Apple Sued For Using Tabs In OS X Tiger

rizzo320 writes "AppleInsider is reporting that an Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' infringes an interface patent relating to the OS's nearly universal use of tabs. The suit was filed in the patent troll's and forum shopper's favorite venue: Marshall, TX. The patent in question is 5072412, which was originally issued to Xerox in 1987, but is now owned or licensed to IP Innovation LLC and its parent Technology Licensing Corporation. 'Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches, as well as page tabs in the Safari web browser, bear the closest similarity to the now 20-year-old description' of the patent, according to the article. IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 million and an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!"

Comments

Mozilla?

[Ironix]

So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

Re:Mozilla?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Apple's got money.

Re:Mozilla?

[tibike77]

Why not against IE7/Microsoft ?
They certainly got more cash :)

Re:Mozilla?

[1337Garda]

So why not microsoft?

Re:Mozilla?

[mlk]

Can you lose rights to a patent for not protecting it?

Re:Mozilla?

[barn3y]

Apple's got money. That doesn't make the patent system any less broken.

Re:Mozilla?

[tezbobobo]

They've got too much money (for lawyers).

Re:Mozilla?

[Ash-Fox]

Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

Mozilla holds a patent for tabs in a browser.

Re:Mozilla?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't that an April fools'?

Re:Mozilla?

[Macthorpe]

I think this response has merit.

Apple have lost several high-profile patent cases in the last year or two. They'll probably hit Apple first and see if it works, then use the decision against anyone else they feel is infringing. It'll be harder for MS to throw money at it if one judge has already decided that tabbing infringes.

Re:Mozilla?

[Sigma 7]

Can you lose rights to a patent for not protecting it? IANAL, but no.

However, if you don't go after infringements in a timely fashion (e.g. wait for the patent to become an industry standard, or wait for the target company to become successful), then you risk losing rights.

Re:Mozilla?

[DrXym]

So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

Mozilla? Think farther back than that. OS/2 had tabs close to 15 years ago and I'm sure it wasn't the first either.

Re:Mozilla?

[Savage-Rabbit]

So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple? Apple's got money. Apple also has a high profile and a loyal customer following that borders on being a fan-base which ensures that this will be publicized by every Apple centric website and patent abolishment preaching nerd site on the net. This in turn will ensure that the main stream media will eventually pick up on it and bring it to the attention of the target audience which is the rest of the Software industry thus ensuring they get their FUD into the widest possible circulation completely free of charge.

And that concludes my conspiracy theory...

Re:Mozilla?

[daniel_newton]

Isnt Mozilla raking it in (via Google)?

Re:Mozilla?

[Professor_UNIX]

That doesn't make the patent system any less broken.

I think you're missing out on the point of patents. When the framers of the Constitution set up the trademarks, copyrights, and patent law it was specifically for a case like this. They imagined that old man Wilcox would invent an idea and patent it, but without any resources to develop his idea, he'd sit on his patent and wait. Then when rich old Farmer Gray took his new farming device to market 15 years later and proved to be a financial hit at the farmer's markets Wilcox would swoop in unveiling his submarine patent and demand a piece of the action, if not take over the device entirely from Gray! Early capitalism at its finest.

Re:Mozilla?

[PopeRatzo]

Whoa, wait a minute. You think the "framers of the Constitution" set up the current system of trademarks, copyrights and patent law?

Do you also think the "framers" are responsible for the current IRS tax law?

Career bureaucrats and smarmy politicians have corrupted much of our legal system beyond all recognition by the sainted "framers".

Re:Mozilla?

[empaler]

Can you lose rights to a patent for not protecting it? IANAL, but no.

However, if you don't go after infringements in a timely fashion (e.g. wait for the patent to become an industry standard, or wait for the target company to become successful), then you risk losing rights. Sooo... Yes?

Re:Mozilla?

[catwh0re]

Apple's also got prior art going as far back as 1980. That's about 7 years before this patent was granted.

Unlike the Real patent case, where Real's rather wide-netted patent stung Apple, Apple winning this one will be a cakewalk.

Re:Mozilla?

[dorkygeek]

Swooooooosh

Re:Mozilla?

[gravesb]

IANAPL, but after reading this patent, it seems to apply more to a system of desktops, such as KDE uses, as opposed to a tabbed environment. Of course, it is rather broad, and you could squeeze tabbed browsing into it I suppose. By the same token, you could squeeze most windowed systems that allow the windows to overlap and not lose their state.

Re:Mozilla?

[Ironix]

Ah yes, but can you sue IBM for patent infringement on an OS that they no longer sell or even support?

If I held a patent for something since 1980 and discovered, in hindsight, that some company infringed on my patent from 1985 to 1990, could I sue them 17 years after the fact?

I somehow doubt it, else we'd have a whole new form of forensic patent trolling.

Re:Mozilla?

[Jjoohhnn]

Xerox had one of the first GUI's. Apple had the second. Steve Jobs hired folks from Xerox down the road and owned some stock in Xerox. I am sure some slick lawyer is going to show a relation between Apple and Xerox from back in the day. OR between NeXT and Xerox which Apple purchased in the mid 90's.

Re:Mozilla?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Greetings! You are in flagrant breach of numerous patents, trademarks and copyrights owned by my clients, Nike. To avoid further escalation send 28 million dollars immediately to: Account 10986754, Bank of Nigeria, Zurich CH.

Re:Mozilla?

[Wookietim]

So does Microsoft - and IE7 seems to be in violation of this as well.....

Re:Mozilla?

[FellowConspirator]

The original framers of the Constitution did not imagine patent trolls at all. At that time, one needed to demonstrate a working prototype of the invention. That prototype was also referred to to remove ambiguity as to what was being patented.

Not true any more.

I'd point out that the patent was filed for more than 20 years ago, but not granted until 1991.

I'd also point out that the patent implies an implementation much different than how such things are implemented today. The idea is not subject to patent, only the implementation -- which is demonstrably different.

Re:Mozilla?

[CarpetShark]

Apple also has more enemies, I'll bet. Remember what happened last time Microsoft decided they didn't like a certain government IT guy who was proposing a switch to OpenDocument?

Re:Mozilla?

[wild_berry]

I was assuming this was a patent troll biting the hand that moves the legislators, causing campaigning, lobbying and eventual patent reform.

Re:Mozilla?

[egomaniac]

That sound you just heard was the joke going over your head. Please recalibrate your sarcasm detectors.

Re:Mozilla?

[DrXym]

I think it would be virtually impossible to come into contact with any computer in the last 15 years and not see tabs. MS Windows 3.1 had tabs on apps like MS Office and thereafter. Windows 95 onwards extensively used tabs. Lotus Notes had tabs. Mac OS had tabs in MacOS 7 onwards. OS/2 2.0 onwards had tabs. GNOME & KDE had tabs. Every other web site has tabs or a tab-like organisational metaphor.

Everything had tabs. I don't think there is any way whatsoever that they can feign ignorance that tabs have been literally ubiquitous in the last 15-20 years. I have no idea what this means to their lawsuit, but I expect most judges would raise their eyebrows that some submarine patent could appear now and challenge a universally adopted and rather obvious convention.

Re:Mozilla?

[Emetophobe]

Mozilla has money too, just not nearly as much as Apple.

from wikipedia:

In 2005, the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation had a combined revenue of US$52.9 million. Approximately 95 percent of this revenue[73] was related to their search engine relationships.

That's back in 2005, I bet by now their revenue is over $100 million.

Re:Mozilla?

[darinp]

I was with you until you said "borders one being a fan-base" Apple-bois will get you for that. Generally a nice theory, though.

Re:Mozilla?

[bkr1_2k]

So does Microsoft, and as far as I know, IE has tabs, and other windows in Windows have had tabs since Win95 at least.

I wonder if someone has a beef with Apple, or they just seemed the least likely to go to court over the issue?

Re:Mozilla?

[Ougarou]

Maybe they where told to keep quiet about it, like the Gaim... ehm Pidgin people.

Re:Mozilla?

[siriuskase]

Shouldn't they have gone after Apple back in the 80's when Jobs was "inspired" by the work at Xerox Parc? Why haven't they sued Apple for using a mouse? Shouldn't patent suits happen before an innovation becomes the de facto industry standard interface?

or maybe Disney is getting ready to sue everyone over the mouse

Re:Mozilla?

[CrudPuppy]

how about for prior art they drag in a filing cabinet from the 60's and show the tabs on top of each folder that separates things by category *grin*

Re:Mozilla?

[mr_rarr]

What I find funny is why not google or even Micro$oft... Google's personalized hame page allow users to add tabs in their homepage. I heard with ie7 you can now use tabs...

Re:Mozilla?

[Zaatxe]

An elephant has much more meat than an antelope. But do you see lions attacking an elephant? No, because it's much harder to beat to be worth it.

Re:Mozilla?

[mrchaotica]

back in the 80's when Jobs was "inspired" by the work at Xerox Parc?

No, Bill Gates was "inspired"... Jobs actually licensed the technology.

