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 it's April Fool's day somewhere in the world for this to happen.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is just twice as stupid as Amazon's 1-Click patent...
...I'll get my coat..
Suddenly all those "I'm patenting peanut butter and jelly sandwich" posts are seeming more and more prophetic...
I'm hoping that such insane uses of patents will result in the USPTO and Congress waking the hell up and fixing this mess.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
I'm breaking patent laws right now...and again...whoops I did again :p
I think Xerox and Apple defintely qualify as prior art.
There are days when I think the USPO really needs to wake up.
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.
Activists United
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?
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.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Next up:
Microsoft tries to patent the Internet.
Al Gore files suit.
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
Well, double-dumbass on you!
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
It's not April 27, it's April 1st. =)
Hey guys, don't worry... I don't think this patent can be used by Microsoft to destroy Open Source. So, it's better to laugh at it.
Now, we have got one more example to show people how ridiculous software patents are.
Well, before we pull out our tinfoil hats and scream random obscenities at MS, let's RTFA, okay?
TFA states that patent revolves around giving other options when holding the click, and uses the default program when double clicked...Smells like Apple, anyone?
Furthermore, it's not as if they patented the motion of clicking a mouse button twice, as the poster makes it seem....Don't sound the alarm yet people....
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....How are they going to swing that one? Higher fees on XP (tough sh!t, I use SuSE) ? Online scans for people with FAT and a bill in the mail?
My MythTV HowTo
Now I have to go back and look at my Pong machine to see if it qualifies as Prior Art...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Triple Click...
Quad Click...
Qunice Click...
Are still available!!
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/28/198242
I can't wait to see all the NEW comments on it.
Hence general-purpose PCs and bigger embedded systems are safe from this, but small devices such as handhelds are vulnerable?
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
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Apple have a GUI before Microsoft, and if so, wouldn't one be able to open an application merely by doubleclicking on it? Next thing you know, Microsoft's going to try patenting the Start menu as 'a menu allowing a user to quickly find and launch applications.' or something like that...
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
Are they gonna sue DoubleClick Software? Or the other way around for trademark infringement?
The patent doesn't cover *mouse* clicks. It covers a way to get at least 3 different actions from the "application buttons" on your PDA --- short click, long click, and double-click.
I don't know whether this was being done back in 2002, though I know that Palm enhancements used application button chords back in 2002 or 2003.
Hate stupid software on freshmeat? Laugh at
...Apple are granted a patent for keypresses, and IBM are granted a patent for pixels
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
for mouse movements. Any patent on mouse movements will supercede Microsoft's double clicking, and Amazon's 1-click.
:|
Not impressed....
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
when the same story is pushed twice within a short time frame, like this one?
.. because if they continue to give patents on stuff like this like they've done the last few years, the system is bound to fail. Its just a simple matter of time.
(and now for the obligatory:) What next? A patent for interpreting presses on different keys into machine-understandable signals?
this is a patent on the idea of launching different functions depending on how and the length of time a user presses a button.
Now, of course, the patent is ridiculous, but it cannot be read so broadly.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/28/198242
"Sufferin' succotash."
it's not actually double clicking
One such palm-type computer is Microsoft's Palm-size PC. The Palm-size PC has a touch screen display. A stylus is used to input data into a user interface displayed on the touch screen display. The user interface is similar in appearance to a Windows user interface displayed on a desktop or laptop PC. A taskbar, used for launching application programs, is displayed at the bottom of the touch screen display. Applications are launched by using the stylus to select the desired application from a taskbar menu. Using a stylus can be cumbersome for users. Therefore, as an alternative to launching applications by using the stylus, the Palm-size PC contains a plurality of buttons (called application buttons) that are used to launch the more common applications installed on a Palm-size PC. Applications can be launched in a variety of states. In the past, the actuation of an application button caused an application to be launched in a particular state, for example a view state. The user was required to take further steps to invoke additional application functionality, such as opening a document. It is desirable to more easily launch applications in various states. The present invention is directed to increasing the functionality of application buttons so as to accomplish this result.
*meep*
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
This sounds like Microsoft is gearing up to go after OSX, which uses the long click to emulate a two button mouse.
My hazy memory says the original Netscape is the prior art for holding down the mouse and then getting a contextual/different action depending on the duration.
Triple Click...
Quad Click...
Qunice Click...
