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?"

Comments

nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[maharg]

It's crap, but it does provide the same functionality

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[tunah]

Microsoft also has an (unsupported) utility for this, one of their XP Powertoys.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[squiggleslash]

You know, Slashdot often posts articles on patents for apparently obvious inventions, or patents for things that very obviously have prior art, where usually the facts are rather less certain than the submitter assumes.

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.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[BeeazleBub]

This goes back to windows 3.1. I guess the most widely used utility of the time that made use of the technology was HP's Dashboard product circa 1992. This product pretty much set the standard for how Virtual desktops would be used and visualized. I know all current VD's work as similar if not identical manner to the Dashboard tool.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[ZoneGray]

I'm not sure whether it's patent abuse by MS, or simply defensive patenting to avoid becoming a target. If nothing else, by filing for the patent first, they get themselves a little protection from subsequent patent claims.

The problem is in the patent system... once the system is in place, however flawed, you can't blame people for trying to get the most out of it, because they're competing with other people who are trying to make the most of it. Shaking our fists at MS will no good, it just means that somebody else will benefit from a flawed system. But the consumer loses either way.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[hummassa]

KDE and GNOME has it since 0.x days... :-)

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[PetiePooo]

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...

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[squiggleslash]

I did read the thing in it's entirety. The fact is Microsoft is abusing the patent process by applying for this patent - this is clearly not something Microsoft invented.

If I had ignored the fact it was an application, I'd have criticised the USPTO, instead of just Microsoft.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Mandrake]

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.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Anonymous Coward]

http://home.eol.ca/~andgur/software/goscreen.html

Beats anything in powertoys hands down.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[jsebrech]

The earliest I can remember virtual desktops in a microsoft gui was symantec's pc tools 2.0 for windows 3.1. Which dates back to late 93 IIRC. Apart from the fact that it maked windows 3.1 twice as unstable (quite a feat, as anyone who ever ran windows 3.1 knows), it was a really fine environment. A powerful file manager with built-in zip folder operations, virtual desktops, 3D window borders (at the time, for me, that was a major advancement, sad, i know), and *gasp* desktop icons (which didn't appear in windows proper till windows 95).

The virtual desktop feature was especially nicely designed, since you saw minipictures of each virtual desktop and could drag windows between the minipictures. And you could password protect some desktops (which allowed you to have one desktop for the kids, and one for porn).

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Greyfox]

I seem to recall that the Sun machines I played with at school in '87 had this capability. CDE's had virtual desktops for as long as I can remember.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[J. J. Ramsey]

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.

The Enlightenment window manager does that already. Look at the lower left corner of of this screenshot.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[mgeneral]

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.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[John_Booty]

Now...if I had a seperate monitor for each desktop, that would be cool.

If you actually had a separate monitor for each desktop, it would be hard to call them virtual at that point, wouldn't it? :P

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Pakaran2]

Well, to start with, Enlightenment has had this capability since I started using it.

I think *most* window managers actually have the ability to handle multiple desktops. I think maybe the very basic default ones don't, but there's definately prior art. What's next, MS patenting the concept of an instant messager that installs automatically with an operating system?

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Minna Kirai]

The Enlightenment window manager does that already. Look at the lower left corner of of this screenshot.

No, it does not do that already. By definition, if I have to look at the "lower left" of the screen to see something, then that something is not taking up the "full screen".

Microsoft's "invention" is to quickly blow up the pager-previews to cover the whole monitor. While not innovative enough to deserve a patent, that's not something you can accomplish today in Enlightenment. This feature is probably meant to compete with Apple's "Expose", and is similar to an enhanced version of Microsoft's "Coolswitch" (accessible since Windows(r) 3.1 by pressing alt+tab); all are quickly accessible modal ways to choose what you want to see, rather than a constant feature of the environment's chrome.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the HP product for MS-Windows is predated
by OLVWM - the Open Look Virtual Window Manager
on Unix systems by 8-10 years. I was using it
in about 1984. In about 1988 I had an assistant
that took care of the MS-Windows systems our company had and he used a product called BigDesk that did the same thing on MS-Windows 3.1.

I suggest that geeks flood the USPTO with citations of prior art on this one. I just called them and they told me to call 703-308-6906
to inform them of prior art. It is much better
to stop this before it is granted than to try and
fight it through the courts after it is granted.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Zork the Almighty]

I also had my first VD (virtual desktop) experience with Sun's CDE. I use to think that the invented the concept. So can we now expect a new round of law suits against MS?

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. WE THOUGHT YOU MEANT VENEREAL DISEASE.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[raster]

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.

Re:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[rixstep]

My great great great great grandfather knew Charles Babbage. They met through Lord Byron; Ada left Babbage for my great great great grandfather later in life.

Anyway, my great great great grandfather and Babbage worked on a virtual desktop back then too.

They initially named it 'Vada' for 'Virtual Ada' but later changed the name, at Ada's behest, to 'Vader'.

I've seen sketches of it; it was really cool.

You may want to mention that

[superwiz]

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.

Re:You may want to mention that

[swordboy]

I don't think that you understand. The US Patent office's function is no longer to get into validity. The new function is simply to accept money and issue patents which become legal weapons for businesses.

Microsoft will probably get this patent and go on to sue anyone using the technology out of existence.

Embrace and extend.

