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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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?
I'm not saying I agree with the patent, but it is for a PDA not a PC.
;)
It's almost funny to see them referring to it as a palm-type device all over the patent app
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
Absolutely, although reading the patent, I was interested to find it titled:
"Time based hardware button for application launch"
Interesting, as it seems to be getting at the idea of launching different applications based on how long you hold down a hardware button, rather than how long you click and hold on the screen. This ties in with the sentence further on which pertains to it being relevant to devices with limited resources, i.e. not very many buttons.
While I can see that this will get people's backs up if it impedes on double clicking, I don't think it does. I think it's aimed more along the lines of Apple's iPod interface controller patent - it's trying to carve out a control method for mobile devices.
I can see how this would be useful on a PDA for instance when the start menu is longer than the screen size (as in PocketPCs), but personally I'd prefer a jog dial...
On a side note, the story does seem to be scaremongering to a degree - this certainly isn't about patenting double clicking.
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 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.
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
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
If thats the case, I've seen prior art. A panasonic walkman I once had, included a single-button remote control. Click, and it changed presets. Doubleclick, and it did something else. Tripleclick, and it did a third thing. Hold it down, and it switched to the tape player, which had its own modes. Small learning curve, but a great one-button interface.
-- My Sig is a P228.
You mean like, pressing and holding a mouse button?
Even for this, Apple has prior art in the Newton. YTou could click a word to select it, double-click ("tap") it to drag, or even double-click on scripted text to convert it to text, sort of like to take freehand notes without without the text recognition engine to later convert it.
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!
At the moment when I press and hold my mouse button, nothing happens. Sure, stuff happens when I release it, but I don't get anything pop up just by holding. That stands true for both left and right buttons.
Now, this first time I did see this happen was on PocketPC 2000 software where a click and hold popped up the context menu. That's a 'hardware limited' device, i.e. it has no second button, just a stylus.
In any case I'd just like to point out that I'm not defending it - it's another silly patent - merely stating that the story has it wrong.
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
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.
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
my pda computes, and it is mine...so...seems to fit the PC deffinition to me!
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.
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 guess size really does matter after all.
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.
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
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
"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.
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.
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
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.
Tripple click is used to highlight a whole line of text. These things are useful, amusingly enough.
Rotary dials indicated the desired number by "hook flashing" - in other words, when you dialed the number '4' your phone would essentially click the "hang up button" on and off four times. If you did this manually you could dial any number you wished even if the lock was in place. To dial the number 6 you would click up and down 6 times. To dial the number 0 you would click up and down ten times. To dial the number '2' you would...
wait for it...
double click!
(For what it was worth I could dial 1-8 flawlessly, but would often flub up 9 and 0)
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
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
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 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
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
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. --
Actually, it's not. There already is an international Morse code for that: .-.-
.--.-
ö is ---.
å is
Just so you know.
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!
The title of the story is "Microsoft Receives Patent for Double-Click". The patent isn't on double-clicking. It's on (1) double-pressing of a button on a "limited resource computing device" in order to open an application and create a new blank document, and (2) pressing for a long period in order to open an application and re-open the last edited document.
Admittedly the idea is still an obvious extension of previous similar ideas and as such shouldn't be patentable, but it isn't quite as bad as patenting "double-click".
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!
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'
I'm not so sure about you, but my computer is a "limited resource computing device". My computer doesn't have unlimited ram, hard drive space or cpu power.
The main problem with patents like this is that you can patent something in such broad terms that it can be stretched to fit any definition they want it to fit.