Are still available!!
Not quite...
"Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time..."
c++;
Before I take my life into my hands and play devil's advocate here:
<disclaimer>I think this is a stupid patent and is not sufficiently original to truly deserve protection</disclaimer>
That being said, those who read the patent application very carefully will notice that this patent isn't for the general idea of double-clicking, but rather covers a much smaller range. Specifically, Microsoft has been granted a patent on a PDA-type device ("limited resource computing device") that has physical buttons on the outside of the device (i.e. "Mail", "Calendar", "Contacts" etc) that cause different actions to occur based on how long or in which sequence they are pressed.
An example of the patented method in action would be if you created a device on which pressing the mail button once would open a list view of recent emails, pressing and holding it for 2 seconds might initiated a POP3 session to the server, "double-clicking" the button might bring you to a "new email" form, and pressing and holding the button longer than 3 secs would be assume to be accidental and would do nothing.
This does NOT appear to be relevant to any non-PDA device, nor does it appear to apply to any kind of buttons that do not physically exist on the outside of the device. I still think it's pretty stupid and obvious, but it's nearly so stupid as it would appear at first glance.
That being said, does anyone have any specific prior art to overturn this with?
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
I propose owning a patent for middle-clicking in such a way as to extend the middle finger while curling the others.
This "click" does not need to be made on any particular surface. In fact, you could roll down your car window, double-click on your horn, then middle click the air with your arm extended outside said vehicle.
Maybe we should all middle-click Microsoft with both hands as an act of civil disobedience. Needless to say, I don't advice nor advocate doing so while driving.
I was 11 years old and discovered WTF a "double click" was by reading the F'ing manual. Microsoft was not involved...or were they? What is this horseshit?
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
Sure, but has anyone patented using a specific rhythm? I've got it! Morse code on a cell phone. I here by declare prior art to the whole idea. Whew.
Stephen Hawking's speech synthesizer, operated by one hardware button clicked for different lengths of time.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
Elevator companies have been doing this for years. Everyone knows that if you push your floors button multiple times that it gets there faster! It's so obvious even 5 year olds know about it!
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
They are not patenting double clicking, or clicking or something that will infringe on your god given rights to click on whatever you want. They are patenting using specialized buttons on a specialized device to launch applications in a different manner depending on how the button is pressed. It's not exact a wide ranging, world destroying patent folks.
But then again, Microsoft was mentioned, that word alone seems to make the average slashdotters IQ drop about 80 points.
Got Shadowrun? Awakened Worlds
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.
But this is a valid patent.
Its a non obvious use of timed button presses.
If you just hit an application button on a PDA it opens the application.
If you hold it for more than a second it opens a different document based on the length of time the button is held down.
If you read the patent it is actually a very specific application of the technique.
It only applies to "limited resource computing devices" aka PDAs.
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.
Yep, Microsoft does own this technology, or at least they made it popular. That hardware button is the computer's reset button.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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
The dubble click behavure was enherited from a number of GUIs that existed before Windows ever hit the market and I believe it wasn't included in the inital release of Windows.
:Left click
The history of it is something like this:
A number of systems hit the market. MacOs is successful with a single button mouse.
Other GUIs hit the PC and Geos for the Commodore, Atari TOS for the ST, Amgia Os for the Amiga.
Most systems had two button mice. However MacOs users had 1 button and Commodore 64 users had 1 button joysticks standing in for mice (two button mouse available).
MacOs started to get the reputation of being limited. The single button wasn't enough. To keep up Apple added the dubble click to permit additional behavure. A software hack for a second button. This is not to say MacOs WAS limited but streat talk vs real world has always been on entirely diffrent plains of existence.
At some point Microsoft addopted the behavure into Windows. There was no preticulare advantage to be gained by this.
You will notice that Microsofts patent is on the default fuction where as MacOs uses the dubble click as the "second button" (if I remember correctly).
This is nothing to be proud of.
However The Commodore 64s Geos used (if memory serves) single click to be "select" for cut and paist and dubble click for default fuction (activate the icon, open file, run the application) before Microsoft included this behaubure into Windows.
Sing with me "Prior art"
The dubble click was created to solve a problem found in systems using a single button for a pointer device. Microsoft Windows had no preticulare reason for addopting the dubble click other than to mimic the behavure of MacOs.
This patent should read.