Re:You may want to mention that

[$calar]

I've never used FVWM, but isn't this the same as virtual desktops in any environment/WM? GNOME, KDE, CDE, and others have virtual desktops. KDE even has something called the Pager. FVWM? Maybe they came up with the idea, but it's all over I'd say.

Re:You may want to mention that

[cybermace5]

You know, why doesn't the US Patent Office simply open up a web submission system? Whip up your own patent document, upload it, and it's automatically assigned a number.

It's not really the Patent Office's job to ensure that every patent is totally original and has never been done before. A patent is only really used when the invention ends up in court. If it's not defendable, it will be nullified. However, who wants to sit across from Microsoft in a courtroom? Maybe if you slip and break your leg on the sidewalk in front of their office building. Even in that case you'd probably end up paying $10,000 to repair the scuffmarks you made in the concrete.

Re:You may want to mention that

[XpirateX]

Microsoft will probably get this patent and go on to sue anyone using the technology out of existence.

Translation:

They're "innovating"

Re:You may want to mention that

[ed__]

yay for replying to myself!

from uspto's website:

A protest under 37 CFR 1.291(a) must be submitted in writing, must specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed by application number or serial number and filing date, and must include a listing of all patents, publications, or other information relied on; a concise explanation of the relevance of each listed item; an English language translation of all relevant parts of any non-English language document; and be accompanied by a copy of each patent, publication, or other document relied on. Protestors are encouraged to use form PTO-1449 "Information Disclosure Statement" (or an equivalent form) when preparing a protest under 37 CFR 1.291, especially the listing enumerated under 37 CFR 1.291(b)(1). See MPEP 609. In addition, the protest and any accompanying papers must either (1) reflect that a copy of the same has been served upon the applicant or upon the applicant's attorney or agent of record; or (2) be filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible.

who wants to do it?!

Re:You may want to mention that

[Halo1]

Perhaps their latest rash of applications are more defensive than offensive.

If that were the case, then why are they lobbying so heavily in favour of software patents in Europe? They even went as far as going to individual MEPs and asking them what they wanted (things like free licenses for schools in their constituency etc) in return for supporting the swpat directive. They also went to governments (together with national member organisations from EICTA), urging them to support the swpat directive, because excluding software from patentability would somehow be very bad for our economy.

Re:You may want to mention that

[Lussarn]

I don't think an invention counts until it's done on windows.

Re:You may want to mention that

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do idiots (or astroturfing trolls) always say this and why do other idiots mod them up? Microsoft most certainly does go after people using patents. Just ask the author of VirtualDub

Just because most of these never make it to court is hardly an excuse either. Honestly, how many open source developers do you think could afford to face Microsofts high-paid lawyers in a patent case?

Re:You may want to mention that

[Sam H]

Show me an example of Microsoft suing anyone for patent infringement.
They haven't. They don't do business that way.

Of course they do business that way. They just don't need that when they have the opportunity to buy their competitor. But when the competitor cannot be bought (think of a free software enthusiast in his garage), they don't even need to sue, intimidation is enough. See for instance the VirtualDub issue.

Re:You may want to mention that

[dnoyeb]

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.

Re:You may want to mention that

[Dairyland.Net]

From the USPTO FAQ:

#50 How does one file protest on patents that are pending?

Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved. A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the publication of the application or the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311, whichever occurs first; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible. For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm for the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 1900.

Re:You may want to mention that

[Trolling4Dollars]

At least that's what they WANT you to think. Apparently, it's worked on some people.

I wonder how long before they try to patent mount points and symlinks?

Re:You may want to mention that

[ajagci]

They haven't. They don't do business that way.

Yes, you are right that Microsoft, so far hasn't done that. They haven't needed to, since they have been able to dominate the industry through other means. So, Microsoft is not guilty of any special kind of abuse of the patent system, they simply abuse it in the same way every large company abuses the patent system.

There are plenty of folks suing them over frivolous patents.

And how is creating more "frivolous patents" going to help with that?

Perhaps their latest rash of applications are more defensive than offensive.

There is no such thing as a "defensive patent": sooner or later, a company has to assert, or at least threaten to assert, the claims in one of their patents if it is going to do them any good. And that makes the patent offensive.

Sometimes people think that a patent is used "defensively" in order to establish priority. That's nonsense--a simple disclosure does the same thing and is nearly free. Even Microsoft wouldn't waste $50k-$100k on that.

In fact, most likely, Microsoft is filing patents in order to allow them to get a portfolio for cross-licensing. And that, in itself, is anti-competitive because it ends up keeping people out of the market. It just happens that most of the big companies are in on that kind of anti-competitive behavior.

Re:You may want to mention that

[TheSpoom]

If it's not defendable, it will be nullified.

If it's not defendable, it will be settled. Most people can't fund a court case against a giant like Microsoft unless they're another giant, in which case they won't be sued anyway.

This has got to stop

[ralf1]

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.

Re:This has got to stop

[w3svc_animal]

According to the official job announcement for a Patent Examiner vacancy (special emphasis on ELECTRICAL & COMPUTER ENGINEERING, COMPUTER SCIENCE) the duties are as follows:

Reviewing patent applications to assess if they comply with the basic format, rules and legal requirements, determining the scope of the protection claimed by the inventor, researching relevant technologies to compare similar prior inventions with the invention claimed in the patent applications, and communicating the examiner's findings to patent practitioners/inventors with reasons on the patent ability of applicant's inventions.
Patent Examiners are responsible for the quality, productivity, and timely processing of patent applications, which is the basis of their performance evaluation.

