Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Surely there's prior art for this...while I'm not old enough to remember the earliest GUIs, I would think someone other than MS invented this.
Anyone have specific examples?
Does this mean that the button on the front of my case that I hold in for 6 seconds to do a hard power reset (as opposed to a soft one/APM call if I just press it) is also subject to this patent? How far can this possibly extend? What kind of interface doesn't use a button with some sort of timing involved?
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
Look, the patent was filed on July 12, 2002. If we can't come up with a single pre-2002 OS that used double-clicking, then we're really, really bad off. I mean, Microsoft itself has used it since about 1991 in Windows...
My Systems
We are missing the point a bit here. Of course, you are all totally correct, this isnt anywhere near a new thing, but we are missing the whole patent issue. I know you all understand this as well as cookies, but ill say it anyway. Patents protect an IDEA. They dont protect the end result. Hell, imagine if Hoover could patent clean carpets, no one else is allowed to invent a sucky upy thing, since it's patented!
This is exactly the problem with a load of software patents. They dont patent HOW something is done, that patent WHAT is done. It's like trying to patent staying dry and warm, and therefore preventing anyone else building houses! I do believe there are some valid software patents, but that should NOT stop someone else getting to the same result by doing it differently. Just because some guy invented RSA security, does not stop some other guy inventing a totally differnt way to use the same algorithm.
Microsoft can patent the source they used to time this button, if it uses some cool new timing algorithm that works without needing the internal clock, but no way should they be allowed to patent the actual result, a timed button.
And honestly, i dont blame microsoft, i blame the fucking stupid patent clerks and judges who let things like this through. Microsoft are just using the system, we all would given half a chance. You patent people should wake the fuck up and engage brain!
Filed: July 12, 2002 Dated: April 27, 2004 This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/226,031, filed Jan. 5, 1999 now abandoned. The entire subject matter of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/226,031 is specifically incorporated herein by reference. It also references material back to 1985, so who the hell is a patent lawyer who can figure out what the hell is going on here (I'm off to try and see what all those references are about).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I have zero respect for patents....
Patents get issued all the time for nonsense, and things that do not work. A patent that I got, we proved (after filing) that it did not funtion as described. Two years later the patent still issued. Go figure...
If this gets challenged in court it will fall apart. Too much prior art. I would start with Morse Code...
www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
Well, I may not be popular for saying this, but MS did actually invent the FAT file system (ok, they purchased it, when MS bought rights to the QDOS OS, and renamed it MS-DOS).
So, if they were awarded a patent or copyright or whatever it is on FAT, at least they have a moral leg to stand on.
The patent on various ways of clicking a mouse? I don't care if its for PDAs, or what it selects, or whatever. Every possible way of clicking a mouse as been thought of, and there is no original, patentable work to do.
(how is that for a bold statement :)
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
For *possible* prior art, see keylaunch
Released on June 12, 2002, you can launch an app by pressing an application button twice within a limited time.
Also see slowlaunch
Released on May 20, 2002, you can launch an app by holding an application button for a specified length of time.
Neither half of the patent (hey, I read only the abstract, but that's more than you did!) seems to have been novel at the file date, and it's easy to imagine that keylaunch and slowlaunch could have coexisted on the same palm, giving the full functionality described in the patent abstract.
Hate stupid software on freshmeat? Laugh at
Does prior art on one part of a patent invalidate the whole thing? 'Cos I seem to remember the Early Macs having a click'n'hold function for context menus (not to mention the whole double-click thing).
I think is the question of whether they even TRY to enforce them.
Microsoft have an excellent record as far as I know, of never initiating a patent battle. MS' patent portfolio is used purely for defensive purposes.
Sure, they're anti-competitive greedy bastards, and they may decide to start trying patent litigation some day, but I think they're happier making their money by selling products.
Politas
that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system....How are they going to swing that one?
It's my understanding that a lot of compact flash using devices use FAT file system to organize data on the CF card. MS could then go after companies like Cannon, Nikon, etc, who use FAT in their devices.
From the patent (in several places):So, could the patent be sidestepped if you waited for a period of time only in excess of, but not equal to, the threshold time limit?
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
I mean seriously! Fucking double clicks????
I wonder if the asshat at the patent office realized that he had to double click at least once during the process of filing the stupid patent. Clearly, the people at the patent office are so far out of touch with reality that they can no longer be taken seriously.
So, I propose this for the new patent system (it's un-Slashdot of me, but not only am I bitching about something, I have an idea on how to fix it.)
Public peer review. Open source meets patent reform.
As soon as a patent is applied for, it is placed up on a website for public review. Then, it's up to the public as well as the patent office to try to find any prior art.