Re:Mozilla?

[jez9999]

Never mind that; if this was issued in 1987, doesn't that mean its 20 year period is either up or nearly up? So, they're suing solely for PREVIOUS violations of the patent, not current violations? If this is the case, it most certainly should be outlawed. They've made no attempt to defend the patent, and have cynically waited until the last minute to screw (many well-intentioned) others out of as much money as possible.

Re:Mozilla?

[canuck57]

Apple's got money.

So does Microsoft!

But why pick on a 1000 lb gorilla when you can go for chimp first.

My guess s Xerox is going for Apple to set the precedent, then go after the gorilla. Even at say $3 a copy sold, this is a huge amount of cash.

In the end, these companies will all realize patents are a curse, not a benefit as the only winners are lawyers and judges. A parasitic cost to the product that will break even the biggest of companies.

Re:Mozilla?

[Wicko]

Because mozilla firefox is open source?

Re:Mozilla?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actualy that's completely wrong. The original idea was Joe invents a very cool widget that would benefit everyone. It is in societies best interest that Joe not keep how the widget works secret. So the deal is, Joe agrees to tell everyone how the widget works, in return for Joe sharing all the information on his widget the government gives him a temporary monopoly on said widget. The idea is eventually these good idea should become public property after the inventor has been rewarded for his idea. This is a similar idea to copyright. And why copyright and patents are supposed to EXPIRE.

Re:Mozilla?

[hoppo]

IANAL either (although I have been involved with a patent infringement defense in the realm of software), but I think Apple could successfully defend itself here by citing prior art, and also challenging the novelty of the patent. One strategy of patent defense is to demonstrate how someone skilled in the art would naturally and independently develop a product that is largely like the invention being patented.

Re:Mozilla?

[djasbestos]

What if were parallel development? What if Wilcox throws together a crap version of what Gray is working on and gets the patent first for his ripoff?

"Submarine patent" seems unethical to me...there are ways for the person "without any resources" to get them...venture capitalism, anyone? This isn't to say that an innovator shouldn't be compensated for his work, but really, as we all know, the patent office is almost as guilty as congress of not reading the crap they push through.

Re:Mozilla?

[gravesb]

True, but your jury is not skilled in the art, and the question is whether they will give credence to that claim from a potentially self serving Apple witness. Regardless of how obvious something is on /., it may not be obvious to twelve ranchers in that district in Texas.

Re:Mozilla?

[mlk]

Thanks, so in this case Apple might have a chance?

Re:Mozilla?

[corifornia]

A direct quote from the patent: "back door" Sorry, that phrase always makes me laugh. That's all.

Re:Mozilla?

[el americano]

It'll be harder for MS to throw money at it if one judge has already decided that tabbing infringes.

Throw money at a judge? hmmmm, now there's an idea.

Re:Mozilla?

[cpu_fusion]

Spot on. This is exactly what needs to be done in these sorts of cases. Show the patent itself is bullshit because it merely takes a real world process or metaphor and then tacks on some variant of "on the computer" or "on the Internet".

Re:Mozilla?

[AaronW]

If it applies to desktops, that type of support has been around a long time. I remember using tvtwm in the early 1990s and Wikipedia indicates that it was round at least since August of 1990, and twm came out in 1987. Swm, which also supported virtual desktops, came out in 1990. Gwm, which appears to also support virtual desktops, came out in 1989. Also of note, GWM is an early form of spyware since it automatically sent a UDP packet back home for usage tracking.

Re:Mozilla?

[rainman_bc]

Microsoft Excel would be a good target too, as multiple worksheets are tabs also.

As well, many Windows properties windows have a tabbed interface.

It's been around since Windows 3.1... Quite likely longer.

There should be patent laws that are similar to trademark laws. If you don't enforce your patent you should lose it.

Re:Mozilla?

[Durandal64]

Because Steve Jobs paid for it. The Xerox execs didn't think the stuff being developed in PARC was going anywhere, so they were happy to sell it to him.

Re:Mozilla?

[put_the_cat_out]

If you don't enforce your patent rights in a timely manner, you DO NOT lose them. The only thing that is lost is the right to collect monetary damages for infringing activity that occurred more than six years in the past. The patent owner can always get an injunction to stop ongoing infringing activity.

Re:Mozilla?

[RobertM1968]

Because IBM owns the patent for tabs in a browser ( http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6049812&id= cA0EAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=tabbed+br owsing )

Xerox owns the patent for tabbed use/behavior in OS GUI components...

But your point is still valid if it were "Why didnt they go after IBM for their extensive use of tabs in their OS (OS/2), and after MS for their extensive use of tabs in their OS's (Win95 and up)?"

Unfortunately, one of the replies to your post with modification, probably still applies... They probably went after Apple, because they have money - but not as much as IBM and MS who they probably cant out-lawyer.

Re:Mozilla?

[ChronosWS]

IANAL, but no. Patents may be selectively enforced by the patent holder. Trademarks are what you are thinking of which must be enforced or you risk losing them.

Re:Mozilla?

[toriver]

Actualy that's completely wrong.

Is that a synonym for "sarcasm"? Because that was what it was.

Re:Mozilla?

[rm69990]

And Apple doesn't??? Unless Apple/Microsoft would be paying their lawyers billions of dollars (which is extremely unlikely), both companies could just as easily defend against this lawsuit. Both companies are making more than a billion in profit each quarter, and have billions in the bank. Furthermore, Microsoft's software is distributed to a much wider audience than Apple's, so for the same litigation costs, more damages could be collected.

Re:Mozilla?

[Anonymous Coward]

back in the 80's when Jobs was "inspired" by the work at Xerox Parc? No, Bill Gates was "inspired"... Jobs actually licensed the technology. Mac fans love spreading this myth.

Both Gates and Jobs were "inspired" by the work of Xerox PARC. Both also licensed GUI elements from Xerox. Yes, Microsoft also licensed GUI technology from Xerox (easily obtainable links via Google).

Re:Mozilla?

[Gromius]

Actually I have seen lions attacking an elephant on planet earth (sorry couldnt find a better link). Sometimes if you sneak up when the conditions are favourable and the target is distracted, the risk/reward ratio becomes worth it.

Re:Mozilla?

[angus_rg]

Why stop there? Everything you see in most of Apple's Operating systems over the years has in some way been linked back to Xerox PARC. The first Apple gui was even written with the help of the Xerox PARC team. MS has already paid it's dues for ripping off Xerox in 88. It just payed them to Apple instead of Xerox.

The big question is, why now?

Re:Mozilla?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Which makes me question if they're actually a jury of my peers, and whether its possible to get a fair trial.

Re:Mozilla?

[siriuskase]

Don't know about you, but engineers are routinely struck from juries simply because lawyers can't deal with people who think logically. So, if you are an engineer, it is very hard to get tried by a jury of your peers.

Is there an English version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I tried to read the patent text, but I didn't even get halfway through and my head is still spinning. Can anyone give an English translation of it?

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[nagora]

People bitch about software patents, but in reality they are not that different from any other patents.

Or, to put it another way, you have no idea what you're talking about. Software patents are totally different from normal patents because they protect ideas instead of implimentations. This is inevitable since software is almost always translated from a source language, which is often a trade secret. If software patents were the same as normal ones it would be the details of this source code which is protected (as it is by copyright law already). Allowing patents on software extends the protection to any implimentation in any language and often with any algorithm. This is vastly more protection than a normal patent which covers only one, clearly defined, method and effectively allows a software patent to lock up an entire idea or concept.

Additionally, this patent covers something which is as old as the hills. Tabs for organising pages are almost as old as paper itself. Putting that onto a computer simulation of paper is not something that should be patentable at all.

TWW

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but I would assume a 20 year old patent would be invalid today making future software safe to use this so-called invention.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[the_womble]

People bitch about software patents, but in reality they are not that different from any other patents.

The only reason you are right about that, is because patents are horribly broken in lots of fields - pharmaceuticals, for example.

They often do not work anything like as well as they are supposed to in advancing technology, and they do a lot to impose extra costs and barriers to entry.

People on Slashdot dislike software patents in particular, partly because they are particularly bad, and partly because that is what they know most about. There is also very good evidence that software patents do not work because software only recently became patentable. Technology did not advance any faster after this, therefore software patents do not work. We do not have as solid evidence on other types of patents.

See my past Slashdot comments and my blog for more.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[TheJasper]

Apple's screwed. Not hardly. They can certainly pay the damages if it comes that far. Certainly that is all that the suing party is after. They might be inconvenienced if it forces them to stop selling their OS, but that will be temporary at best(worst).

People bitch about software patents, but in reality they are not that different from any other patents. In any fast growing field, the people on the cutting edge would see applications that are obvious with any hindsight. Unfortunately they need not be that obvious at the time to the USPTO who likely are not that familiar with the material.