See the actual posting HERE

I'm not trying to be glib, and I know one person cannot change the world, but with all of the unemployed /.'ers out there, one of you could take a leap and actually apply for this position.

Let us know how it goes.

Seems familiar

[SpiffyMarc]

Microsoft reminds me of that kid who always has to be "reminded" of the rules whenever he plays a game with the other kids...

"No Billy, that's not your toy. That's FVWM's toy. Say you're sorry!"

Prior art..

[kimmo]

Wasn't there also something like "wintop" in some NT3.51 resource kit, in addition to Fvwm pager (and possbily some others)?

Direct Link

[huha]

Those of you who don't want to search for the document, this is the direct URL:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1 =P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnu m.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030189597'.PGNR.&OS=DN/2 0030189597&RS=DN/20030189597

It took ages to find it... *sigh*

-huha

Re:Direct Link

[TwistedGreen]

And for those of you who don't want to have to filter out the spaces by hand:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnu m.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030189597'.PGNR.&OS=DN/2 0030189597&RS=DN/20030189597

Re:Direct Link

[tunah]

Posted by timothy on Thursday February 26, @03:37AM

by huha (755976) on Thursday February 26, @03:41AM (#8385557)

It took ages to find it... *sigh*

Major Corporation...

[GypC]

... patents idea with lots of prior art.

News at 11.

vtwm

[bluestar]

I'm willing to admit that I'm old enough to remember (and use) vtwm, or Virtual Tom's Window Manager. A version of the venerable twm that added virtual desktops.

This was circa 1990, even before fvwm. I think xrooms was earlier still.

Re:vtwm

[TheAcousticMotrbiker]

I remember that one.
Although as far as my recollection goes it was called tvwm (Toms Virtual WM)

Re:vtwm

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Actually, tvtwm. Yes, I've used it. I also used (and continue to use) its successor, "ctwm".

From the tvtwm man page:

COPYRIGHT

Portions copyright 1988 Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation; portions copyright 1989 Hewlett-Packard Company and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, See X(1) for a full statement of rights and permissions.

Re:vtwm

[mjfrazer]

It was tvtwm. Tom's virtual tab window manager. It was built on top of twm: tab window manager. Although twm was often called tom's window manager because Tom LaStrange wrote it.

Re:vtwm

[foxtrot]

I'm willing to admit that I'm old enough to remember (and use) vtwm, or Virtual Tom's Window Manager.

Sort of. :)

vtwm was a different fork.

twm was "Tab Window Manager"-- window managers previous to that didn't have the object at the top of the window (called a tab in this case) to do the window manipulation with. However since it was written by a guy named Tom LaStrange, it also was known as "Tom's Window Manager."

vtwm involved a bunch of folks taking twm and adding virtual screen capabilities to it, the same thing Tom LaStrange was doing at Solbourne (remember them?) for swm (Solbourne Window Manager, of course). swm evolved into tvtwm, which is where Tom's name was first "officially" put in the window manager's name: "Tom's Virtual Tab Window Manager."

Re:vtwm

[oolon]

I still use vtwm due to its speed, small size, and the lack of wanting to steal large ammounts of desktop space. I believe its short for Virtual TAB window manager. Tom was in tvtwm.

James

Re:vtwm

[geoffspear]

Yeah, but those portions are, most likely, stuff from twm and X (X11R4, specifically, if it was 1988) itself.

Relying on a mostly useless google search and my failing memory, tvtwm was apparently based on the X11R5 version of twm, which would mean it came out in late 1993 at the earliest, which is around the time I remember first using it.

Of course, one of the documents I found in said google search mentions that in 1993 all of the workstation manfacturers agreed that mwm would be the only window manager and they'd stop making any other ones, so clearly tvtwm never existed and we all hallucinated using it.

CodeTek Virtual Desktop?

[The I Shing]

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?

Protest to the Patent Office

[Anonytroll]

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!

Dreaming Prior Art ...?

[handy_vandal]

You know, I had a dream that I was using such a thing once; what was it called? -- yes, FvwmPager! Weird, eh?

Can a dream constitute prior art?

-kgj

Innovative

[r0ckflite]

Ah, but you don't understand. MS's patent uses xml! That's makes it sufficiently different from all previous desktop pagers. :)

Re:Innovative

[rm007]

Ah, but you don't understand. MS's patent uses xml! That's makes it sufficiently different from all previous desktop pagers.:)

Funny but also (sadly?) true. With the provervial disclaimer IAMAL, but I have worked in R&D labs where were were regularly briefed by the lawyers and harvested for ideas, to be patentable, an idea does not have to be a completely new product area, it just needs to be a way of doing something. So if one step in a process is novel, you can try to patent it. This means, of course, that someone can come around with a different process to do the same thing and they can also try to patent it. In the realm of software, business processes etc. this means that some dubious sounding things can get through - but it also means that there are often work arounds e.g. if one click shopping is patented, add a second step.