If prior art is found, the patent is denied. Period. And if the prior art is over 5 years old, it's considered a public domain idea, and no longer patentable. That'll keep idiots like the lawyersquad at MS from patenting other people's ideas. Like double clicks.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If you want to get scared, worry about that last part of the article which states that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system
Actually, FAT32. FAT is old enough they can't charge on it.
Most of the FAT32 stuff is for Digital Storage, FAT32 increases max card size, and more importantly for most people increases file size past 2Gb. I have a friend at work whose camera decision absolutely required FAT32. He needed to shoot some video with soemthing that looked like a still camera, and needs the video times he could only get with a FAT32 capable camera. I know they're gonna charge device makers, not sure if they can hit media makers (who in theory could have any filesystem they want on the card/chip/whatever).
Let's stop laying the blame for this kind of atrocious behaviour on corporations. Corporations don't think or act; people act (often without thinking). There is a person at the patent office who granted this patent. They should be held personally accountable for this idiocy. There is a person (probably more than one) at Microsoft who is responsible for this idiocy. They should be held personally accountable.
These are the same people who want to (and do) track minute details of your personal software purchases and useage. But they themselves cower behind the cloak of corporate anonymity.
The world is fucked up. You can go to jail for stealing a watch, but if you steal millions of dollars being a white collar asshole, at worst, you might have to give some of it back, and can only cash out with a few million. Or in Microsoft's case, billions. Boo hoo. Fucking asshole white collar greedy corporate bastards.
The patent holders are an interesting pair. A bit of googling produced the following:
Charlton Lui appears to have been a Microsoft manager turned Canadian Baseball CEO(!) "Mr. Lui co-founded the Tablet PC providing the vision and driving product development while working closely with Bill Gates and top industry leaders." Here is the reference.
There is a Jeffrey R. Blum who includes the following in his resume: "Microsoft Mobile Electronics Group, Redmond, WA: Lead Program Manager (8/1994-3/2000)" Here is his resume.
If I got the right people (no guarantees there), it looks like they're both *managers* who worked on mobile computing appliances. Managers who take out patents???
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
werent Amiga menus push and hold?
Yes, as were those in MacOS too IIRC.
Talking of the Amiga, I believe that there is a patent on the menu system it uses, where you can keep the menu open by holding down the right mouse button, and make multiple selections with the left mouse button, so you don't have to reopen the menu several times (and yes, I'd say this is another example of a stupid patent, although it's at least slightly more novel than doubleclicking).
Seriously, the company I work for, has a function in our COMMERCIAL software package that requires a triple-click in order to do something. It's been there for about 8 years now - so we already got prior art =P
Is there a "+1 Pity" moderation I can get?
For some prior art, go back to the 1800's, and talk to a telegraph operator. Ask them how a morse code key works, and, the difference between a long click, and a double click.
This patent is a blatant example of why the rest of the world just has to start ignoring patents issued in the USA, they have no meaning. American business is so concerned about intellectual property protection, they should consider that honoring patents is an all or nothing deal, and with stupid stuff like this being granted, the rest of the world cannot afford to honor this kind of silliness. There are many many examples in the real world of 'click once to do one thing, twice to do something else'. Anybody that flies airplanes into small airfields at night knows this (just one real world example). Click you microphone 5 times to turn on the runway lights. Depending on the setup, once they are on, 3 clicks for brighter, 2 clicks for dimmer, is common. This methodology was around long before microsoft plugged thier first mouse into a computer, it's a method that pre-dates the pc. It's common, and it's OBVIOUS, and it was long before the pc even came into the equation, or any 'limited resource' environment as discussed in that patent.
Go forth into the real world, there must be thousands of devices in this world that have a single button for input, and differing numbers of 'clicks' or 'presses' on that button, have different meanings.
Corvus had double click (Concept) and some of us used to use double clicks on old IBM vector graphics displays (sixtys and seventy's stuff) Come to think of it TekTronics storage display scopes may have had a double click subroutine...
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Lights at certain airports also activate with two or multiple clicks of the radio mic.
And we know that Apple's use of the double click predates this, and I am certain was pre-dated by others.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid certain government employee can be.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
The Amiga computer, whose UI also supported double-clicking, originally shipped with 256K of ROM, 256K of RAM, and a 7.1MHz MC68000 processor. Does this qualify as a limited-resource computing device? Does my 19-year-old Amiga now infringe on this just-granted patent?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
If I made a really really small PC, could I patent the "Enter" key? How about the "shift " or "control" keys?
/.-ers that hate junk patents would get together to make a mockery of the current system. I bet we've got enough talent here to patent meta-keys (or pressing them, hence the "method"), and word it well enough to sneak through the USPTO. We could all pitch in to cover the fees. Hell, chances are we'd get the patent, then we could get some venture capital from BayStar to go on a legal rampage.