IANAL, but even if software patents are just like others this doesn't mean the patents are a good thing. It might just mean the whole patent system is corrupt. I certainly wonder if it achieves the goal it was created for, namely to get people to reveal their techniques while giving them a chance to profit off of it. Also, the fact that the people at the USPTO don't have the qualifications to pass judgement on patents they approve doesn't speak well of the USPTO.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mwvdlee]

So if I file some lawsuit about some ancient patent against you, and make sure you are able to pay whatever I ask in damages, you won't feel screwed and just pay me?

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[TheJasper]

Sure, but in this case I interpreted the original post as meaning that apple has already lost the battle and is in trouble. Even so, its also a matter of scale. 20 mill aint notthing, but it also isn't going to hurt Apple alot. Now sue *ME* for 20 mill and I'll be declaring bankruptcy. That is screwed.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Firethorn]

To put it another way, this is like being able to patent the gasoline engine.

If it transforms gasoline into motive force, it's in violation of the patent. You could build a gasoline powered steam engine and it'd be infringing. The patent could have been for a 2 stroke, then a company comes along and starts mareting a rotary engine and the patent holder sues.

Tabs have been used to assist in organizing and finding specific parts of paper-based information for ages. Desktops, filing cabinets, trash cans and many other objects have made appearances in GUIs, so why not tabs?

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

That's not strictly true. Patents protect methods. Whether that method involves a series of gears, a paintbrush's movement on canvas, or some lines of code isn't really relevant, generally.

Saying it's not patentable is a false conclusion based on hindsight. If someone put a computer in front of you with a text-based interface, you wouldn't immediately look at it and say "tabs!" That's the answer! Obviously, you wouldn't even immediately create the idea of a GUI. A basic graphical interface was possible long before it was actually implemented. In 1981, I wouldn't have been able to find a single reason to identify a tab patent as obvious. Just because an idea is simple doesn't mean it's not patentable. Adding flush rivets to planes is a very simple idea, but it took a tremendous amount of engineering and trial-and-error in manufacturing processes. The end result is patentable because they figured out how to make it happen. The method itself is a trade secret (just as the source code for implementing a software feature can be). You'll note that most patents say "a method where..." or something similar and the patent describes the results. This is why.

Organizing information to display in tabs is a method. At one time, it was novel and non-obvious. There was no reason to reject a patent for it ("I should have thought of that!" isn't one) in 1981. The problem is that software patents last too long (things which were groundbreaking even just 5 years ago are old news), and infringement suits have become a method for profiteering. In 2007, tabs and scroll bars are old hat. Patent infringement suits should have to be defended from day one. If you wait 15 years to sue (at which time, 99% of the industry has gradually adopted that method), you're profiteering. There is no legitimate excuse. If you have been defended your patent since the beginning, that's an entirely different story.

I don't have a problem with patents being granted for novel innovations. I do feel that the USPTO should insist on a uniform licensing model, though, and that patents should need to be defended as the holder becomes aware of the problem, not several years later when the fruit is ripe, so to speak. I also believe that once your idea has propagated to the point where no one can even pinpoint the source, it's too late to sue. It's the difference between holding a patent on a gasoline engine in 1800 and trying to sue for one in 2007.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[nagora]

Whether that method involves a series of gears, a paintbrush's movement on canvas, or some lines of code isn't really relevant, generally.

"Some lines of code" is like saying "using engineering". Physical method patents are far more tightly restricted than that and copyright effectively gives the same level of protection in the world of software, and that is all that is needed or desirable.

TWW

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[jeremyp]

Organizing information to display in tabs is a method. At one time, it was novel and non-obvious. There was no reason to reject a patent for it ("I should have thought of that!" isn't one) in 1981.

The idea of using tabs to help display information predates this patent by at least several decades. For instance, for as long as I can remember (at least 35 years) my mother has had an address book with staggered cut-outs from the edge of the pages. Each cut-out exposed a small area of one of the susequent pages which was labelled with a letter of the alphabet. If you put your finger on that letter and then turned over all the pages before it, you got to the addresses that started with that letter.

Where do you think the metaphor for tabs used in GUIs comes from? Tabs were not novel in 1981 or even 1987 when this patent was filed.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[dbIII]

In 1981, I wouldn't have been able to find a single reason to identify a tab patent as obvious.

In 1981 I was using them to organise sections in my schoolbooks - it was that obvious then and long before.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

Paper tabs don't automatically convert to a digital environment. We're quite accustomed to thinking in terms of a "desktop metaphor" today--but it did not exist prior to 1984 and even then not anywhere near the extent it does now. In 1981, it simply had not been done.

Just because you invent the wheel doesn't mean that every innovation that is based on that idea is suddenly non-patentable. The inspiration rarely matters (think of how many patented designs and mechanisms are based on observations about the natural world).

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Edoko]

Did anyone patent the book?

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[SocratesJedi]

While I agree with you to a limited extent that software patents are broken, I generally have to disagree with you about pharmaceutical patents which I think are serving their function correctly. The whole point of a patent is to encourage development and innovation of new technologies by providing a limited window of profitability for that company. With the titanic cost of development of a new drug and then passing all of the required regulatory trials, I have serious doubts that companies in the pharmaceutical industry would have any hope of being profitable without being able to enforce patents. No profitability would simply mean that these companies wouldn't exist and the state of health care would be in an even worse state because we would lack all the drugs developed by those companies with the expectation of future profits.
 
Obviously, it seems, there is still some sort of problem with any health care system which causes there to be access problems for people who have few financial resources. The root cause isn't the evil and greed Big Pharma abusing the patent system though; they're using patent law in exactly the way it was intended to be used.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

Have you ever read a patent? They all but say "using engineering" for most detailed and complex methods and go on to describe the results and/or consequences without disclosing the full answer to "how." That is because the engineering processes (including the mathematical algorithms that produced them [I'm talking even outside of software]) are protected trade secrets. Patents are vague in places where trade secrets are involved (that includes specific source code and particular manufacturing processes and formulas).

Copyright does not offer the same level of protection. Copyright only covers an explicit work (in software, that would mean the exact source code specifically). Patent holders do not have to file for new patents with every minor revision of a product, nor do most of them require a new patent when switching what building materials are used (except of course where the material itself is part of the patent). Copyright does not and cannot protect a method or process.

Think of those formulaic novels by the pulp author of your choice. Copyright protects each novel. Copyright cannot protect the method used to produce them.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

Good for you. Unless your schoolbooks were on a computer, though, it doesn't matter. In 1981, the "desktop metaphor" for computers didn't exist. That (patented) metaphor came about through a series of innovations throughout the decade. Turbines had been in use for decades prior to the invention of the jet engine. You're fooling yourself if you think the jet engine didn't involve a swarm of patents ("using a turbine to force air through a combustion chamber").

For a concrete example, though, take the flame can. Candle holders (primitive flashlights) have for a good 200 years, if not longer, put a cylinder around candles to keep them from blowing out as you walked with them. Early jet engines wouldn't stay lit, because the wind would blow out the fire. The flame can put a perforated metal cylinder around the ignition point to keep the engines lit. This was patented and non-obvious (in the patent sense).

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

A basic graphical interface was possible long before it was actually implemented.

A graphical interface is a virtualisation or simulation of the control panel of a machine. Thus I would argue that a computer gui is just a logical continuation of an aircraft cockpit or the cab of a steam train.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

So the camera is not patentable because paint and paintbrushes have been able to approximate things seen in real life for centuries?

Your argument lacks subtlety. Everything in the world is a logical continuation of something--nothing has been entirely original since the dawn of civilization.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[xtracto]

Saying it's not patentable is a false conclusion based on hindsight. If someone put a computer in front of you with a text-based interface, you wouldn't immediately look at it and say "tabs!" That's the answer! Obviously, you wouldn't even immediately create the idea of a GUI

I completely agree with you on this. Tabbed interfaces (ala windows app bar) IS novel invention, even if *now* it seems like stupid and superfluous for everyone... you just have to take a look at the Progman (windows 3.XX) interface and you will see how the idea of tabs really increases productivity.

Ido feel that the USPTO should insist on a uniform licensing model, though, and that patents should need to be defended as the holder becomes aware of the problem, not several years later when the fruit is ripe

The problem I see with this is that if you have a small company, which is trying to license a portfolio of licenses you might not have the resources to look into every application on every place in order to make sure that it is not infringing your patents. And, it is until the products of these companies get famous that you might actually realize they are infringing.

Of course, I think there is no need to sue first, I would incline to agree on a license with the infringing party, but sometimes, these big corporations are so high in their horses that they will just tell you to fuck off and die, and then it is when you should sue.

Therefore, I believe that patents are not evil, the problem is that with the current law (or the current *way* to enforce the law) makes it possible for patent leaches like these to exist. It is a matter of being sue-happy. But then again, from my (non USAnian) point of view, in the USA everyone tries to fix everything by suing each other (you know, the McDonalds coffee, the Suing house thief, and the suing slipping guy because there was no "watch out" sign...).

