Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Seeks Patent On Virtual Desktop Pager
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?"
to the Patent Office! Because you just know they don't read slashdot.... if they did, they wouldn't approve half the patents they approve.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Write a well thought-out email or better snail mail to the US Patent Office that explains the prior art and why this patent should not be granted. The more people do this, the better!
I remember that one.
Although as far as my recollection goes it was called tvwm (Toms Virtual WM)
In other words, the same exact pager that Enlightenment has had since the nineties. Lesson to be learned: in a patent-crazy society, patent defensively.
Heck, if enough people inform them of the substantial amount of prior art relating to this patent, and the sheer length of time it has been in use (at LEAST 12 years), perhaps they may take notice.
... you should too.
Software using this has got to go back around 10 years or so... what have we got:
Sun Microsystems OpenLook Virtual Window Manager (olvwm)... in use prior to 1992
FVWM... in use prior to 1994 (cant find exact date)
any more that date back a reasonable time?
I've already sent a message to 'usptoinfo@uspto.gov' with the subject Patent '#20030189597 Virtual desktop manager'
"How is it possible to file a patent on someone elses technology, and use a picture of their product to describe it?"
You can file a patent application on someone else's technology, and shame on the original inventor for not doing so. (That's the idea, I don't agree with it).
But to use someone else's trademark on your application is a clear violation of copyright and trademark law.
I think this has to be the first time I've read such a posted patent and come to the conclusion the submitter is absolutely, 100%, right. While I see a few apparently new (but not exactly non-obvious) features (a preview button is on one of the variants), the vast majority of the inventions covered by this patent have abundant prior art, dating back to the late eighties at the latest. And, to the best of my knowledge, while Microsoft has made some of these features available in bonus packs or add-ons or downloadable features since the mid-nineties, I can't recall MS ever bothering to actually include the features by default in their operating systems. It's like they're taking credit for something they've only ever supported grudgingly.
Full marks to Microsoft for blatent patent abuse.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
As I recall, the applicant is required to present the closest prior art, and explain how their invention is a significant improvement. Seems like I've seen such prior art listed in other patents.
Now, if only MS would get havily penilized for not providing readily available prior art. Unfortunately, I think they just lose in court the first time they try to enforce the patent, and everyone loses except the lawyers.
Can I buy stock in lawyers? They always seem to win when everyone else loses.
Perhaps you are forgetting the current patent licensing they started enforcing with the makers of compact flash and other digital media for the DOS filesytem?
There is nothing wrong with someone working hard on a software product and protecting their rights to it. Not all developers want to give everything away. You don't seem to understand that GPL software is a noble concept, but without people getting paid to program or people starting their own software businesses, there is no incentive to keep programming. I would hate to only be able to program for fun, but work a crap job to pay bills. I wonder how many GPL zealots work at coffee shops and comic book stores instead of software companies where they could get paid for doing what they love. (And may even be very talented at).
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
For a patent application, the applicant attempts to include everything under the sun under their claims. Of course, it's unclear how throughly the patent office will go through their claims, but it's not a given that what MS has claimed is what they're going to get. They may end up with nothing, or with claims so specific that they're nigh useless.
GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
No, this is not quite expose. The big difference is that you don't see the actual virtual desktop and the scaled version at the same time... you toggle between them. Also, expose shrinks windows and places them where it can. Multiple full screen windows will not end up in the same place (which would be pointless).
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 rectangles representing open windows on that desktop. Hence, the "each pane contains a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop."
At least, that's my take on things...
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.
Sig under construction since 1998.
The abstract doesn't say that they are trying to patent a virtual desktop switcher. They are trying to patent a way of displaying all virtual desktops to the user, as scaled down versions.
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...
So you have an uptime longer than a year on a Win2K box? I assume that means you haven't patched in the past year. ie. 2003 "The Year of the Worm"... Please patch that box and take it off of your network now. You are either an idiot or a liar.
Un-news
This patent application is thorough, obviously written by someone who knows how to push patents through. The last three pages of the PDF have a listing of 25 claims that they say are the embodiment of the "invention." I'm not a patent examiner, and am not in the place to refute each of them. However, its clear that they aren't claiming a patent on basic pager functionality. As mentioned elsewhere, they give examples of prior art.
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...
If I had ignored the fact it was an application, I'd have criticised the USPTO, instead of just Microsoft.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This page 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.
If people really care about this and aren't just into recreational bitching, then write the patent office a letter with the appropriate details so that the clerks at least have the opportunity of being made aware of this stuff.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
May I remind you it's a patent application and not a granted patent : it means it is not yet evaluated (in technical term : examined) by the USPTO (whatever you're thinking of the USPTO quality).
The abstract is only informational. If you want to know the scope of the invention M$ wants to protect, please read the claims.
I would like to remind the people that this is an application, not an issued patent. Microsoft has a right to try and get a patent on this. That doesnt mean they will.
The claims presented in this application will likely be signifigantly different if it becomes allowed.
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.
The only claim to this patent *application* that appears to me to have any merit at all is the one for the full screen display of the pager. I don't recall ever having seen one of those (but that doesn't mean they didn't exist).