I wish some of us
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
If anyone is interested in some real prior art:
When I was working for my old company (Tuxia), I wrote a linux based system called viper. This had the functionality in the program launcher where if you click on an icon a program will start. But, if you click and hold on an icon for longer than 1 second, a context menu would appear. I quit the in January 2002.
It was mentioned in Linux devices when it was first released to the public (it was open source).
It was hosted on www.tuxia.org (but that is now gone). I still have the source available.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
No, not to stick with the altered subject. I'm not interested in debating the death penalty. I don't care. If you want to engage someone ELSE in that debate, fine, but it doesn't interest me and it doesn't relate to the original discussion at all. I'm also not interested in discussing theology. Believe whatever you want, just don't hurt any innocent bystanders doing it and we'll simply never cross swords (well, on that subject) or paths.
No, you SHOULDN'T be rewarded for stupidity. However, when typically benign injuries such as accidental coffee spills put you in the hospital, you're not stupid for getting hurt. Maybe for spilling the coffee, yes, but there should be a certain expectation that the water won't be so hot that it can cause serious injury. You would have to boil water, wait 2 or 3 seconds for it to stop boiling after removing it from the heat, then pour it DIRECTLY ONTO YOUR SKIN to receive the sort of potential damage she was exposed to. I'll lay all this out for you once, and once only. Simple googling can verify these three major points (as well as the temperature data and award I quoted above):
There are plenty of good examples of stupid lawsuit syndrome. This is not one of them, it's just one that makes the rounds because nobody ever bothers to look up what actually happened. Try looking up info on the idiot that put his Winebago on cruise control, walked in the back, and sued after it went off the road. That's a good example of what you're getting at.
Despite all this, however, your original point is still entirely wrong for the simple reason that civil and criminal cases are handled entirely differently from one another.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
time varying clicks came in with Morse code and the telegraph, patented 1837. MS Numbnuts.
If "hardware limited" means no second button, any laptop Mac (be it a PowerBook or an iBook, but probably not a Mac Portable though I don't recall about its input) has a single built-in click button on the trackpad, or else two equivalent buttons above and below a trackball (in the case of early PowerBooks) and is thus prior art. You can double click, you can click and hold. They may have a patent for double clicking on PDAs, but I imagine that Palm or anyone could get it overturned.
(This is a repost... I was in a hurry before so I think I didn't hit submit after preview...)
While working for a company called Tuxia (www.tuxia.com) I wrote a Linux based system for the iPAQ called viper. The file manager and program launcher had the following functionality:
1. Click on an icon and start the program
2. Click and hold on an icon for over 1 second and a context menu appears.
The software was open source and hosted at www.tuxia.org (since died).
I just did a quick google and announcement dates are from 2001. google +"tuxia" +"viper"
BTW. Viper was the first system for the iPAQ to include an RDP client. Pocket PC 2002 introduced an RDP client.
I think Bill was watching me
If anyone is interested, I still have the source somewhere.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I know MS is evil, we all do becasue we keep hearing it all the time. But the type of blind misrepresentation on Slashdot only makes me more likely to consider the source and the actual information presented.
Sadly enough, with most Slashdot stories I usually tend to agree with MS after reading past the yellow journalism.
If not for the religious blindness and false claims made from many in the Linux camp I would probably be part of the Linux community myself.
I happen to think Linux is great, it's just too bad I can't stand any of the people that use it.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
I used to have a little car that worked according to a handheld 'clicker.' You pressed the (rather relecutant to be clicked) button on the side of the control, which was shaped like a rather natty police radio and the car did different things. For example, two clicks really quickly put it in reverse.
This was in the very early eighties. I can barely remember it. Did anyone else have one of these, or did I dream it? If anyone can confirm it then this could even beat the airport lights.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Several applications on my Palm do something different if I "tap and hold" instead of just tap. Seems like pretty much the same thing.
IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer
There might be prior art in, of all things, amateur radio handhelds. Amateur Radio VHF/UHF handhelds have, for several years, typically carried enough functionality that getting to it all given the limited number of buttons on the radio requires the time-based hardware button tricks Microsoft is describing. For example, on my Yaesu FT-51R (purchased in 1998, 4 years before Microsoft's patent filing, and in fact available before then (actually the even earlier FT-530 uses the same tricks)), saving to a memory requires holding down a button for a second, changing to the memory you want to save to, and then pressing the same button within a particular time. That same button, if merely pressed rather than held, causes other buttons of the radio to perform different functions then if it had not been pressed (but only for a limited amount of time). Hence, different functionality depending the length of time the button is pressed.