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[dbIII]

You are confusing software patents with patents on actual inventions. Copyright is what should be used since unders software patents it would be possible to say "just like my schoolbook only on a computer" and get a patent - utterly ridiculous and I and countless others thought like this, which is why the desktop metaphor worked in the first place. Wasn't the Apple Lisa three years into development by then anyway?

It appears you are learning about jet engines in school at the moment and couln't resist adding that in - look up Coanda, he had a lot of proir art and did some interesting stuff from early in the century right up until the 1950s.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how the first half, which might be an argument worth responding to (prefixing "{on,with,by} a machine" seemed to work for thousands of patents) is completely negated by the second half.

Give me the patent number and I'll cut you a check, less the moron fees I impose on people who don't know how to use commas.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not for the life of me expect to find a commenter on Slashdot that actually "gets it". While I may disagree with some of your minor points, kudos to you for actually knowing what you're talking about, unlike most of the rest of the rabble on here.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

Coanda did some very important and innovative work, but not on the flame can to my knowledge. If you have a link, please share. Also, "prior art" doesn't affect patentability--it just affects who should hold the patent.

For the record, I'm not in school and don't understand the Slashdot meme of trying to score points by accusing people of being students. It always seems to pop up when people want to prop up a weak argument.

There is no confusion on my end, except what you're trying to say with your first paragraph. "Just like my schoolbook only on a computer" is exactly the same as "just like my candle only in an engine." There's no functional difference here.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Have you ever read a patent? They all but say "using engineering" for most detailed and complex methods and go on to describe the results and/or consequences without disclosing the full answer to "how."

That shouldn't be allowed. The orignal meaning of the word patent is open (as in patently obvious).

That is because the engineering processes (including the mathematical algorithms that produced them [I'm talking even outside of software]) are protected trade secrets.

For the reasons I stated above, allowing a partially secret patent is a contradiction in terms and nonesensical.

We all love car analogies, so let's assume it's the year 1850. You should not be allowed to patent "a means of producing mechanical energy from gasoline. It's got metal bits in it, and that's all I'm saying." But you should be allowed to patent a specific implementation, e.g. the four stroke internal combustion engine. That would not prevent someone else inventing another means to the same end, e.g. a turbine.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

That shouldn't be allowed. The orignal meaning of the word patent is open (as in patently obvious). Actually, "patently obvious" and "patent" come from "letters patent" which itself comes from Latin, but that's neither here nor there. The openness refers to the opening of the design at the expiration of the period, not to the clarity and precision of the filing itself. A patent has never been expected to provide enough information to produce the result--only enough information to describe it sufficiently for identification.

For the reasons I stated above, allowing a partially secret patent is a contradiction in terms Only from a poor understanding. Trade secret trumps patent in IP poker.

You should not be allowed to patent "a means of producing mechanical energy from gasoline. It's got metal bits in it, and that's all I'm saying." But you should be allowed to patent a specific implementation, e.g. the four stroke internal combustion engine. That would not prevent someone else inventing another means to the same end, e.g. a turbine. Start from the beginning. "A means of producing mechanical energy from a combustible fuel source" absolutely was patentable (not by 1850, though). The external combustion engine was patentable when created; the internal combustion engine was patentable, too. From there, someone could come up with the idea of the piston engine to drive a rotating shaft attached to a wheel. Another person could come up with the idea of a turbine. Yet another could come up with the rotary engine. Using these engines to drive a fan blade (propeller) instead of a wheel would be novel, and then using a series of fan blades to compress air, or using that propeller to generate direct lift would branch out from there. This process continues, and the original patents lapse as innovation compresses them into a mass of "basic principles."

Each of these innovations builds from the previous in a new way. But each of them also was non-obvious when it was invented. The wheel seems utterly obvious to all of us alive today, but it obviously wasn't when it was invented (or it would have been invented sooner). Absurdly simple things like four-stroke engines or counter-sinking screws or using a visual desktop metaphor weren't always so.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[udippel]

Okay, I'll give it a quick shot. Read the non-italic for the 'short version':

1. A system comprising:
a display;

obvious until here, okay ?

first and second workspace data structures relating respectively to first and second workspaces that can be presented on the display;

Two different sets of data belonging to two different workspaces that can be displayed on the display.

each of the first and second workspaces including a respective set of display objects; each of the display objects being perceptible as a distinct, coherent set of display features; the display objects of each respective set being perceptible as having spatial positions relative to each other when the respective workspace is presented on the display;

Each of the two workspaces contain useful image information, displayed on specific regions of the display

display object means for generating first and second display objects; the first workspace data structure being linked to the display object means so that the first display object is in the respective set of display objects of the first workspace; the second workspace data structure being linked to the display object means so that the second display object is in the respective set of display objects of the second workspace;

Means to generate the display information from the workspace content


and
control means for accessing the first workspace data structure to cause the display to present the first workspace including the first display object;

some way to display the first workspace

the control means further being for accessing the second workspace data structure to cause the display to present the second workspace including the second display object;

some way to display the content of the second workspace

the display object means generating the first and second display objects so that the second display object is perceptible as the same tool as the first display object when the second workspace is presented after the first workspace.

[This is what they perceive as the core of the invention:]
It is possible to switch between the two workspaces that belong to a common application.

Does this help ?

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[hey!]

Well, if you remember the early days of GUIs, (the 1980s) there were lots of attempts to create highly literal representations of familiar and useful real world objects: trapezoidal desktops that sat on top of file drawers to represent that the surface in question was, indeed a desktop; tabbed notebooks with spiral "bindings" to represent the fact that this was, indeed, a notebook.

Nobody patented these things because it was the obvious way to make a GUI. It was also the wrong way.

Very quickly, the interfaces became streamlined, losing literal aspects of the metaphor. Desktops became rectangular and filled the entire screen, maximizing the user's work space. Notebooks lost the spiral bindings but kept the tabs, leaving more room for notebook contents.

This process is also obvious: remove elements from the metaphor that perform no function other than to carry the metaphor to the user. This process is forced by constraints (users only have so much screen real estate and designers are always fighting that limitation). It works because the functional elements of the metaphor are sufficient to carry message of its usage to the users: the fact that things can be placed on the desktop is all the user need to know; the fact that clicking on a tab selects a different page carries the meaning of the tab to the user.

It is not the originality of the "inventor" which created tabs, it was an inevitable historical process of literalism and erosion of irrelevant detail; the same process that created alphabets from pictograms.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[the_womble]

It is not the lack of access to drugs that I regard as the key problem. That is soluble without changing the patent system.

I did not want to post these links because I posted them on Slashdot before, but they explain my objections better than I will in a quick Slashdot comment.:

http://pietersz.co.uk/2007/02/patents-inefficient
http://pietersz.co.uk/2007/01/pharmaceutical-incen tives-development

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mrchaotica]

That is because the engineering processes (including the mathematical algorithms that produced them [I'm talking even outside of software]) are protected trade secrets.

And of course that whole situation is bullshit to begin with, because the whole point or patents was to get the inventor to disclose his methods instead or keeping them secret! In a perfect world, patents (and copyrights) would be incompatible with trade secrets.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[bit01]

The wheel seems utterly obvious to all of us alive today, but it obviously wasn't when it was invented (or it would have been invented sooner).

Do you realize how silly this sentence makes you sound? Non-obviousness is just one of many reasons why something might not be invented sooner. Patent proponents love to ignore that simple fact. At the risk of sounding like a broken record they need to get it into their thick skulls that no prior art is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for something being non-obvious. To argue that no prior art directly implies non-obviousness is dishonest. Not that such dishonesty stops assorted patent proponents from trying.

Another thing that patent proponents are dishonest about: obviousness can indeed be judged after the fact. In fact it it can be judged better. After the fact a person has more relevant facts at their disposal and can put things in historical context. They can make a better judgment about whether something was non-obvious or simply that all the precursors were there, the invention's time had come and was going to be independently invented by many people. People don't suddenly lose their mental faculties when they have more facts at that their disposal as patent proponents love to imply.

---

Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[russotto]

A patent has never been expected to provide enough information to produce the result--only enough information to describe it sufficiently for identification.

From the US Patent Office web site:

The specification must include a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.

You may STFU now.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Message to Slash developer: In plain old text, "less than" and "greater than" should not be interpreted as HTML. Yep, because using &lt; for < and &gt; for > is just so difficult.

Lazy bastard.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[NoOneInParticular]

I have serious doubts that companies in the pharmaceutical industry would have any hope of being profitable without being able to enforce patents. No profitability would simply mean that these companies wouldn't exist ...

The big question of course is: would it destroy the pharmaceuticals? Even without patents there still is a market worth trillions of dollars for drugs. This demand will be filled somehow, that's inevitable. Save for government institutes, pharmaceuticals are the only entities large enough to be able to hold the necessary clinical trials for new drugs to get adopted. Will new drugs and treatments stop being researched? Given that very wealthy and also a much larger and therefore more important group of well-to-do people are not very inclined to simply whither off and die when they're ill, I'm pretty sure that some form of economic incentive would be found very quickly to reward research into important diseases. This will most likely take the form of billion dollar foundations that sponsor research in particular areas. With the absence of patent law, the results of such research would be available for all (including developing countries). Note that in many cases, drug research is a question of life and death for the ill. They'll pay to develop a cure, and as long as it doesn't make sense to take your money into your grave, you can be sure about that fact.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone put a computer in front of you with a text-based interface, you wouldn't immediately look at it and say "tabs!" That's the answer!