"The hacks implemented in OTHER operating systems copied into Windows to no advantage to the end user."
Unix Window managers typlicly rely on having 2 to 4 mouse buttons and don't use the dubble click byond mimicing the behavure of Microsoft Windows.
Patent suggestion for RedHat: Dubble click mask:
The software technique where a second click done shortly after the first click is "tossed out" this would continue for a third and forth click as well. That if a user clicks an icon many times (nervous habbit) the Window manager reads only 1 click and ejects the rest.
Tech support horror storys:
Tech: Single left click
User: (Click Click) It openned the app
Tech: Close the app. Don't dubble click. Single left click
User: (Click Click)
With Dubble click mask
Tech:
User: (Click click click click) It worked.
(All the clicks being read as 1 click becouse that is all the user should have done)
I don't actually exist.
... despite the dubious foundation for this flood of patents, there are really only three possible outcomes:
1) the patent goes unchallenged, thus Microsoft wins by achieving a license to rape and pillage. (unlikely)
2) the patent is challenged, and Microsoft wins, thus strengthening their license to rape and pillage. (unlikely)
3) the patent is challenged and Microsoft loses the challenge, but still wins by weakening the opposition due to the opposition having to spend a larger fraction of their working capital than Microsoft in this non-productive activity. In areas of the marketplace where there is not a large healthy corporation to oppose them, they drive the competition out via the competitors' inability to afford the Microsoft tax of continuous legal action.
The ability of monopolies to buy into the poker game and use their near-limitless wealth to drive the competition out of the game by raising the stakes beyond their opponents' ability to call is one reason why monopolies used to have strict controls placed on them or be broken up. They are beyond the reach of the checks and balances of the free marketplace.
Check out this link that implies about 1997! Article reproduced shamelessly below.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Press and hold on your mouse might not do anything but it does on mine, and has done for years. It brings up the context menu on the Mac without you having to use the ctrl key. Not only has this been the case on the Mac for many years but I seem to recall it worked last time I used a Xerox Star system (which was a very long time ago indeed).
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
I can't be the first to think of this, but here goes.
- Compile a fair amount of evidence showing how the US Patent Office has really messed things up (eg, Amazon, this patent, and many other good ones)
- Present that to the EU signed by thousands of EU citizens
I know that there have been Open Letters and other activites, but why not do their homework for them? Show them why Patent Systems, like the one in the US, suck poopy and abridge the rights of innovators and honest business. Litigation is good for rich lawyers and nothing else. It is NOT good for humanity.
Yeah yeah, I have no legal background so I couldn't do it myself. So I ask others. Hang me. Or better yet, get a patent on not knowing everything and then sue me.
We've seen too many patents where everybody already does X, and the patent is to "do X on the Internet".
Or the recent patent on burning a CD of a concert, the same night as the concert and selling it after the concert. There's prior art on making music CDs -- but I guess you can patent making CDs in a specific situation.
Now double-clicking isn't patented, but double-clicking the hardware buttons on a PDA is patented.
So we can just patent anything if we specify a narrow domain and apply it there?
I suggest we patent double-clicking with a mouse... on an application with a "metal" skin that looks like a PDA. (Meh. Maybe Microsoft's patent would already cover this one!)
How about patenting the idea of recording a DVD of your vacation... while on vacation.
How about patenting the idea of an SQL database... on a PDA.
How about patenting video conferencing... on a PDA.
It's stupid, but the pattern suggests this might be possible. Start filing your applications now!
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I'm patenting the technique of holding your mouth just right when you move the mouse around in games to score better points. All you hard core gamers out there are gonna owe me big time.
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
Hide in plain sight, they say. There was probably prior art sitting on the examiner's wrist.
I think just about every digital watch I've ever owned has had multi-mode pushbuttons that work EXACTLY this way. To set the time on my Timex I've had for ~ ten years, I hold down one button an extended duration. Two pushes sets a different timing mode.
It's definitely resource limited.
It's an application-specific digital computing device.
Seems to meet the patent criteria. Maybe someone should call Timex to dust off their patent portfolio.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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?
