stumbled on a user interface *idea* and patented it, and let me make a further point; are not attempting to do anything BUT that. Every time IBM or Microsoft or Google or one of the other billionaire software companies patents something, the world goes apeshit because they think somehow this will be used to smash into the ground the world of free software. However it has been proven that it would be
Yet another example of prior art: (Score:2, Informative)
"trivial" changes (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly I think you're confusing novelty and "inventive step". Something is either novel or not, there are no degrees of novelty. . It's very easy to create something novel, by collocation for example, but there must be a synergy between the elements as any application can only cover one "invention". The inventive step is the difference between the "state of the art" and the patent being considered, whether that step is obvious is often the crucial point.
Looking at the claims (eg http://peertopatent.org/patent/20070234226/overview [peertopatent.org]; assuming they are copied correctly) then they seem to follow a pretty standard formula. Often (and in certain jurisdictions there's a benefit in this) the first claim is intended to be too broad. This means that the applicant gets an extra period of time for amending the patent before it can be granted and hence before fees have to be paid. Other reasons for broad claims are to get an overview of a field from the examiners perspective - they site a spread of patents that knock out your claim 1. The claim 1 in this case is to broad for this however.
The claims then branch off, methods, devices, systems each incorporating or excluding details of what might be the envisaged product. This way the broadest possible scope of monopoly is sort - it's an adversarial system really. So the article is bunk when it claims to be fighting overly broad patents - the applicant wouldn't want claim 1 to stand as such a patent wouldn't be enforceable as it's clearly invalid wrt the prior art.
Now back to that quote "trivial changes in drag and drop user interface are not in fact novel enough to warrant a patent". Well the issue if indeed the steps are minor is that drag and drop interfaces are used by a plurality of users in a plurality of places (!). So the field is extremely well worked. A very minor change therefore is critical, it could easily corner the market. Say the change from a static to a dynamic "wait" cursor (egg-timer) - a minor alteration but a very significant one. Now we say such a change is obvious, but we have to assess this question from the time of filing (or more properly the priority date) and from the perspective of the man skilled in the GUI art and in possession of the common knowledge of the GUI field or research. Do citations in the field mean you could produce that inventive step without being inventive. Is it plainly obvious.
In any well worked field it appears to me that it's perfectly reasonable to argue that any small feature that can't be hit for lack of novelty must be inventive as otherwise it would appear in the prior art. That argument can't easily be refuted; though I think it lacks rigour, personally.
FWIW.
[I was a UK Patent Examiner a few years ago.]
Re: (Score:2)
Software makes changes trivial (Score:2)
[snip]
Now back to that quote "trivial changes in drag and drop user interface are not in fact novel enough to warrant a patent". Well the issue if indeed the steps are minor is that drag and drop interfaces are used by a plurality of users in a plurality of places (!). So the field is extremely well worked. A very minor change therefore is critical, it could easily corner the market. Say the change from a static to a dynamic "wait" cursor (egg-timer) - a minor alteration but a very significant one. Now we say such a change is obvious, but we have to assess this question from the time of filing (or more properly the priority date) and from the perspective of the man skilled in the GUI art and in possession of the common knowledge of the GUI field or research. Do citations in the field mean you could produce that inventive step without being inventive. Is it plainly obvious.
In any well worked field it appears to me that it's perfectly reasonable to argue that any small feature that can't be hit for lack of novelty must be inventive as otherwise it would appear in the prior art. That argument can't easily be refuted; though I think it lacks rigour, personally.
The problem is that there is a serious difference between most industry/scientific disciplines and software (and I have worked in both). People don't go through all of the citations in the industry when trying to invent "new" things in software. They look at a few things, sure, but mostly they play around and pull things out of their butts. The thing is that in software it is ridiculously easy to try "new" things and "invent" things because it is so malleable. It would be like making shapes out of polymer
Re: (Score:2)
Sound novel to me!
I totally get where you're at, it may have been too subtle, but where I stated the argument that the ~appearance of novel features in a well-worked field implies inventiveness~ I tried to intimate that I don't buy the argument but can't readily refute it.
Moreover I'd agree that software is distinct from other areas of industry and have argued such myself - I'd like t
The Witcher Interface (Score:2)
And my guess is, the 4 month old Witcher is hardly the first application to do this.
ypatterns? (Score:2)
Doesn't matter whether or not prior art exists (Score:1)
Stop searching for prior art, doesn't matter who came up with the idea first when its so obvious and simple as this.
Just say no.
You /.ers are reading it all wrong (Score:2)
_Smart_ drag and drop: Hit the joint, and drop a stamp
Has no one else here even heard of LSD?
Innovative, yes, but there is prior art (Score:1)
However, this patent wouldn't actually cover such an application, because, under Windows, there'
Re:SIGCHI slashdotters could help out! (Score:4, Informative)
Two points: First, who cares if Yahoo patents some tiny area? This patent is so specific that few will ever feel the need to violate it. Second, this patent sucks because it's a software patent, not because it's obvious. I have several software patents. You need them in the US to protect your company from your competitor's software patents. However, the EU got it right when they rejected the concept. The world would be better off without them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Without a deep reading of the patent application: For possible prior art have a look at Patrick Baudisch's (Microsoft Research) work on drag-and-pop. Drag-and-pop is d
Re: (Score:2)
Not all patent errors are honest. This patent [uspto.gov], for example, was submitted by an author who knew it was invalid. Check out the link to patent 5,068,063 cited by the patent. This semiconductor patent is citing a patent about carbon p
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The way I would interprert the description of the patent is this: as soon as you start to drag an image, icons for GiMP and a trash can would appear next to the icon you're dragging. As soon as you start to drag a text file, icons for vi and a trash can would appear. And so on. In other words, it doesn't cover any of the things you think it does.
That's not saying there isn't prior art, but it isn't about having drop targets. It's about having source-specific drop targets appear dynamically. It is mor
Re:OS X Trash Can/ Disk Ejector (Score:2)
The way I would interprert the description of the patent is this: as soon as you start to drag an image, icons for GiMP and a trash can would appear next to the icon you're dragging. As soon as you start to drag a text file, icons for vi and a trash can would appear. And so on. In other words, it doesn't cover any of the things you think it does.
But changing targets based on what you are dragging isn't terribly uncommon either. Right in front of me I can pick up a text file from the OS X Finder and drag it to the trash can to delete it. If I pick up a disk image, the trash can becomes an eject symbol (fixing the old and hideous mixed metaphor of dragging your external hard disk to the "trash"). I know I have seen similar behavior in IRIX and NeXT, but I don't have either handy.
Something else interesting is "spring-loaded" folders and variants,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You other posters will be hearing from my lawyers soon.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
(link is to latest journal. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can imagine.)
Re: (Score:1)