And that's why you're not an expert in the field.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

Hey genius, pay special attention to the "skilled in the technological area" part. A patent is not a complete blueprint. It is only enough information to allow someone else to identify its unique features, i.e. to recreate it. A patent does not, and has never, required any company to surrender any legally protectable trade secrets. Once again, I repeat: trade secret trumps patent. No legal field stands alone.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

Patent proponents love to ignore that simple fact. At the risk of sounding like a broken record they need to get it into their thick skulls that no prior art is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for something being non-obvious. No one said any different. That's why "novel and non-obvious" tends to be the descriptor used. What Slashdot trolls need to get into their lead skulls is that it's not always practical to speak in English of "novel, non-obvious, and innovative" and to qualify and identify those terms completely each and every time one wants to speak of a new and patentable invention. The pedanticism is unnecessary--the fact that they were patentable stands to reason that they met the criteria. I am not going to give the complete breakdown for every example, as the posts would simply be too long.

The lack of such a discussion does not negate its importance, particularly when one assumes that people understand that there is more to say. When one talks about programming here, it is not necessary to explain the code step=by-step. If you don't understand patents, don't make an ass of yourself.

obviousness can indeed be judged after the fact. In fact it it can be judged better. Of course it can be judged better in hindsight. That does not mean, however, that people can successfully separate themselves from a world in which the consequences are utterly engrained. That's why patents have to be practical. Of course you'll fire back about some odd patent granted for an anitgravity drive or something, but those are the exception, not the rule. Please also remember that patents don't themselves grant any manufacturing rights. Also try to understand that simplicity is not the same as obviousness. How many super-complicated flying machines had to be tried before the simple airfoil came about? You certainly can't demonstrate the obviousness of the scroll bar, for example. However, the horizontal scroll bar would not be deserving of a second patent.

Patent opponents like to pretend that things that are now obvious would have been invented at some point anyway and that point would be just weeks or months later by massive numbers of people, but in most cases, that's impossible to prove. "Prior art" does not include whimsical fantasy, and ideas of striking simplicity do not mean that they are obvious in a patent-barring sense. Additionally, the last few patents in the initial creation stage of anything are always going to be a grey area as the different lines of "obvious" are drawn by different people. The application of an existing technology to a completely unrelated field also qualifies as non-obvious. Computers and desks, for example, or household lighting and aircraft are non-obvious evolution. Civil aircraft and commercial aircraft, probably not; applications in Windows and applications in Linux, probably not. Each patent solves a problem. That problem would likely be solved at some point, with some method, perhaps even one adapted from a totally different field. The original thinking that produces the answer is still patentable--it was only "obvious" if other companies all had the same idea. With the flame can, lots of people were trying dozens of different methods. The flame can came about and it was adopted across the board almost immediately. That may look like obviousness in hindsight, but it clearly was not at the time. It was adopted rapidly and completely because it worked, it was cheap, and it was simple; even still, almost no one had thought to use it until it was demonstrated.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[nagora]

Interesting. Your whole post appears to be wrong.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[bortizc]

there were tabs in AppleWorks for the apple //. I remember because I worked all the way thru highscool using AppleWorks.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[dbIII]

It had nothing really to do with the topic so I assumed you were a student that had just learned something cool and wanted to tell us - sorry about that. That and the suggestion that 1981 was prehistory I suppose.

I brought up Coanda since it's interesting stuff you don't get in the short histories of aviation or fluid mechanics and you can see one of his major discoveries nearly every time you pour a cup of tea. Working out a quantitative description of it is a different matter - paticularly when the aircraft is on fire and there is a stone wall approaching at high speed. In the end the ramjet was not the answer but he did a lot of other stuff.

This is not the patent on an invention anyway - it is on a metaphor so copyright is where it should be. I consider the introduction of software patents a shortsighted and grave error which could lead to nearly all commercial software being produced outside of the USA. We've already seen that with encryption software due to some short sighted laws in that area.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a troll, and I'm biting.

The OP said "plain old text". In "plain old text", angle brackets should be accepted verbatim.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

In a perfect world, none of it would even be necessary; not IP, not criminal law, not contracts. In a perfect world, everyone would be able to pursue his or her interests freely without worrying about the realities of making ends meet. In a perfect world, nothing would cost anything and all technology would be 100% green. The ozone hole wouldn't exist, the rainforest would still be intact, and we wouldn't have hunted humpback whales nearly to the brink of extinction. We'd also all look like supermodels and be able to eat fried anything-we-want without damaging six-pack abs.

In the real world, we have to compromise. We have to coax multibillion-dollar corporations into sharing their research and innovations, and we have to artificially inflate the earning potential of artists, since the goods they produce have zero "need." We have to work to keep our magazine-cover abs and endure decades of debt to pay for our houses. It's not ideal, but it's what we've got to work with.

Patents lapse, and the methods indicated become free for all to enjoy. A perfect world would have no need for trade secrets to begin with, let alone any measure of compatibility (or incompatibility) with any other field of law. But people suck, so here we are.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Actually, "patently obvious" and "patent" come from "letters patent"

No they don't. How can a word come from a phrase containing that word? That would be a recursive definition. It's like claiming that "black" comes from "black cat" or saying Australia is named after the people who live there.

which itself comes from Latin

So what? The "patentes" part still means open, as I said.

Start from the beginning. "A means of producing mechanical energy from a combustible fuel source" absolutely was patentable (not by 1850, though).

Rubbish. Can I patent a teleporter without making, or even knowing how to make one? Can I patent "A means of doing anything that would, you know, be really cool"?

The external combustion engine was patentable when created; the internal combustion engine was patentable, too.

Did I mention specific implementations? Yes I did, you even used one of them as a counter-example! Not the same as a vague concept/idea/wish at all. In future you could maybe try to understand what people are saying rather than automatically disagreeing with them to prove how clever you aren't.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Bloke down the pub]

Unless your schoolbooks were on a computer, though, it doesn't matter.

I agree totally, 100%. Does nobody else realise that adding with a computer on the end makes a world of difference and a whole new ballgame?

For example, in the old days before web (let alone web 2.0 - showing my age now) you'd meet people in real life in a bar or something, and if someone was talking utter madcap monkey's bollocks you could play a bit of a game. You pretend to agree with them, egging them on, taking their half-baked, ill-informed pronouncements and spinning them to ever increasing levels of ludicritude. But get this - all the time you really think they're an A+ gobshite! And if the other people there would cotton on, and you'd all have a right good laugh at the dumb idiot's expense. Top craic.

Now imagine if you could do that with a computer or better yet over the internet? Wouldn't that just be totalleeee awesome? Think I could patent it?

Useful timing

[LiquidCoooled]

Thats useful timing.

When is 10.5 coming out?

Re:Useful timing

[walt-sjc]

A month or so after the one programmer left at apple finishes the iPhone.

Industry & Joe Public

[Anonymous Coward]

When are industry or joe public going to stand up say enough is enough?

I watch this from another country and can't believe what I see...

Marshall, TX

[sharp-bang]

So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's web pages don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.

One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the judges (especially T John Ward and Leonard Davis) sets quick trial dates and short discovery deadlines. This saves lawyer spendings and results in quicker cases. Also the local jurors in the area seem to rule in favour of plaintiff more often than not in patent cases.

See Texas IP rocket docket.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Lars T.]

So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's web pages don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.

One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook. The judge T. John Ward has a reputation for pushing through a speedy trial (which also means less time to find prior art), and to usually side with the patent holder. http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16280 ,300,p1.html

"Juries in East Texas, unlike those in Houston, Dallas or Austin, are much less likely to have a member with any technical training or education, which exacerbates the problem from the defense perspective, but makes East Texas federal courts an attractive venue for would-be plaintiffs, who know that the jury will, instead, gravitate toward softer or superficial issues that are difficult to predict." http://www.wsgr.com/news/PDFs/09202004_patentpirat es.pdf

Re:Marshall, TX

[Senjutsu]

In particular, Ward has a reputation as being extremely willing to hand out injunctions on very flimsy grounds. This helps the patent troller put significant pressure on the defending company to settle with them.

Re:Marshall, TX

[bbn]

Maybe you should be entitled to a jury of peers. Even in tech cases. Meaning a jury of engineers and not a jury of joe stupid.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should be entitled to a jury of peers. Even in tech cases. Meaning a jury of engineers and not a jury of joe stupid. And in murder cases you should have a jury of murderers.

Re:Marshall, TX

[Anonymous Coward]

The city website () uses tabs. Sue, sue, sue!

Maybe

[gblackwo]

What a joke. Maybe they should go and get the manilla folder people in on this too, because of their ingenious system of tabbed browsing.