Re:Innovative

[rm007]

... sent that last one off while on the phone, so didn't spell check it (sorry for provervial)... I also forgot to mention a point about how to read ridiculous sounding patents - most patents have multiple levels to the claims that they make. The lawyers will have you try for a very broad strategic claim i.e. for the entire category, then as you work through the application, you get more and more specific about the claims that you make. So you try to get by with the everything, but if the broad claims get rejected, you have the details of how you do something everyone else does protected because it is in some way novel.

Power Toys for Windows XP

[Dios]

This is available in XP as a power toy.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/p owertoys.asp

Works fine I guess... never really got used to it myself.

Re:Power Toys for Windows XP

[LedZeplin]

VirtuaWin is what I use at work. It's GPL'd.

MS *doesn't* have a patent on this!

[E-Lad]

They have *applied* for this patent, so they don't actually have it yet. The poster needs to read a bit more before frothing at the mouth.

This means that the USPTO could still be contacted and instances of prior art be submitted.

Re:MS *doesn't* have a patent on this!

[nicky_d]

Well, we can still froth at the mouth about the fact that MS has been brazen enough to *apply* for the patent. And then if the patent is granted, we can froth twice as much.

No references

[Refried Beans]

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.

Re:No references

[Artemis]

Did you bother even reading ANY of the patent application or did you just spout of typical /. drone rhetoric? They specifically mention prior art in several places, and they even include examples of it in the drawings. Give me a break, there is even an entire section of the patent application dedicated to references.

[0013] FIG. 1A is a pictorial diagram illustrating a desktop of a graphical user interface according to the prior art.

[0014] FIG. 1B is a pictorial diagram illustrating one implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

[0015] FIG. 1C is a pictorial diagram illustrating another implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

Patently abusive

[shrubya]

To quote from the patent application

October 9, 2003
Virtual desktop manager
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.

That exactly describes the little rectangles in the toolbar on my Linux box ... from several years ago.

Read the patent...

[larien]

They're not actually trying to patent virtual desktops, they're trying to patent a pager with a preview of each desktop. You know, kind of like Gnome has (and probably KDE as well; can't remember).

Doesn't make it that much better, but at least make sure you're ranting about the right thing.

Re:Read the patent...

[FauxPasIII]

> They're not actually trying to patent virtual desktops, they're
> trying to patent a pager with a preview of each desktop.

Both vtwm 5.4.5a and fvwm 1.24r have previews in their pagers. Granted, these are the latest versions straight out of apt, but I'll lay dollars to donuts that these major feature enhancements haven't been added in after October of 2003 when MS filed the patent in question.

Re:Read the patent...

[JosefK]

Gnome's pager no longer shows full preview icons, but I believe KDE's can. And I'm pretty sure I recall that enlightenment's pager can show basically a full mini picture of the contents of each app window in a desktop.

I haven't read the patent, but I have installed the virtual desktop manager on my XP box, and the way it does previews is not in the pager itself (it just shows round icons with numbers for each desktop) but with a preview button. Click on the button, and the screen is divided into four preview images of your desktops. Click on the desktop you want, and it switches to that desktop. Sort of like expose for virtual desktops, I guess.

enable Virtual Desktop

[lscoughlin]

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

Prior Art

[RailGunner]

FvwmPager would definately be considered Prior Art - but - this is the United States Government, and let's face it.. government employees are often behind the curve, and many of them have probably never heard of Linux, or X, or Fvwm, or are even aware of the existence of Window Managers in general. So why don't we tell them?

(Gets out Soapbox) So why don't we give the USPTO and Congress a good old fashioned snail mail slashdotting and try to convince them that while software copyrights on source code is fine, that software patents are patently stupid.

C'mon - who's with me? Anyone want to step up and coordinate this effort?

Let's write letters and Slashdot the USPTO! And the US Senate! And The House! Here's the USPTO Mailing address -

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
USPTO Contact Center (UCC)
Crystal Plaza 3, Room 2C02
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

http://www.senate.gov for finding your state's senator. http://www.house.gov for finding your district's representative.

Re:Prior Art

[ip_vjl]

many of them have probably never heard of Linux, or X, or Fvwm, or are even aware of the existence of Window Managers in general

Maybe if you actually look at the patent application you'll see that they (Microsoft) INCLUDE a representation of both KDE and Gnome implementations in their drawings.
See page 2 (tiff) of their application. They're not trying to pretend that virtual desktops don't exist. They're trying to describe a slightly different way of doing it that is related (but not the same) as existing methods.

This application doesn't look like their trying to patent the concept of virtual desktop pagers, but a specific implementation of one. This patent app would fall under the broad cateogory of being an incremental improvement of an existing invention.

The question the patent office will need to face is whether the claims are unique enough that this specific implementation warrants a patent. This patent wouldn't cover all virtual desktop pagers, just ones that use the method they describe in their claims.

It's an application.

[FreeLinux]

It isn't a patent yet. Search for applications rather than patents.

Anyone actually looked at the patent application?

[N4m0r]

It seems like Microsoft is claiming they have built a better mouse trap so to speak. They do not seem to be claiming they invented virtual desktops.
From the document:

[0013] FIG. 1A is a pictorial diagram illustrating a desktop of a graphical user interface according to the prior art.

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.

GNOME/KDE Ripoff?

[Leoric]

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?

Re:GNOME/KDE Ripoff?