1) Ctrl-Alt-Del
2) Rebooting after installing an application
3) Powering the computer on
4) The arrow pointer for the mouse
5) The hourglass
I think you might be on to something here. Why complicate the human/computer interface with that silly keyboard thing? Let's simplify things by going back to that Apple mouse with one big button. You can indicate to the computer what you want it to do by tapping out various patterns with that one key! Working on a document? Just tap out the patterns for the letters you want. (short-click)(short-click)(short-click) S (long-click)(long-click)(long-click) O (short-click)(short-click)(short-click) S (Sorry, only Morse code I remember.)
I call "Prior art".
I don't know about any other phones, but my 5510 had the facility that I could press '1' and it would enter the #1, but if I held down '1' it would call the speed dial entry for #1.
Clearly this fits into the "limited resource environment", the "hardware button" and everything else. If this isn't a very, very specific example of prior art that is meant to be covered by this patent then I'm screwed if I know what else could be.
Yes Virginia, the patent office is staffed by morons.
jane doe vs mc donalds over hot coffee
Not bad, two in a row. Want to go for a threepeat?
Sane courts and legal systems... hmmm. hmmm.. since civil cases are handled seperately from criminal cases.....
Can I get an APPLE?
APPLE!
Can I get an ORANGE?
ORANGE!
Hot coffee... hot coffee. You are aware, I assume, that at the time of the lawsuit the training manual for McDonald's coffee required the coffee be maintained at a temperature no less than 180 degrees farenheight which is a mere 32 degrees below the boiling point of water? You are aware, I assume, that on sensitive skin such as that of the elderly and on children (both age groups being members of society which frequent McDonald's, mind you - one of which is a regular customer of coffee), 180 degree water can cause intense damage? I spilled their coffee on myself as a preteen, years before the lawsuit - it left burn marks for several days. I had previously spilled instant coffee on myself and it NEVER left that sort of damage. And, of course, you're conveniently ommitting the fact that the judgement was eventually reduced to less than $700k.
Well, you've offered your ass up twice now, and twice I've handed it back to you on a silver platter. Want to go for three? I'd recommend against it. I don't really have anything against you, I'm just tired of people offering up irrelevant comparisons and BS statements to make a "point", when, in fact, they're not making any point at all as a result of thier meaningless posts.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
So your "prior art" means jack squat until someone else tries to invalidate the patent. It's not like the PTO says "oops, our bad, the patent is invalid."
If you report an allegedly bogus patent to EFF, it can have the USPTO reexamine the patent and say just that.
You have a certain kind of desperation in your life. I prescribed going outside.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
You mean like this?
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
I have read the many of the previous comments but have not yet found one that makes this point, so forgive me if I am repeating someone elses words.
:p .
:p .
If you read the patent (URL in the post, read the english 2/3 of the way down) you will note that the patent specifically refers to PDA/Handheld devices which (In my interpretation) have hardware buttons specially set aside for launching predefined applications (One per button) in different manners.
I find that quite stupid on the part of the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), as I am Australian, and know that the SMH is a popular Sydney newspaper and am wondering who their sources were, and why they haven't done their research
None the less, I will notify them later when I get the chance, if someone else doesn't beat me to it
Joel.
- the patents office staff is not really qualified?
- the computer network of the patents office might be running on windows?
I imagine a windows popup with "Do you alway trust Microsoft" press [OK] or [Abort]. When selecting [OK] all patents applications from Microsoft Corp. are assigned a auto approval. An employee pressing [Abort] however might get into deep trouble, for not getting enough patent tickets passed in a single day.Its time we send real experienced scientists back as staff inside the Patents office. How can this happen?
Robert
The USPTO has been accused of being lazy and ignorant for their inability/unwillingness to find prior art in the past, but this one takes the cake. The stupid moron who approved this probably double clicked something to do it! Where they using stone and chisel there before July 2002?!?!?
Clap Off! (clap clap)
Clap On, Clap Off, the Clapper!!
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
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.
time varying clicks came in with Morse code and the telegraph, patented 1837. MS Numbnuts.
Tripple click is used to highlight a whole line of text. These things are useful, amusingly enough.
It is possible to request that the USPTO re-examine a patent. This does not require suing (and technically, I believe, does not even require a lawyer).
I believe that there are some fees, but I could not find the cost of a inter partes or ex parte reexamination on the USPTO web site (and would appreciate anyone that knows posting -- I'm talking about the cost sans any associated legal costs, if someone gets a law firm to do this).
The re-examination usually relies on new prior art being brought to light.