Re:Maybe

[battery111]

No, the manilla folder people infringed on their patent fora system of representing directories graphically.

Birth of GUI

[fozzmeister]

It's gotta be said that Xerox is responsible for most of the GUI's we see nowadays, and if anyone has a right to tabs or anything else in that area, they do, they did a hell of a lot of innovation. But the terms for patents in IT are far too long, and it is kinda unfair that Apple is singled out as well.

Re:Birth of GUI

[grahamlee]

Xerox have had 25 years to go after Apple, and almost as long to go after Microsoft, for half-inching the GUI. They never did...probably because they were never really in a position to exploit any of the stuff which PARC came up with.

Re:Birth of GUI

[Senjutsu]

That fact that Apple paid Xerox to use what they saw at PARC probably factored into it too. You can't really sue a company for using what you willingly sold them...

Re:Birth of GUI

[bursch-X]

This is complete bullshit, when Apple visited Xerox and got their inspiration, Xerox merely had a bunch of demos, not even a complete system yet (that came later). Things like doubleclicking, click and drag, pull-down menus, the desktop metaphor, copy and paste are all inventions that happened at Apple not at Xerox.

Xerox came up with an implementation of a new way to interface with computers, that had been talked about since quite a while, Apple made it into a usable system and came up with most of the way we interact with computers nowadays.

Re:Birth of GUI

[pomo monster]

Let me reprise a comment of mine from several months previous:

Ford didn't invent the assembly line. The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane. Wanamaker didn't invent the department store. Edison didn't invent the light bulb.

All these people derived inspiration from their contemporaries. All they did was "steal" ideas from others and make them better.

Steve Jobs' saying, that "real artists ship," is right on the money. Production, after all, has a more lasting impact than theory and prototype.

Re:Birth of GUI

[MichaelSmith]

It's gotta be said that Xerox is responsible for most of the GUI's we see nowadays, and if anyone has a right to tabs or anything else in that area, they do, they did a hell of a lot of innovation. But the terms for patents in IT are far too long, and it is kinda unfair that Apple is singled out as well.

But Apple licensed the X GUI from Xerox, so maybe they got the right to use the contents of this patent in the process. Then Microsoft paid Apple for the right to build a Windows GUI without overlapping windows, and that could have used tabs as well, because that is a technique you use when you stack your components. X windows should be covered because it is derived from the Xerox GUI. Perhaps GTK and QT are covered in the same way. Sun may be in trouble though, because Java was completely new.

Re:Birth of GUI

[SEMW]

Xerox have had 25 years to go after Apple, and almost as long to go after Microsoft, for half-inching the GUI. They never did... Ummm...

Yes they did.

They sued Apple in the late 1980s for copyright infringement of their GUI. The case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had expired.

Re:Birth of GUI

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Well stated. I'm going to remember this the next time I hear the CS guys saying that you can do Computer Science implementing the theory in code.

Re:Birth of GUI

[ScrewMaster]

Steve Jobs' saying, that "real artists ship," is right on the money.

I'd say it's more like "commercial artists ship", and "real artists ...", well, I'm not sure what they do. Art, I suppose.

Re:Birth of GUI

[Krater76]

The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe the Wright Brothers didn't come up with the idea of flying or the first airplane but they made the first airplane that actually flew. Therefore they invented flying.

Re:Birth of GUI

[NeutronCowboy]

Define flying. Ah..... now it gets a little harder, doesn't it? Is flying merely the action of not crashing to the ground in a hyperbolic trajectory (parachute would constitute flying)? Does flying require the ability to control direction (Lilienthal managed control via body movement)? Does it require the ability move upward (do parachutes caught in thermal lift count)?

The genius of the wright brothers was to create a contraption that did all of this repeatably and on command. This was a feat of engineering, as the theories they relied on had been developed by a variety of people before hand. They invented the airplane, but they certainly did not discover flying.

Re:Birth of GUI

[Tickletaint]

Well, to borrow the language of Apple haters, all they did was build the thing, right? I mean, Leonardo da Vinci and Bernoulli did all the hard work, why should the Wright brothers get any credit? :-P

Re:Birth of GUI

[Anonymous Coward]

This is complete bullshit, when Apple visited Xerox and got their inspiration, Xerox merely had a bunch of demos, not even a complete system yet (that came later)...

Xerox came up with an implementation of a new way to interface with computers, that had been talked about since quite a while, Apple made it into a usable system and came up with most of the way we interact with computers nowadays.

Your comment is mostly bullshit. Have you even heard of the Xerox Star? (It was the Alto's successor.) When Apple visited Xerox in December 1979, Xerox had completed the Star's specification (1st quarter 1978) and had been working on the Star's software for over a year (since Spring 1978).

Things like doubleclicking, click and drag, Wouldn't have happened without Xerox's clicking mouse invention.

pull-down menus, Wouldn't have happened without Xerox's menus invention.

the desktop metaphor, The desktop metaphor was part of the Star's specification, which was completed in the 1st quarter of 1978. Apple's visit was in December 1979. The Lisa project, started before the Xerox visit, did not adopt the GUI and desktop metaphor in its design until 1980. The Star was released in 1981. The Lisa was released in 1983.

copy and paste Not possible without Xerox's mouse selection invention.

are all inventions that happened at Apple not at Xerox. Not all of them were "invented" by Apple and the Apple "inventions" were extentions of Xerox's inventions. You grossly underestimate Xerox's influence. You calling "bullshit" is just pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc#1981_to_198 9:_Lisa_and_Macintosh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/guis

Re:Birth of GUI

[bursch-X]

It was the first controlled POWERED flight. The first human flight was conducted by Otto Lilienthal in the 1870's or 80's (I couldn't find a clear year number, probably because he conductes countless flights in his days).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal

The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[pammon]

Tabbed UI, Apple Lisa, circa 1980. Screenshots, story.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[bmo]

Apple ProDOS had tabs, too.

If something has a real-world example, it's obvious if it's implemented in software, indeed the real world example should be considered "prior art".

--
BMO

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Xyde]

Also of note in the first image, It looks like Apple did briefly toy with the idea of having the menu bar on the window (like how Windows does it), but then scrapped that for the single menu bar at the top of the screen as we have now.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Besides that... weren't the tabs actually invented by the person that invented folders for archiving documents. You know, those paper things that computers started to mimic at a certain point.
IANAL but isn't that some sort of prior art? Sure it's not a digital tab, but should that matter?

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> ...but then scrapped that for the single menu bar at the top of the screen as we have now.

unfortunately.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Senjutsu]

Fortunately, you mean. Having a useless title bar consume one of the four extremely valuable screen edges and parking the menu under it is one of the most horrendously stupid violations of Fitts' law in the history of user interfaces.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Catil]

Tabbed UI, Agostino Ramelli, circa 1588. Screenshot, story.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

No, I mean unfortunately.

Fine, if you have only one window. In any case, if you do just use one window, you don't have to have the window border there.

Unfortunately, I use many windows, and when I use an Apple computer, I can have only one window visible, and still the menu is for the wrong application - not such a problem if I'm using a mouse and realise, but if I use keyboard accelerators, then I can get into all sorts of trouble before I realise it's not the correct application.

When it *is* the correct menu for the window I want, and I'm, say, using a window on the second monitor, I have to move the mouse all the way to the other monitor just to use the menu.

I used to use a computer with, IIRC, 18 monitors. I can't imagine what a pain in the rear end that would have been if it were running OSX.

It's oft claimed that it's easier to get to a menu when it's at the edge of the screen. That's true, though it is almost always further away (unless you only use one full screen window), and strangely enough, everything else on the screen requires precision mouse movements and because of that, I've become quite good at it - I don't need that kind of help, thanks!

It's brain dead, plain and simple.

(YMMV)

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dasmoo]

>> ...but then scrapped that for the single menu bar at the top of the screen as we have now. >unfortunately. Fortunately for me. I always know where the File menu will be. Saves on fuckaround.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

Unfortunately, you don't always know it's for the right application...unless you happen to notice.

I always know where the file menu is on other OSes too - it's at the top left of the window I'm using. I don't have to go to a different monitor or move my mouse right the way across the screen to us it either.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, mod parent up etc.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[kg4czo]

So don't force what doesn't come naturally. You'll be much happier if you stick to an OS that suits your personality. And you'll be doing the rest of us a favor, too; you leave Macs to Mac users, and we'll leave beige to you.

Give it a rest already! I guess I'm what you would call a "switcheur" (as if that's supposed to be some derogatory remark or something).

I've been using my iMac now for a few months and I love it. I'm extremely comfortable with it. But then again, I'm comfortable with several flavors of Linux and BSD (command line and gui), a couple of flavors of commercial Unices, and of course Windoze. If you want to get vintage, I had a C=64 at home, and worked on a Apple IIe and a Trash-80 at school in the 80's. Now I can add OS X 10.4 to the mix and bring it all to a smooth consistency. By far I love my iMac over the rest.

