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?"
Someone at the patent office needs to wake up and smell the coffee. We are going to have a situation like the landrush on domain names as a few bottom feeders run off and patent every idea in the book, and if the past is any indication, the patent office will grant patents on whoever is the first to show up, regardless of prior developments or use.
"Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
...the patent can't be granted because there's another piece of software that used that same pager-thingy before the patent was filed?
I use a program called CodeTek Virtual Desktop for Mac OSX, and the abstract in that application sounds an awful lot like it.
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?
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
It is interesting that they don't cite any references in their application. But if you do a quick search for "virtual desktop" you'll get a dozen results with dozens more references. This patent application should be thrown out pretty quickly. This patent was filed in 2002, while a quick search shows references in the 1987 to 1995 time frame.
Thank you for your application fees. Don't call us, we'll call you.
I actually registered a copy of enable Virtual Desktop, one of the best vdm's and pagers out there for any operating system as far as i'm concerned.
Wtf, is there a way for us to comment on the patent by sending all this prior art somewhere?
-T
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
From the document:
The figure is a sketch that clearly shows a KDE desktop. So they seem to think they have somehow improved the idea of virtual desktops. Of course, I was not able to see anything in the application that looked very new to me.
I'm sure the patent will be granted, MS will sue someone, then the FSF or some other body will get involved and 5 years from now some judge wil rule against MS and it will be the end.
I was looking through the patent application pdf at (http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/apor/2003/06/7 39300.shtml)
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?
From the USPTO abstract:
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
fvwm was doing this in 1993!
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
The way it's described in the patent, the 'preview' of all of the desktops is hidden until the user specifically triggers it, whereas all the other virtual desktops I'm familiar with have an omnipresent preview on your current desktop.
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...
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?
Donate free food here
I was browsing around Microsofts site awhile ago, and came accross this application.
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
Just your average Farmer
Is C&D letter enough? I will point you to VirtulDub, GPL application for video processing and its ASF support.
The united States is a Nuclear power because we have nuclear weapons, not because we are forced to use them.
Any company fighting MS toe to toe is soon to find themselves a new CEO.
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.
When some tech company applies for a software patent, the USPTO should post the application to a specially created website, along with all relevant details. They should then post a reward -- $50 or whatever -- to each person who submits a unique instance of valid prior art, maybe up to 3 instances to keep it cheap. Then if after a certain number of days, like 30 or 60 or whatever, the patent review processor takes the information that has been submitted about the patent and uses that to *help* determine if the patent should even be awarded.
I think this could help avoid 99% of blatant patent abuse problems.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
It's already hosted at pat2pdf
enlightenment supported these features back in 97 / 98. I'm trying to find a copy of the SuSE CD that was being handed out at linux expo (the donnie barnes one, not the IGN one) by bodo & co so we can have some documented proof, not just timestamps on a computer.
Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
Some Random UI Hacker
MS clearly states in the application that these figures show prior art.
Can you sue someone for getting a patent they know is invalid simply so that they can sue you?
I mean, if tit ever came down to Microsoft suing RedHat over a desktop pager, I have almost no doubt RedHat could prove, at least to the standards of a civil trial, that Microsoft had KNOWN, absolutely, that their idea was not original.
Then, they had intentionally gotten a patent they knew was invalid. I don't think getting an invalid patent is illegal (possibly defrauding the patent office?) but shouldn't it be illegal to do something like that for the purpose of a lawsuit?
That's abuse, whether they're successful or not.
Typical of the Slashbot pseudo-libertarians to argue that someone isn't abusing the law if they haven't finished yet. Geez.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
A. Microsoft costs the patent office time on this, and that's our money.
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).
SquarePatns is exactly right. I'm certainly no patent lawyer, but as I understand the new USPTO process, MS must have opted to make their application public. This means they can start to contact infringers even though the patent hasn't been awarded, but it also means that the patent is public before it has been awarded. Making it pulblic before award allows interested parties to do exactly as suggested here -- dispute it with relevant patents or prior art. Doing so will force MS to acknowledge the prior art and explain to the USPTO why and how their idea is different.
Yes, the whole thing could end up in court anyway, but chances are that if there is significant enough dispute, it won't be awarded until that is resolved.. which is probably better than allowing it to be awaded and then trying to defeat it with prior art. When all is said and done, if it isn't different enough, then they don't deserve the patent, but if they indeed came up with something that nobody has either already patented or implemented and released, then don't they deserve their patent?
Just getting the prior art mentioned and explained fixes a lot of problems with the USPTO in my opinion -- as it stands now, the USPTO has created a situation where they want to rely on the filer to give them a clue about what might be related, yet at the same time they've created a disincentive for the filer to do that.
So, those of you who know there is prior art, please take advantage of the process.. and try to contact the authors of that prior art and get them to talk to the USPTO as well (they, being a creator, will probably be listend to more seriously by the USPTO).
Yeah, I'm feeling cowardish today :-)
If you look at the NT 4 resource kit from Microsoft itself, you will notice a little app called TopDesk (copyrights held by MS and Sanford Staab) and originally created for Windows NT 3.1 (I thought NT started at 3.5 but I have not kept up with my Ancient History).
It seems like it does all that is described by this new patent. Funny it took them 15 years to get around to filling for the patent.
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).
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
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.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
ctwm and tvtwm were one of the oldest window managers with virtual desktops, derived from one of the oldest X window managers twm (uwm was older).
Here is an interesting family tree of twm descendants, showing the first virtual desktop window managers appearing in 1990/1991.
I heard from someone who works for a company that files for many patents that the company intentionally files for patents that they know they're not going to pursue. They do this to protect themselves from other companies filing for that patent because a previous patent application constitutes prior art. /. reader have experience with this patent filing for the sake of disabling competitors from getting that patent?
Maybe that's what M$ is doing? Maybe they knew that there is not a snowballs chance in hell that they're gonna get this one but decided to file for it anyway just in case? Does any
Even so, I am absolutely baffled why on earth they are using the Gnome taskbar... I mean, it's not even a screenshot!!! Someone actually went through a considerable amount of trouble sketching up that foot!?!??!
You don't think enough... therefore you better not be!
Note: This represents a FULL Screen, not some cute little VWM sitting in the lower right of your desktop.
Desktop Manager screenshot
When you click on the leftmost button on the Desktop Manager, your current Windown zooms-out to occupy it's appropriate spot, and the Manager zooms-out to show all of the defined workspaces/desktops.
This is not like fvwm, Starfish/HP Dashboard or any other kind of workspace manager.
Get a clue and get educated about a topic before you shoot your collective mouths off.
--ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!