I'd like to see this system modified to impose the fee (perhaps with some multiplier) on the *patent filer* if the reexamination finds that the patent is indeed invalid, rather than on the party requesting the reexamination. If the process of requesting patent reexamination was streamlined and made zero-cost (if you're correct), this would effectively eliminate the problem of bogus patents.
May we never see th
There's a hidden button on women which, if pressed properly, generates various responses. Click once for a slap, twice for a moan, or keep on clicking for more amusing results and sound effects.
And with my dear mother watching The Bachelor religiously, "limited resource computing devices" isn't all that bad a description.
(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.
They asked for the wrong patent. The correct one is called:
"Key sequence for setting the system in a sane state: Ctrl+Alt+Del"
This will last until there is nothing left to patent. Then they will decide the RIAA had the right idea all along and everyone from Microsoft to Walmart will turn to suing their customers as their main revenue stream.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
Damn, its gonna be a pain in the ass to type out "Small A with a Diaeresis" every time I need one of these stupid things: ä
I cannot believe it has not been brought up, but actually, I think, the Amiga had double-clicking before Microsoft. Sure, the Apple GUI and the Amiga GUI were very close in releases (Apple was a bit earlier), but the Apple was only single-click at that time. The Amiga was always double click from the get-go.
Not sure when the Atari 800 came out, but if memory serves me correct, the same guy (Jay Minor) who built the Amiga designed the Atari 800 as well. Amiga History
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.
Heh, IE already has a triple-click function built in :)
So does Mozilla Firefox. And Word. And SciTE.
It's a common feature wherever there are large amounts of selectable text:
- single click positions caret
- double click selects word
- triple click selects line/paragraph
My mouse has hardware buttons.
Free as in mason.
The cost of filing an inter partes reexamination is $8,800. However, it requires a full request, including prior art references, written in proper format. The prior art references must *address the claims* unlike most of the ranting on Slashdot. And the "real party of interest" must also be named.
Actual cost, if you use a lawyer will probably be in the range of $20K.
Thalia
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
panasonic manufactured a tuner that made use of this technology in the 90's. I'm sorry microshaft, but in my opinion, you'll have to JUSTY YOURSELVES on this one... panasonic did this one in hard ware as far as I can tell. Also I did the same thing in the same time period, in my AMX progamming stint...
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
It covers a way to get at least 3 different actions from the "application buttons"
I had a digital watch about 20 years ago that would use the different buttons in a different way. Press once to show the time, press twice to show the date and press longer to change the time.
For me that is the same as a short click, a long click and a double-click.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Where in the story text did Slashdot misrepresent information?
HAND.
I don't have the time to read all the 27 claims in detail, but the way I read this (especially claim 18) is that this is about the time the button being pressed. It never mentions the length of the pause between the button presses.
The way I understand a "double click" is that it is is two clicks with only a short time inbetween - it does not matter how long the individual clicks are.
And the thing is only about launching applications on a "limited resource computing device" (whatever that really is).
harald
Request your free CD of my piano music.
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 feel like I'm becoming a criminal without even trying.
At last, someone talking sense. The GPL is a workaround for a bad situation. The problem is that -- under the law as it stands today -- copyright is sacrosanct, whereas the Public Domain is unprotected from pilfering. Anybody can legally take a Public Domain work, make a tiny change, claim copyright on it, and start throwing their weight around in the courts. It should be the other way around: the Public Domain {which belongs to the majority} should be protected from abuse by copyright holders {the minority}. The GPL is a way to use existing copyright laws -- which ordinarily would benefit the minority -- in a way which benefits the majority. Copyright law gives authors {too much, some would say} control over distribution of their works -- the GPL is a way to use that control for good {ensuring that the majority of people have access to works in a fashion similar to the "Enhanced Public Domain" described below} rather than for evil {ensuring that a minority profit from works}.
If the Public Domain were as well protected from what some call "theft" as copyright material, -- i.e. you could make "fair use" of a PD work but not attempt to call it your own -- then there would be no need for the GPL, as all Free software could be dedicated to the Public Domain and then could not be "stolen" by Closed Source authors.
You would be automatically permitted to use up to X% of a PD work in a work on which you claim copyright, but any more than that and the work would belong in the Public Domain; just as you are allowed to use up to X% of someone else's copyrighted work in a work in a work on which you claim copyright, but any more than that and the work is still copyright of the original author. Additionally, any person would have to have the right to investigate any copyrighted work for evidence of misappropriation of Public Domain material {which would have to be made a criminal, rather than civil, offence; and falsely copyrighted works would pass automatically into the Public Domain}.
