Microsoft Receives Patent For Double-Click

kaluta writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Microsoft was granted a patent for double-clicking on April 27. The patent in question is 6,727,830 and says, amongst other stuff: 'A default function for an application is launched if the button is pressed for a short, i.e., normal, period of time. An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time. Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time, e.g., double click'. So this is what we have to look foward to in the E.U. now?"

Comments

Absurdity

[weekendwarrior1980]

Now here we have the powers that be granting patents based on how we move or interact? One more reason Patenting process should be thoroughly revised.

For the millionth time...

[the_mad_poster]

WHO CARES?

They can have so many patents that they have to start holding them in their asscracks. Exhibit 1: IBM, the Little Linux guy's friend on Slashdot.

They problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them. Which, in any sane court (yes, I know those are in dwindling numbers these days) won't happen.

By all means, let them run amok and waste money on BS patents. Just make sure that the first time they get challenged they actually go down. If the challenge fails, THEN there's a problem.

Re:For the millionth time...

[Quixote]

They[sic] problem is not that they GET them. The problem only occurs if they can actually ENFORCE them.

Then why have a patent office anyways? Why not just go the Copyright route, and let everyone and his aunt patent everything they like, and duke it out in the courts.

The USPTO was created for a friggin' REASON . They are NOT doing their job by just rubberstamping everything that crosses their desk. They are being negligent in their duties, and should be held accountable by the Congress. Sheesh, only an Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer would grant this patent....

Re:Xerox and Apple

[Bruce Perens]

I do use a hardware button to click on my screen.

Bruce

Isn't an excellent piece of prior art

[ProudClod]

Stephen Hawking's speech synthesizer, operated by one hardware button clicked for different lengths of time.

Re:Hmm... BUT!!!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

"Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time..."

Sheesh. As if double click wasn't annoying and contrived enough. How about as many as five clicks, and the duration varies between long and short clicks? Is there a prior art in this, like freaking MORSE CODE?

Re:April Fool's

[ruckc]

Just out of curiosity, since a button on a computer is still a button. Compared to a button on say a watch or alarm clock. Don't cd players, alarm clocks, watches sometimes require you to hold the button down for a short or long period of time to make it do something? I know my watch a Timex Ironman watch requires me to hold a button down for like 1-2 seconds to reset the stopwatch feature. Isn't this the same idea, arn't they taking a previously used idea and trying to patent it?

yes go ahead and -1 offtopic but i want it at the top...

Re:April Fool's

[__aafkqj3628]

I think you can pick an example a bit closer to home with that analogy...

Computer power buttons - Short period = sleep, Long period = Hard off.

Somehow I know

[iamthetru7h]

this will will get shot down if it's ever 'enforced' legally. I recall using the Apple IIgs and certain applications had a rather Macintosh OS Finder like interface. And one had to double click things to make 'things' happen. IE: Launch an application etc. So prior art will shoot them in the face... then again, Microsoft invented the internet, the GUI, and viruses... so might as well say the invented religion, politics and the world as well. Stupid patent office, somebody seriously needs to beat down whoever runs that joint.

Can Public Domain works be stolen?

[Half-pint HAL]

No, because that would require a law against it.

But maybe there should be. Take Disney's handling of folk tales and out-of-copyright stories.

In the case of Snow White, everyone now calls the Dwarves by the names in the film -- Disney owns a copyright in those names.

Pinocchio -- Disney added the stupid little cricket, and consequently have copyright on it. Many of the Italians hate what has been done to their classic children's book.

The Little Princess -- Hans Christian Andersen's classic tale of "Can't always get what you want" -- characters renamed, happy ending added, and (a lesson learned from previous releases) the name changed to The Little Mermaid to stop other kids video companies releasing a competing product.

...and now children worldwide refuse the original versions of each of these tales because they're convinced that the Disney way is "the right way," and Disney thus has appropriated the rights to some of the most enduring Public Domain works known to man.

A similar thing happens with folk/public domain music. Do a popular arrangement, and suddenly people will refuse to listen to the original way -- the new way is the "right way". Then anyone wanting to sing it has to buy it off the arranger.

Public domain work misappropriated. Not technically theft, but I contest that it should be.

HAL.