[Weird O'Puns]

Here's staright link to the pdf: http://www.pat2pdf.com/20030189597.pdf

And this is what it says about these figures in patent application:

[0013] FIG. 1A is a pictorial diagram illustrating a desktop of a graphical user interface according to the prior art.

[0014] FIG. 1B is a pictorial diagram illustrating one implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

[0015] FIG. 1C is a pictorial diagram illustrating another implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

MS clearly states that there is prior art, which makes me think that they aren't patenting desktop pagers but some kind of enhancement to it. (I only had a quick glance at the patent)

Re:GNOME/KDE Ripoff?

[SnowZero]

Yeah, it looks like they think they are the first to support the idea of having different backgrounds on each virtual desktop. I was doing that 8 years ago in X with CTWM... sigh. Enlightenment also does pretty much everything they describe except the animation, and the animation sure sounds a lot like OSX's Expose'. Nothing like being able to put 2 and 2 together and patent the number 4.

Sounds like Apple's Expose.

[G4from128k]

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.

Re:Sounds like Apple's Expose.

[EricWright]

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...

Pager?

[zero_offset]

Another poorly-chosen article title. To most people, this is a "pager". And here is a link to the actual patent application, rather than a generic link to the patent office.

Re:Enlightenment?

[eamacnaghten]

fvwm was doing this in 1993!

There is a difference...

[cheide]

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...

Re:There is a difference...

[alexo]

> 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...

And, as we all know, obvious and stupid patents always get laughed out of the Patent Office.

Re:abstract

[kalidasa]

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.

Um how about the DOS filesystem patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Um how about the DOS filesystem patents?

[Narcissus]

I think you'll find that that whole ordeal actually came down to MS licensing their "reference code", not the actual patents.

They basically said "hey, that code that was always available for free? Well, now you have to pay for it. Feel free to write your own, but we've already got it written for you if you like..."

I already wrote one of those for Windows...

[yeremein]

Here.

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?

Protesting Patents

[what!!!smd]

I was just looking around on the USPTO website and came accross the methods which can be used to protest a pending patent. I am not quite sure where to find evidence that it is prior art, beyond just stating that it has been on my linux box as long as I have used linux. This definatley makes it before XP.

Here is the link to the Patent Protest Document.

Re:Protesting Patents

[what!!!smd]

Well if you read the first section of the document provided in the link from the US Patent Office it states "Any member of the public, including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies, may file a protest under 37 CFR 1.291. " I don't see the connection between AOL making non-compliant webpages but hey whatever.

Re:Abolish Software Patents by Lobby

[bigredradio]

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).

Patent applications and claims

[lysander]

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.

Don't stop at the Abstract. Look at Claims

[Anonymous Coward]

The abstract is a general summary and can be misleading. Take a close look at the claims section. A patent only covers what is in the claims, not the abstract. The claims could be broad or narrow. I'll try to find a link to patent basics for folks. Then if you wish to invalidate a patent, or application, you'll be more effective. (PS I have about a dozen patents on mechanisms and read patents on a daily basis. Can't say they are my favorite bedtime reading).

I actually use MSVDM

[Farmboy]

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

Download the whole patent

[originalhack]

Using pat2pdf, I got a PDF of the whole document including the images. If anyone has a place to host this, I'll email it to them.

Some of the illustrations show a gnome display right down to the foot. What Microsoft seems to be trying to claim is...
1) When you preview, then entire screen is filed with tiled preview images large enough so you can really see what is in each window.
2) The mini-images on the toolbar have the same background properties as the full-scale window.

Not the most innovative patent in the world, but not a slimy attempt to patent the work of others either.

Re:Download the whole patent

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already hosted at pat2pdf

Re:Download the whole patent

[Weird O'Puns]

MS clearly states in the application that these figures show prior art.

Re:Full Screen Preview?

[akiaki007]

I wasn't, but it didn't matter. From what I understand of the "Full-Screen preview" (since I used to do this on XP until i decided it was complete crap) was built into their multi-virtual-desktop powertoy. Anyway, with the powertoy you can have 4 desktops (no more, no less), and when you add the switch buttons to the taskbar, you can click on 1, 2, 3, 4, O - where that O represents the full-screen preview button. What would happen is that the screen would be split into 4 and you would see the applications as they currently are (and if some of them changed while you were on another screen). You'd see everything - kinda cool and all, but not really very practical. I'd prefer to click both buttons and then find the app that I'm looking for that way instead of getting a full-screen mode of all 6 of my virtual screens.

Oddly Enough

[Mandrake]

Oddly enough, we implemented pagers with virtual previews of the windows on multiple desktops in enlightenment in about 1997. And the thing that I find HIGHLY ironic is that it was CmdrTaco (yes, of /.) that submitted the patches to do it. I'll search for an exact date shortly, but I believe it was in late 1997.

Just my 2 cents.

this is a patent application

[ProfBooty]

this is a patent application, not an actual patent. All patents filed after the near end of 2000 are pubished 18 months after they were filed. This is a good thing, as examiners can now search this database of prior art, which is substantially larger than the current USPTO patent database.

As this is only an application, it does not have patent protection.

Borland C

[rel48]

The Borland C compiler for Windows 3.1 shipped with a pager in the early 1990's. It was called "amish desktop" if memory serves. That was over 10 years ago. Talk about prior art!