The important difference is that, unlike a copyrighted work, nobody would be able to give permission to use nore than X% of a Public Domain work in a copyrighted work {unless the would-be pilferer wishes to organise, at their own expense and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, a nationwide referendum on the issue}. This way, the Public Domain would be guaranteed to grow and grow.
In case anybody forgets, the original purpose of copyright law was to enhance the Public Domain by encouraging authors to contribute to it -- you were given a limited-term monopoly over your own work, in return for releasing it to the Public Domain for the benefit of everyone.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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 limited functionality, microprocessor-
controlled personal java engine (Mr. Coffee)
has been using single-click, multi-click, and
time domain click buttons since I first
purchased it SEVEN YEARS AGO. The buttons
are used to program time-of-day, and time-to-
brew functions. In what way is this NOT prior
art, stupid, stupid PTO?
Point taken; but I was actually responding to a post about copyrights triggered by a poster's signature in a discussion about patents. At least a person has a chance of living to see a patent expire .....
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
(And me my good karma; as usual when I comment on patents !)
Get a life. And I'm getting tired of those 'wrong' messages. Not only that I have to endure them; worse, with those misleading 'news' we make ourselves / slashdot the laughing bunch of our 'ennemies'.
Do it again, Sam. Okay, I'll do it again:
Seen with professional eyes, this patent might have to be granted or not. It is surely no great invention.
But once and for all: There is nothing in it that warrants the notion of 'Patent for double-click'. Over. Read the claims correctly, even in the light of the description as mandated by patent law. There is a lot of repetion and crap; but nowhere a patent for 'double-click'. It is ridiculous and childish (see above) to shorten the patent to *that*.
And 'we' do us and everyone else in the 'Anti-patent liga' a disservice by such false claims.
Bash that crap of patent application; but bash it correctly. *Then* you'll be taken serious. Not just with a foolish attitude and childish arguments.
Better: give me a decent income to comb all those half-brew emotional 'patent news' before ever they are accepted. (Anybody ??)
The patent - for those too lazy too read - is about one thing: selection through activation time of clickable widgets; nothing else. That is: *length* of continuously pressing it. Here on my Debian Sid I haven't found this feature, yet. The Double-Click only comes in in the Patent in combination and *added* to this checking of duration of uninterrupted 'pressing' the widget. Also this, I have never seen. Or read. But chances are, it *has* been published (or experienced, sold) before the *Filing Date*.
And I encourage everyone who is aware of such, to step forward and make herself known ! *This* would help 'our' course; contrary to those stupid remarks of where the Double-Click itself was noticed before that date. Lost time, wasted time. Simply because neither claimed nor granted !
One day I see such a crap submitted as story from RedMond; and some Cowboy might accept it; and they'll ROTFL; in RedMond. Would be a pity. Let's do much better !
Thanks !
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.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Before the deluge... (well, actually after the deluge), may I suggest that the average SlashDotter take a moment to learn how to read a patent.
The key things to look at are the claims. These are generally read in the context of the rest of the patent, but it's the claims that are the most important bit, since it's on these that the patentee claims a monopoly. Let's examine the claims of US6,727,830 (read along here).
Start with claim 1. It has four elements, a, b, c and d. A claim applies in whole, not in part, so for something to infringe, it would have to do all of a, b, c and d. Just doing a, b and c would not infringe. Take a look at the difference between c and d; the key point is that if the button is released after the time limit, the behaviour is different (the previous state is displayed). That's important and (as far as I know) novel. In particular, it's not the same as a double-click.
Similarly, claim 2 is like claim 1, only if the button is released after the time limit, the application starts with a new blank document. Claim 3 is a further variant, etc, etc.
I haven't proceeded to look at every single one of the other claims, but the key point to remember is to read them carefully and exactly, rather than jump to ludicrous conclusions such as "Microsoft Patent Doubleclick". You have eyes to read, and brains to think. Use them.
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,727,830&OS=6,727,8 30&RS=6,727,830
IANAL, but this patent seems to describe only various click modes for handheld devices, differentiating methods of launching applications.
In other words, this is not about stealing past revenue, but setting up to steal future revenue.
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...