Slashdot Mirror
Apple Tries to Patent Fast User Switching
Ashcrow writes "An article from The Register points out Apple's attempt to patent fast user switching. It seems that Steve Jobs admits that Microsoft beat them to the punch but believes Panther's implementation is superior."
Incidentally, it does, however, cover uses such as the Mac OS' Location Manager, which switches network-related settings according to the user's location. The patent extends that idea to cover other, more personal settings and data, that might depend on the user's location/identity, ie. the computer's owner as public individual and as company employee.
I think that this is really the point here. Apple's got a great implementation of multi-environment profiles and they want to protect that. Jobs himself said that WinXP got there first...It'd just be odd to retract and deny that.
Anybody remember when Apple patented "lighted" computer devices? Everybody was guesstimating that it meant your new iMac would, at the press of a key, turn into the center of a disco party for you and your friends. Mostly we are inaccurate, since we never know what's behind the doors at 1 Infinite Loop.
Finally, when contacted, Jeff Bezos said, "Been there, done that!"
As much as we'd all love to see Apple successfully sue Microsoft, It won't happen. This reminds me of the 1998 lawsuit about Microsoft ripping off the "look and feel" of Mac OS.
The article even points out weaknesses in the strategy (I know, I know, I broke the slashdot rule by reading the article).
"At WWDC, Jobs admitted that Microsoft had beaten Apple to market by offering such a feature in Windows XP, but he claimed Apple's implementation was the better of the two." and "The downside - if Apple's intent is to outflank Microsoft; we're only guessing here - is that the patent refers to multiple personas of a single user, not multiple users".
Microsoft is an EXTREAMLY WEALTHY corporation. When it comes down to how the legal system works, the more money you can spend on lawyers the more you can get away with. Hell, even the GOVERNMENT didn't beat them. I know they were convicted of being a monopoly, but really, what has happened since then? They still hold a monopoly on the desktop market, they still own windows and office, and they still infest every windows computer with a copy of internet explorer. I'd say that they really won.
I'd love to see apple (or anyone else) be able to truely step up to them. Sadly, as long as they continue to have as much money as they do, there is no chance
----
Squirrel
That's like saying the hammer drives a nail into wood, is different from the hammer that drives a nail into wood, but also makes funny noises.
Alt-F1, Alt-F2... I can switch between root and myself in about 1/8 of a secord or less. Its amazing really. I bit longer to switch between console and X.
The point is the simple and ease of use of the GUI to switch users. Not text only console, not remote access like vnc or xwindows.
My kids use fast user switching on XP, and its very stable and works quite well. They can switch users, and not disturb the desktop of the last person using the computer. Some households cant afford multiple computers, fast user switching is a good idea. I love apples eye-candy approach, its faster than microsoft's, 1 second switch. They even let you use a pulldown on the menu with each users picture (if you change your login photo).
Anyone know if KDE/Gnome or even Xfree is planning something like this? I heard talk about multiple X servers, but its not out of the box simple use, of even possible.
It's not only possible, but some of us have been doing this for over ten years. If Apple pursues this patent, I'm definitely calling prior art on this.
Fast user switching isn't even close to running separare x sessions, not is it similar to switching between virtual desktops. Fast user switching unloads part of the OS and logs in another user, this is much more efficient than loading multiple xsessions and switching between them. If apple pursues this patent, the only one that could call prior art on this is microsoft and as stated in the article, apple's implementation is different than microsofts and that is what they are pursuing the patent on.
OS-X is UNIX in the meaningful sense of the word. If you want to be pedantic use the little registered trademark-circle-R. Lawyers play their games, the rest of the world names things by how they work and what they do.