I highly suggest you STFU.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it sounds like you've been a latent Mac user all along. At the risk of spoiling the joke, the big secret here is that the vast majority of people belong to that club of creatives and different thinkers—The Rest of Us. So welcome home, fellow traveler.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[JonathanBoyd]

I used to use a computer with, IIRC, 18 monitors. I can't imagine what a pain in the rear end that would have been if it were running OSX.

If they designed OS X around having 18 monitors available, the experience for the majority of users, who have onlye 1 monitor, would be a lot worse. Quite a few people do use 2 or even 3 though, so it's a valid criticism in those cases. IIRC, there are keyboard shortcuts to access the menu, so you could try those.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[shmlco]

From my perspective Fitts' law worked well when the screen size was 9". In today's world of multiple monitors and 30" screens (and even multiple 30" screens), I'd have to say the premise is outdated, as that menu bar is often a long ways away from the currently active window.

Further, while hitting the menu may be faster when it's on the edge, once you've done so you now need to travel the same distance back to your work area, which ISN'T on an edge.

All in all, I'd say today's interfaces need in-place, contextual application menus. Personally, I'd modify the system so the very first item in any right-click popup menu is a flyout containing the main application menus. Make it an option if need be, but I think it would make multiple/large screens easier to use.

I'd also automatically clone the menubar on any multiple monitor setup.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[jellomizer]

Once you get use to it. Either way it is about the same. If you spend more time just getting use to what is different and less time judging it. you will be better off. Having the menu on top on in a window is no big deal. They are plusses and minus both ways but in the grand scheme of things the pluses and minuses are very minor. it Does seem to give me on the average a little more working space having the menu on top. But it does get slightly confusing if the open App doesn't have a window open so I am thinking I am working on the wrong app if I miss the App name in bold letters. It does really help me focus on the app I am working on with having less distraction of other apps that are open or the OS. It is a hassle though if I need to load an other app that isn't on my dock. All and all they are all very minor, with a lot of simple work around. I would say stop trying to compare technology and just get use to different ideas and concepts vs. comparing to the way you are use to. That way you live a happier life and you can deal with different computers without it bugging you. Heck One day I could be using Windows, the Next day I am on my Mac, the day after I am working on Unix or Linux then the other day I am doing stuff in OpenVMS. or a mix of all of them in one day. If I am going to go all day judging all the OS's then I would never get any work done.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[niktemadur]

Tabbed UI, Apple Lisa, circa 1980.

Holy cow, p0wned! The case should be laughed out of court on these grounds.
But then again, the judge is in Texas, where different rules apply.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> keyboard shortcuts to access the menu, so you could try those.

Yes, but as I said, it is easy (for me, at least) to think I have the focus of one window (because it's the only one visible, for example), and yet I really have the focus of some invisible window - in which case, keyboard short cuts screw you up pretty badly.

Of course, using the mouse fixes that, since it takes the first click away to change the window focus ... but that's just as annoying, since I now have to click twice to change windows, even when it's darned obvious what I really want to do.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> Heck One day I could be using Windows, the Next day I am on my Mac, the day after I am working on Unix or Linux then the other day I am doing stuff in OpenVMS. or a mix of all of them in one day.

Wow. I've been using one system for a long time (4Dwm) and so my muscles are trained to work a certain way. On Linux, I can change the way it works to remove the most difficult differences. In MS Windows too, I can do that. ...but on OS X...oooohhh no....Apple know better and I have to do it their way. I'm sorry, but we're *not* all the same, and saying 'Get over it' doesn't help at all.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

NextStep, from which OS X inherits, had the right idea, in my opinion -- vertical menubars that could be torn off, allowing you to arrange them however you liked. The application would also remember the arrangement and which menus had been torn off for the next time it was invoked. I don't know for sure, but I presume they work in a similar way in GnuStep if you want to see what these look like.

This strategy wouldn't work badly for your "18 screens" example -- drag the application window and main menu to the relevant screen, and leave it there. You're done. No multi-screen mousing required subsequently, and the application would remember the location for next time (you'd probably need some fiddling to account for changing screen configurations and such, but, basically, it would work).

I suppose there is an argument for keeping the traditional MacOS style for familiarity sake, but I wish Apple had left the NextStep-style vertical menus as a preference option.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

How does menu placement have any relevance to window focus? If you have the wrong window in focus, it doesn't matter where the menus are... you're still focusing the wrong menu.

And I'd argue that the menu bar is primarily for reference. Once you're familiar with an app, you can pretty much do everything that would require that terribly long journey across 18 monitors to find the menu, with a few key strokes. Going to the main menus for every little thing would be like flipping through "computers for dummies" every time you wanted to do something.

And btw, 18 monitors? wtf? have you watched too many movies like "hackers"? I'm a give fan of screen space, but that's fucking ridiculous. Unless you work at mission control with 15 other people....

I pisses me off when somebody whines that something doesn't work for the extreme context that they're using it in. The average user only has one monitor. (Maybe we're up to two these days....) The UI is designed for those average users. Don't bitch because it doesn't fit in with your ridiculous way of doing things.....

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Chelloveck]

I highly suggest you STFU.

Which is, of course, the final argument of anyone emotionally tied to an indefensible position. But thanks for playing.

It's preference, people. You like it one way. He likes it another. You're both equally right, and you're wasting your time trying to convince the other. Because you're both equally wrong, too.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[pedestrian crossing]

All in all, I'd say today's interfaces need in-place, contextual application menus. Personally, I'd modify the system so the very first item in any right-click popup menu is a flyout containing the main application menus.

Like the GIMP does. See, not -everything- about that interface is so bad...

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[JonathanBoyd]

There are visual clues as to which window as foremost, such as shadows, the close/minimize/zoom buttons (along with other controls) being coloured rather than grayed out. And when you go to the menu bar itself, the application name is on display.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[jellomizer]

It sounds like you have chosen to close your mind to different ideas. That is sad. Things change if you purpostly get yourself stuck in one way then you are only limiting yourself. When people practice with many tools they find that their muscle memory reacts for each differnt tools when it is in your hands. I also play the StandUp Bass and the flute two instraments that cant be any more different. When you are well trained swiching back and forth is no longer a problem. It is only a problem is when you choose to be stuck in the pattern.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Misagon]

I think that a single menu bar makes sense if you have a small screen. It saves screen real-estate and you will always know where to find the menu bar.

But.. for a larger screen (17" and up), I think it makes more sense to have the menu bar attached to the window in question so you don't have to move the pointer so far.

But then.. many people maximize all their windows anyway, removing the benefits of either approach.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

you really think I didn't know that?

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> It sounds like you have chosen to close your mind to different ideas. That is sad.

Wow. You're good at that. "It sounds like..." then continuing as if it's in fact that case when you don't know any different. It would be sad if I had chosen to close my mind, but I haven't. I'm just facing the facts as they are.

I'm not sure what "Purpostly" means, but still, I'm not you. I have been working this way for a long time. I prefer it. I have used OS X for over 4 years (TiBook), and I find it *much* worse to use than other systems.

Yes, I still use them, and, yes, I still find that I have a preference. It's not that I'm incapable.

No, we're not all the same, no matter what Apple (and you, it seems) think.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> I think that a single menu bar makes sense if you have a small screen. It saves screen real-estate and you will always know where to find the menu bar.

Agreed.

> But.. for a larger screen (17" and up), I think it makes more sense to have the menu bar attached to the window in question so you don't have to move the pointer so far.

Agreed.

> But then.. many people maximize all their windows anyway, removing the benefits of either approach.

Agreed. ...but some people don't maximuze their windows 'anyway'. Linux (and even Microsoft, I'm told) can make a window system where it works either way, so why can't Apple?

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[jez9999]

And btw, 18 monitors? wtf? have you watched too many movies like "hackers"? I'm a give fan of screen space, but that's fucking ridiculous.

What he didn't mention was that he was working on a home-brew dot-matrix display, and each monitor was a wristwatch with a 2x2px resolution.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[jez9999]

Why vertical? Latin text is written horizontally; surely it would make better use of real estate to have horizontal menubars.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[jez9999]

The GIMP uses several windows to contain an interface what is, semantically, one interface. That makes it totally unintuative and ugly, and I have no idea why they've not redesigned the interface yet. Do you?

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're just baiting a stupid troll who's been spouting the same gibberish for months on Slashdot now and linking to the same pictures and website over and over again. There's no such sentiment of hate among Apple fans other than maybe in some of the mentally deranged ones. I even suspect the guy is an Apple-hater who tries to misrepresent the Apple community.

Going for a Mac is simply a consumer choice, not a life-defining matter.

Posting anonymously because this is seriously offtopic.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[ivan256]

Yes, but as I said, it is easy (for me, at least) to think I have the focus of one window (because it's the only one visible, for example), and yet I reaYes, but as I said, it is easy (for me, at least) to think I have the focus of one window (because it's the only one visible, for example), and yet I really have the focus of some invisible window - in which case, keyboard short cuts screw you up pretty badly.lly have the focus of some invisible window - in which case, keyboard short cuts screw you up pretty badly.