Note that these radios are controlled by internal microprocessors, and thus might be considered a 'limited resource computing device'. In any case, the idea of having the functionality of a button change depending on how long the button is pressed preceeds Microsoft's patent filing enough that Microsoft's idea should be seen an an obvious transfer of the idea to an only slightly different device.
A privately held, publically funded corporation whose sole mission statement is to challenge any and all patents granted by the corrupt and decrepit Patent System.
This is outrageous! Our civilization has produced too many lawyers... Rule of Law leads to oppression!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I think you can pick an example a bit closer to home with that analogy...
Apple One Button Mouse - short click open - long click special menu i.e. in the dock (OSX) and Netscape (MacOS 9 and down)
- mirxage
Mac OS system V1.0
n es
From: http://www.nd.edu/~jvanderk/sysone/
Next off is the desktop background. You can draw on the little square on the left, and you double click on the tiny screen to set the pattern. If you click on the left or right on the menu bar, you cycle through the built-in patterns. This existed with almost no changes in the General controls all the way up to system 7.1. It was then replaced by the Desktop Patterns control panel in 7.5, and the Desktop Pictures control panel in 8.0.
Finally, there's the double click speed. This control is almost identical to the one that is currently used in the Mouse control panel, giving it the honor of being one of the few things that has never been changed.
AND..... For the times
http://www.aci.com.pl/mwichary/guidebook/timeli
System 1........... 24th Jan 1984
Windows 1....... 20th Oct 1985
QED.
Back in the 1981/1982 timeframe, I was in the U.S. Air Force and was stationed at Gunter AFS in Montgomery, AL. We used a system called NLS/DNLS. This system emplyed special terminals with a mechanical 3-button mouse and a five key keyset attached to a terminal. The keyset could synthesize any printable ASCII character. Anyway, we used the mouse and keyset to manipulate doumentation and traverse help trees. The mouse and the keyset could both be chorded and I believe the mouse could be double-clicked to perorm a different function.
Does anyone else out there have better recollections regarding the use of the mouse NLS/DNLS?
Arf!
My point exactly. A work, once it has entered the Public Domain, should be there forever.
If you look at something over which I have copyright, and make a new work based on it, that will be considered "your own work" if and only if you use less than X% of my material {where X varies dependent upon jurisdiction and circumstances}. Otherwise, I still have copyright over your derivative work, and it's up to me how -- or even if at all -- it's distributed.
With the Public Domain, as the law stands now, there is nothing to stop you taking a PD work, making one tiny change and claiming it as "your own work" {and thereby being granted copyright on it, and by extension control over distribution}.
What I am advocating is that there should be a law against that -- there isn't, but there bloody well should be. Once a work has entered the Public Domain, it should never, ever again be the subject of copyright. According to which, Disney's version of Carlo Collodi's Pinocchio should remain in the PD {unless Disney added enough of their own new material to constitute a new work; unlikely, though}.
Sound harsh? You bet. But if you have benefitted from any of the following: fire, weapons, clothing, shelter, agriculture, mathematics, living in cities, electronics, And Many More; then you have benefitted from discoveries made by others. {Electronics being a very good one. Guess how many patents Michael Faraday ever owned? Do you suppose you would still be using that computer if things had been a little different?} Everything we ever do is based on something else someone else already did, and it seems to me to be supremely selfish and destructive to misappropriate all that good work that put us here, for the sake of a quick profit.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Ok.. reading the patent application is a tough one. Talking about a time interval between successive mouse clicks activating a 2nd application.. woooooo..
...One such palm-type computer is Microsoft's Palm-size PC. The Palm-size PC has a touch screen display... (exact quote)
I see the application seems to be an extension of something started in 1999.. still I was double clicking before that..
Most interesting though is their choice of capitalization in the application. Look at this:
When you see 'palm-type', fine.. an adjective modifying the word computer to define the type. But reading on you see '.. Microsoft's Palm-size PC'. That looks like a product name. But wait, isn't Palm a trademark of someone we all know and love
Look at the patent itself. It says:
Time based hardware button for application launch
Abstract
A method and system are provided for extending the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device. Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed.
First of all, it speaks of a HARDWARE button ! This has NOTHING to do with Windows, mice or an operating system !!
Second, it mentions a limited resource computing device again NOT a PC with Windows !
So get your facts straight and stop pretending this is about Windows or the Mac !
Morse code used exactly short and long clicks to determine the alphabetic letters. The pulse phones later on used similar technology to automatically determine the destination of a call.
The clicks where thus actually triggered different events.
Now look back on what the patent was for - it does not specify a mouse but any application button - hardware or software...
I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but the Slashdot post regarding this the first time said that the patent was in regards to handhelds...
The patent application has two references listed. Two manuals from PALM! They have been in handhelds longer than MS! Microsoft gets granted the patent though!