And even that claim is questionable. It appears to me that the FvwmPager might have been able to do that in 1997 with the proper configuration. Some people believe that fvwm2 config files are turing-complete :-)
Question:
Response:
I haven't seen this implemented before.
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.
Examiners don't spend 18 months reviewing prior art. All applications filed after 2000 publish at 18 months. This does not mean they become a patent (that is "issued"). It merely becomes public knowledge. This means that patent applications that were never issued are still searchable as prior art instead of just getting tossed in the circular file, never to be seen again.
/. populace when it comes down to even the basics of the patent system is astounding.
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
We'd eliminate half the problems if we rejected outright any patent who's title was something like:
A method for doing X "on the Internet.
<sigh>
That XP Powertoys app really stinks too. I was amazed at how useless it really was. I tried to use it for about two weeks, but apps kept moving back to the current window, and wouldn't stick in their respective desktop.
Now...if I had a seperate monitor for each desktop, that would be cool.
Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses.
Think about it. MS can grab all these bogus patents knowing there is plenty of prior art. (In this case, this has been a feature of Unix desktops before Linux or MS Windows). Now we all know that MS will get these patents. So, small time Linux distributions will not have the money to fight this in court. Would Red Hat or even SuSE/Novell want to fight something like this? Patent away the features of Linux or make it very hard for Linux to add new features. I guess MS feels they cannot just beat Linux on technical merits, so why not beat them on Legal merits?
/. users should just start picking random features and applying for a patent? Could be an easy way to make some cash?
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.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
As I understand it (and I guess I should point out that I *don't* understand it), the claims can fall into different sorts of categories. Some are central to the patent, and some are more background for it. I would say that if any claim that your patent could be used to lock a technology has substantial, well published prior art that has been around for 10 or more years, then it's just a bad patent.
The problem seems to me to be this idea that patent attorneys have that the goal of a patent submission is to test the waters of what you can get, and then revise downward. Why not put the burden on the submitter to make sure that they claims are reasonable and make it worth their while to be overly narrow in order to ensure that it doesn't get rejected?
Well yes, business model patents and others (though business models are the worst offenders) where the claim is, "X is an established thing or process, but I propose to do it in conjunction with Y!" are absurd.
It reminds me of something that an executive producer once said (I think it was JMS talking about his time on Murder She Wrote, where he was not producing, but had some authority as a writer, perhaps story editor or some such). Someone came to him with a "story idea". He asked for details and the guy said, "Amnisia". He replied, "ok, what's your idea?" They guy was confused and said again, "Amnisia" as if that were, in and of itself, a story idea. The pitch, needless to say, was over.
Patents are sort of the same. People are used to throwing noise at the patent office like "Widget on the Internet" and they really seem to expect that this noise is worth someone's valuable time to review. Is it going to become necessary to establish a reputation system? Should people be charged more to submit based on how likely it is that their patent will be a joke?
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.
Yeah, you know, I could have swore that Micro$oft was the LAST operating system to gain this feature.... wierd to think they are claiming to be the only inventor and user of said technology.
I mean, does ANYONE still have faith in the Patent Office? Does it still provide ANY functionality other than letting big companies sue everyone? Do they WORK for MicroSCO?
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
...that there's TONS of prior art available that does exactly what they're describing here.
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.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
We'd better be careful with these frequent Patent articles... next thing you know slashdot will be declared a terrorist organization for taking part in the "electronic terrorism" of attacking an official government website.
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
First we have to get Europe's patent system under pressure then we can go for the US and wipe the lawyers out.
There is a lack of an US movement against software patents. But everybody in Europe shall better support AEL and FFII and the others.
http://wiki.ael.be
It had pagers and virtual desktops in multiple incarnations and ways. I will admit I have not read ALL of thepatent claim - just about half of it. I understand legalese and some of the claims in the patent are prior art. Why? I wrote the code myself to do just that in enlightenment. But this is some of them. It would be easy to prove prior art - just give me a day in court :)
Others I haven't actually seen before, though I would say they do fall under "obvious to someone skilled in the art". Well they are obvious to me - several were always on my "i'd love to do that" list and i had on the cards, but simply X didnt provide the horsepower or api to do it, so it was left out for practical reasons. They are simple effects like "take a snapshot of your screen and then just scale it up and down as an animation transition". It's really BASIC stuff done repeatedly in many ways. E has done this for pagers, well parts of them. It did it with induvidual windows - it'd scale and zoom in on a window as you moused over it (within the pager) so you could better make out the thumbnail contents.
Now what I don't know is if you can deny a claim when sufficient parts of it art prior art and most of the rest is obvious to someone skilled in the art.
IMHO the USPTO should try and keep some experts in fields on retainer - at the very least start a search on existing experts who work and develop/create within those fields. if they get an application that falls within that field, fire off some e-mails and ask the people who are the real experts for known prior art or obvious. The USPTO calls the final shots, but at least they get some good informed responses. If they wanted guaranteed response times they could pay them on retainer too. Since it is a filed patent application and public knowledge, there is no harm in making these questions public BEFORE it gets granted and then has to be tested in court.
--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------