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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:nVidia Desktop Explorer does this on windows

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Beats anything in powertoys hands down.

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

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!

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: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: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.

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.