This is NOT a patent

[ProfBooty]

This is a patent application. The story poster says that in his own comment.

OSS is mentioned in the specification, perhaps you should be less paranoid.

joke

[Mr. Underbridge]

this is a patent application, not an actual patent. All patents filed after the near end of 2000 are pubished 18 months after they were filed. This is a good thing, as examiners can now search this database of prior art, which is substantially larger than the current USPTO patent database.

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.

Re:joke

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 /. populace when it comes down to even the basics of the patent system is astounding.

Re:joke

[udippel]

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.

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.

Re:joke

[Elektroschock]

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

Here's how we fix the system...

[shatfield]

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.

Prior art referenced in patent.

[Godeke]

[0014] FIG. 1B is a pictorial diagram illustrating one implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

[0015] FIG. 1C is a pictorial diagram illustrating another implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktops according to the prior art.

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.

The difference they claim...

[Lars Clausen]

...is being able to easily tell which windows are which. If you look at the related work section, it ends up saying that the similarity of the window representations in the pager is confusing, and that is what must be fixed. So they have added something to make it easier to identify each window.

Kinda like how a number of pagers show window names or grab a scaled view of the window contents continuously. And have been doing so for years. So yeah, I would call it invalid in a heartbeat.

-Lars

Is the patent being misunderstood?

[fatwreckfan]

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...

Re:Is the patent being misunderstood?

[dougnaka]

This IS the same thing that enlightenment's pager does.
It can make miniture pictures of all your apps and you can rearrange them, etc.
Checkout my desktop screenshot Note: this is my desktop on 2.21.03 almost exactly a year ago. And I've run E for at least 5 years.

its not a joke

[ProfBooty]

no joke

I work as an examiner.

The claims presented in this application will likely be signifigantly different if it becomes allowed.

Examiners usually have 10-40 hours based on paygrade to fully examine a case. Keep in mind experts don't need as much time to search, and unless you have a proper legal background to understand the metes and bounds, you may not realize how narrow or broad the claims actually are.

I can not comment on office policy, or validity of the claims for this, or any other patent application.

Re:its not a joke

[Superfreaker]

>>I work as an examiner

Boy, you are in trouble now!

Wait, shouldn't you be reviewing patents instead of posting here?

Re:its not a joke

[ajs]

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.

Re:its not a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, large entities are charged the normal fee and companies with less than 500 employees (there are other criteria such as "did you license the tech to a large entity?"), you qualify for Small Entity Status in which all application, etc fees are literally half the normal fee.

PTO fees

Re:its not a joke

[ckaminski]

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>

Re:its not a joke

[ajs]

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?

Re:its not a joke

[ajs]

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?

Re:its not a joke

[miu]

if someone submits a patent that has obvious prior art dates back more than 10 years, the patent application is immediately rejected, AND the entity filing the application is permanently banned from ever filing any more patent applications.

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.

Re:its not a joke

[ProfBooty]

you need both the technical background and legal training to understand the claims itself.

some of the basics are right here:

http://www.cambiaip.org/Tutorials/Tutorial_1/tut _1 claims.htm

Understanding those basics at least can easily make one realize that the application claims may be very narrow, or very broad. It gets even more hairy when the applicant gives a range in their claim, for example, a value approximatly between 10 and 100. Is 101 approximately 100? Probably, is 110? Maybe. How about 200? It could be as well.

There are lots of procedural things, such as proper antecedent basis for words in the claim, are the claims supported by the specification, the introduction of new matter etc.

Where the technical background comes in, is understanding whether or not there would be sufficent motivation to combine two disparate technologies, if it would be possible to combine two disparate technologies, or even if such a combination would be well known and obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention.

The problem many examiners have is hindsight, just about anything seems obvious in hindsight. This is where all the obviousness comes into play. Hindsight is a common argument utilized by attorneys, and requires a lengthly response to which an examiner explains the explicent or implicent motivation found in the references.

Thats the 30 second summary. For more information, read the manual of patent examining and procedure or contact a patent agent or attorney.

Re:Truth about linux co$t

[Trolling4Dollars]

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.

How to protest the patent!

[Anonymous Coward]

After much digging through the USPTO site, I found out how to protest it

here.

If anyone is dedicated to going through with this thing,
we should be able to stop this patent from being granted.

So SUBMIT the prior art

[nano-second]

So why is everyone posting about how stupid this is and how they used various WMs with this feature ? Why aren't they busy writing up about these WMs and when they used them and submitting it to the patent office ?

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.

Patent application

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

RTFP, indeed!

[linoleo]

They're not actually trying to patent virtual desktops, they're trying to patent a pager with a preview of each desktop. You know, kind of like Gnome has (and probably KDE as well; can't remember).

No, they're not - they're actually showing the Gnome pager as prior art (Figure 1c). You have to go up to Figure 5 to see what they're actually claiming: a method to preview your virtual desktops on the entire display. So you'd click a button on your pager to get, say, all your 2x2 desktops displayed simultaneously at half size. The undeniable advantage is that at half-size you'll see a lot more detail than at pager (say, 1/16) size.

If anyone knows of prior art specifically relating to this kind of preview, please *do* contact the patent office. This isn't going to be so easy to defeat as some here are spouting off without bothering to look at the blasted thing. Give the MS-lawyers some credit - they may be evil, but stupid they're not.

Re:RTFP, indeed!

[linoleo]

I am sure Enlightenment has done this for years. It provides a icon bar where mini-sized windows and applications are viewed and you can see all the windows on all your desktops at the same time. I am sure that it was available years ago - but not sure of the exact date. I was using it in 97 or 98.

Point is, does Enlightenment (or any of the other virtual desktops bandied about) provide a button that maximizes the preview to cover the entire display? *That* is the prior art that would kill this patent. If nobody has thought of it before, they *will* get a patent for this feature, silly as that may strike us.

It's a standard ploy for patent applications: you cast your net wide (all virtual desktops with pagers) in your primary claim, then focus on what you *really* want to get through (the full-screen preview feature) in the subclaims. If you're unlucky and the patent office (or, later, a judge) strikes your primary claim as unreasonably general, you still have the subclaims standing. If you're lucky and the primary claim sneaks through, you have a large impressive club with which to extort license fees, justly or not.

There is a key difference

[alistair]

I think there is a key difference between the KDE, Gnome implementations, Bigdesk for windows etc. and this patent.

Reading the patent document, the key point is that the users hits a key and all the desktops are scaled within the window using animation. So if I have a 3 x 3 virtual desktop and hit the desktop view button, my screen is shrunk to (say) the top left 9th of the screen and 8 other mini desktops become visible. If I select another desktop it zooms towards me filling the screen. They make a number of references to background images and I guess animating 9 different background images for the demo above would look very cool.

I haven't seen this implemented before. The nearest is Mac OS X.3 which allows all application windows to be minimised and switched between, I use it a lot and it is excellent, particularly if you have a number of quicktime movies or similar playing. As I recall, Apple patented this and I think this is Microsoft's answer

Re:There is a key difference

[KjetilK]

Hm, I'm not so sure I agree with you there... I read the claims, and while I'm always getting confused by reading claims, the only thing they could have done, that hasn't been done here is that you could scale each desktop and actually use it... Say you had a bunch of applications open, 2x2 matrix for example, and normally you'd like to work with only one desktop open, but suddenly you want all four. So you scale the whole thing in, get all four desktops on your desktop, and you can use all applications open. That I must admit I haven't seen before. I was too confused by the patent application, but I didn't see that there. Anybody?

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).

Just Wondering

[Jameth]

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?

Email from the last Virtual Desktop brouhaha

[dglo]

Appendix A of this document has some Usenet postings from over a decade ago discussing who came up with the concept of Virtual Desktops.

It looks like the first virtual window manager for X was developed sometime between 1988 and 1990

Full screen pager with fvwm2 in 1997?

[Rick Richardson]

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:

Hi. I would like to set up a Pager the size of a full screen that would only display on that screen and have a sticky button bar with one of the buttons being a transfer to the screen with the Pager.

Response:

http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/archive/9711/msg00138.h tml

Ehmz...try something like starting the Pager in the Init function on a
certain screen

AddToFunc InitFunc
...blabla...your own stuff...
+ "I" Desk 0 0 (or whatever other desk - if necessary)
+ "I" GotoPage 0 0 (or whereever you want your pager)
+ "I" FvwmPager

Don't Forget to add
FvwmPagerGeometry ... (whatever is needed to provide a full-screen)

And then, Make a button like this (on the sticky buttonbar)

*FvwmButtons (1x1, Title Pager, Icon blabla.xpm, Action "GotoPage 0 0")

I didn't test it, but the idea should be right.

How big a difference is it?

[roystgnr]

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.

Re:Post link to site!

[1u3hr]

Geez, can't you post the link instead of us having to copy+paste?

I'm not sure if that was irony or stupidity. Anyway, here's a clickable link to the patent.

OLVWM (OpenLook Virtual Window Manager)...

[shatteredsilicon]

... is the earliest implementation of this that I can remember. This was circa 1993, IIRC, i.e. in the days of Windows 3.x. I was running it on a Sun 3/260 running SunOS 4.1.1. It was a cool upgrade from Sun's standard OLWM... I am not sure I can shout PRIOR ART loudly enough on this one...

Re:No abuse

[squiggleslash]

Yes it is abuse. They're trying to get a patent for something they know full well has a full body of prior art.

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.

Stop whining and just write to the USPTO

[SquarePants]

I often see the posts on /. generally stating that there ought to be a procedure for the public to raise issues of prior art before the USPTO grants a patent. Well, guess what? there is such a procedure. And it is very very simple.

37 C.F.R. 1.291 gives members of the public the right to protest a pending application by simply advising the patent office of any reason why a patent should not issue, including prior art. The essential aspects of this are that you must (a)correctly identify the application; (b)provide a concise explanation of the reason for the protest; and (c)provide a copy of the prior art your protest relies on.

So, rather that the usual pablovian reflex of ranting about this stuff on /. why not do something to help the USPTO do a better job?

Ready ... set ... go!

SGI had it first?

[Rich_Idle]

I recall Desk Overview long ago in IRIX. There was even an IP dispute over some aspects of this widget with another company (who's name I have forgotten). See here for a note a decade old about how cool this thing was. It had (has) several features that the linux pager lacks. Hopefully, IMD4Linux will give them back to me!

E-mail to patent office

[rcpitt]

To: usptoinfo@uspto.gov
Subject: Patents
Patent application #20030189597 - Virtual Desktop Manager
I have been using a facility identical to this both on my Unix/Linux systems and on Windows systems for a (large) number of years.

On Unix/Linux under the X-windows system the facility is best typified by the pager facility of the fvwm Window manager. It has equivallents on all graphical user desktops since the mid 80's

On Windows, a pager called sDesk (Semik's desktop), based on the above mentioned fvwm has been on my desktop since 1999 (it was copyright 1998 by Jan Tomasek)

More information and a picture of my desktop may be seen at: http://richard.pacdat.net/home-office.htm

I trust this will put a stop to the possibility that anyone may patent this facility - it has ample prior art.

richard

Patent Abuse = Slander of Title?

[wonkavader]

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).

Re:Patent Abuse = Slander of Title?

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Patent Office is entirely fee-based. The companies pay for the service. No taxpayer dollars are used. In fact, congress appropriates a percentage of the money the PTO earns for other things. Please, people, stop making wild assumptions about IP and the PTO, y'all really don't know what's going on.

MS wants to patent Linux away

[AstroDrabb]

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?

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 /. users should just start picking random features and applying for a patent? Could be an easy way to make some cash?

American business and the American government is going down the drain fast.

Re:abstract

[prockcore]

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.

Not really. It's kind of like if the Enlightenment pager had Expose functionality. You hit a key, the pager scales to full screen, you pick a desktop.

What's interesting is that the patent application predates Expose by a few years.

Be sure to find the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

... because, you know, if it was taco he probably submitted it 2 or 3 times.

too obvious?

FvwmPager?

[malachid69]

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?

The problem is...

[Svartalf]

...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.

slashdotting the US Patent Office

[spikedvodka]

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.

Re:slashdotting the US Patent Office

[CjKing2k]

It's ok, you're paying for their bandwidth anyway.

Microsoft had a pager since 1988

[PeterHammer]

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.

DVWM

[nivenh_]

Patent Application

The link above points to a patent submission by Bret Anderson (aka MrJukes) on behalf of Microsoft for a Virtual Desktop Manager. Here's a relevent blurb from the patent application itself...

"...each pane containing a scaled virtual desktop having dimensions that are proportionally less than the dimensions of a corresponding full-size virtual desktop, each scaled virtual desktop being displayed with one or more scaled application windows if the corresponding full-size virtual desktop has one or more corresponding application windows that are active."

The patent application was file on April 5, 2002. MrJukes and I have both been writing and writing applications for replacement shells for many years. In 1997/1998, i wrote a shell called Dimension. One of its components that eventually was released by itself (in 1998) was DVWM. It was downloadable from my website between 1998-2002. Below is a link to lokai.net's download page from 2001 (the best i could get via archive.org). Bret Anderson had clear knowledge that this patent application contains prior art. I was definately not the first person to do something like this either.

VWM's and VDM's have been around for a very long time. Enlightement's Pager/VWM/VDM did this at the time as well, however at that point in time, while giving mini-views of the windows on a given desktop, it did not provide a 1-to-1 mini-view like DVWM did to my knowledge (please correct me if i'm wrong).

I believe this to be a pretty low point. A former shell developer lands a job at Microsoft and patents ideas obtained from the shell community and/or elsewhere in free software. I don't know if idea theft is illegal since i didn't patent it myself, but i'm just disgusted that this has happened.

Here's the archive.org view of lokai.net's downloads. You can download the version of DVWM that was hosted at the time which does all the things i describe.
Archive.org view of Lokai.net in 2002

Here is a screenshot of DVWM from 2001.
DVWM Gif

Here is the source to DVWM from 2001.
DVWM Source

Here is DVWM 1.02 in case archive.org fails to work for you.
DVWM Zip

Here is the skinnables.org orphanware page showing DVWM.
Skinnables Orphanware

I'm currently exploring my options to see what if anything i can do about this. I find it to be just flat out wrong. It should be noted that not all things that are wrong are necessarily illegal, but i'll see what i can do.

Re:DVWM

[Anonymous Coward]

Write to the PTO at the various links posted by many /.ers below. I have prior experience with this - the PTO _does_ listen since its easier for them to deny on grounds of prior art (they cite the references back to the authors and put the onus on them to prove how theirs differs from prior art in a "non-obvious" way). Yes, the PTO is waaay overloaded with work and the examiner working this particular file will be thankful to you for flagging the multiple references (publications work the best or products made available to the public). They are not too keen on URLs only so it will be better if you could point out the links to printed journals or articles mentioning the technologies and your work. ciao

But how can MS patent if they didn't it?

[Billly Gates]

After all we all know SCO wrote it.

X virtual desktop window managers much older

[Baki]

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.

just made a test...

[teenkitten]

...if a windows user knows what a pager is :) and he didn't knew what i'm talking about. congratulation to the user (mcp) you made it ;)

Bogus patent applications

[STFS]

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.
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 /. reader have experience with this patent filing for the sake of disabling competitors from getting that patent?
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!?!??!

Rasterman has this WAY before that date..

[EMR]

Enlightenment rules!! Rasterman though of everything before everyone else. OK not everything, but this is exactly what was in DR 16. And he was on the very beginning of the whole skinning craze.