That's a pretty poor criticism of MacOS considering that the same is true in Windows, KDE, and Gnome.

but that's just as annoying, since I now have to click twice to change windows, even when it's darned obvious what I really want to do.

Call me when you figure out how to implement "Focus follows thought". I'll be your first customer.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[MECC]

Also detailed in an internal Apple document, here, detailing the Apple Lisa interface appearence, in 1980.

10. Folders

Each folder shows a view of a single document, and provides a structure for manipulating the view of that document by scrolling, moving, growing, and closing the folder down to a tab.

A folder may be used to group together a collection of related documents to be filed away and retrieved together. The filing system is still in design, and the grouping mechanism will be determined by it. Two possibilities are a folder containing other closed folders (only tabs visible), or a folder with a table of contents to select which document is currently visible. In any case, each folder only shows one document at any time.

11. Basic folder appearance

A folder is drawn as a white rectangle (filled in by the application) with a thin (one pixel) black border. Every folder has a tab, which looks like a tab on a standard manilla folder. The tab is always above the upper left corner of the folder. It is called the title tab.

The rectangular portion of the folder that holds the folder's contents is called the body of the folder.

However, its not clear that the polaroids or the apple document are irrefutable evidence of prior art.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[pedestrian crossing]

The GIMP uses several windows to contain an interface what is, semantically, one interface. That makes it totally unintuative and ugly, and I have no idea why they've not redesigned the interface yet. Do you?

No idea.

It is really useful when you have multiple monitors, though. You put the tools and dialogs on one monitor, and have the entire second monitor for the image.

Ugly? Meh, I don't really give a shit about ugly, but it does seem to bother a lot of people. But then there's gimpshop for the people who think Photoshop has a better interface.

Whatever, having all of your menus available via right-clicking on the image instead of constantly making the trip back and forth to the menu bar, that totally rocks.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Baited and hooked!

If you read the comment the parent wasn't trying to say that Apple was better just the differences are not worth all the fuss. Then you continued by ranting about that you prefer it an other way. Then the Parent Egged you on further.
Congradulations you made an ass of yourself. Sometimes it is best to just take the comeback alone then the first poster would have been the jerk.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[jellomizer]

Darnit you stopped my fun. I had more repressed middle school anger to get rid of :-)

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[keytoe]

Personally, I'd modify the system so the very first item in any right-click popup menu is a flyout containing the main application menus. Make it an option if need be, but I think it would make multiple/large screens easier to use.

I like this idea. The bigger and more numerous my screens get (currently a 24" plus a 19"), the less I like my single menu bar. I'm lucky enough to know all the keyboard shortcuts for all of the common things I do in a day and most apps that I keep on my second display tend to have toolbars for common actions - but it sucks to have to take that long trip up to the menu for that rare action I can't remember.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Unfortunately, that was a title bar in the shape of a tab, not a tab in the sense of exposing and hiding different panes of information or control.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Maybe I made a mistake, I didn't spot this picture:

http://www.folklore.org/projects/Macintosh/images/ polaroids/polaroids.14.jpg

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Achromatic1978]

Dick.

If the "vast majority" of people are "different thinkers", isn't it the people who don't think differently who are the "different thinkers"?

Admit it, you're just as much of a herd as everyone else.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[bkakes]

Unfortunately, I use many windows, and when I use an Apple computer, I can have only one window visible, and still the menu is for the wrong application - not such a problem if I'm using a mouse and realise, but if I use keyboard accelerators, then I can get into all sorts of trouble before I realise it's not the correct application.

Regardless of whether a single menu bar is a good idea or not, in any modern GUI, you can only have one active window, and all menu events triggered by keyboard accelerators are sent to the current window's application. How is the Mac different than any other system here?

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you fool, for the simple reason that "different" doesn't imply different all in the same way. Thanks for dragging me down to your level with your unimaginable literal-mindedness, though. It's been a real eye opener.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Anonymous Coward]

"when I use an Apple computer, I can have only one window visible"

How is that anyone's fault but your own? Haven't you learned how to resize windows yet?

Use command-tab to switch between open apps, and you'll never have a problem with being in the wrong window.

Use control-F2 to access the menus without the mouse.

I touch the mouse about twice a day, if that.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[plalonde2]

That's not tabs, that's just MDI.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> That's a pretty poor criticism of MacOS considering that the same is true in Windows, KDE, and Gnome.

What's true of all those 3 is that I can make them focus follow mouse. Not so for OSX.

> Call me when you figure out how to implement "Focus follows thought". I'll be your first customer.

Not necessary. Moving the mouse is enough. It's called focus follows mouse.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> How is the Mac different than any other system here?

It's not. What is different is that you can have one window potentially taking up the entire screen that still doesn't have focus. If you don't notice the app name on the top left being wrong, you're entering stuff into the wrong window.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[bkakes]

I'm still not seeing how this is different from, say, Windows. In both cases the window with focus becomes frontmost (barring floating windows, etc.). So you could in theory have a smaller window off to the side having focus, but that's no different in either system. Or am I missing something?

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Tokerat]

You do realize that your point becomes moot the second you bring an OS X window to the front to work with it, as the Menu Bar switches to the menus of the application which owns said window.

If you're working with a certain window, you've certainly clicked on it, no? If you're a power user with 18 screens (way to go there, Swordfish), then you know all the keyboard shortcuts anyway, and therefore activating the frontmost window will switch the relevant keyboard shortcuts on.

This is a large reason why many Mac users prefer the Mac interface; the interface is designed around focused, context-sensitive tasks. Windows is all over the place, as it cannot decide if it should allow access to everything or nothing at once.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[ivan256]

While I'm a big fan of focus follows mouse, I'm a bigger fan of not using the mouse at all.

I had assumed you didn't use focus follows mouse, since you said "since it takes the first click away to change the window focus ...".

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

My main point would be that I can make MS Windows work the way I want (though I've never tried, I've been reliably informed it can be done), but Apple don't allow that.

I don't know why, but, on MS Windows, I've not had the trouble of having a single window visible that doesn't have focus. Perhaps it is possible, but I've not seen it.

Scratch that - it is possible in MS Windows with the default behaviour, since I just did it. Perhaps that isn't so smart either, but at least it can be changed (so I'm told).

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

> I had assumed you didn't use focus follows mouse, since you said "since it takes the first click away to change the window focus ...".

I didn't know there was such a thing on OS X...I use it on Gnome/KDE, of course.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[JonathanBoyd]

If you're having trouble telling if a window has focus, then it seemed like a possibility. Just trying to be helpful.

Patent expired?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that patents expired after 20 years. Hypothetically, they could sue for past damages, but an injunction makes no sense on an expired (or about to expire) patent.

Re:Patent expired?

[drphil]

This patent issued in 10 Dec 1991. At that time in the US, a patent was in force 17 years after issue - so that patent becomes public domain in Dec 2008 giving it another 20 months. Since then, when the US changed its rules a few years ago to get closer to the practice in the rest of the world, new patents are now in force for 20 years from the date of application.

Re:Patent expired?

[Dausha]

Patent coverage is effective on date of filing; but only actionable after the patent is issued. That is, if you file in 1987, you have to wait until the patent is issued (1991) until you can start enforcing it---even against those who started using the patented idea in 1990. But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.

What we appear to have here is a patent troll who waited until the last minute to file, hoping to grab as much infringing money as possible. However, the doctrine of laches prevents this sort of behavior. Laches means that you cannot sit on your rights and constructively encourage infringement only to later sue. Think of it as entrapment or inducement.

More importantly, this idea has been mainstream for years. Visual Basic (et al.) allow for this sort of tabbing behavior. The question is whether M$ is licensed, or whether the troll has been sitting on his rights. Beyond that, we can't know all of the ins and outs of the case at this point.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Re:Patent expired?

[mbone]

Patents do expire in 20 years. You can sue for past enfringement after it expires, but not on-going infringement.

My guess is, this is one last attempt to make something from a vanishing asset, before it disappears completely later this year.

Re:Patent expired?

[ajakk]

Patent coverage is effective on date of filing; but only actionable after the patent is issued. That is, if you file in 1987, you have to wait until the patent is issued (1991) until you can start enforcing it---even against those who started using the patented idea in 1990. But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.

You are wrong. Because a patentee has no rights prior to the issuance of a patent, patent damages are not generally available prior to issuance. This was recently changed with the availability of patent publication in the United States. Now, a patentee can get damages back to the date the patent was published, if the claim found to be infringing is substantially identical to a published claim.

Also, as the previous poster noted, the term of United States patents changed after this patent was granted. For patents in force before 1995, the patent lasts the greater of 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant. Thus, this patent is in force until 2008.

Re:Patent expired?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent law hath changed in the last 20 years. You see. Patent dies in Dec. 2008. Thank you for playing though.

Re:Patent expired?

[ajakk]

As a side note, pre-filing damages weren't available in this case anyway because the patent was never published prior to issuance (it wasn't even available at that time). Also, you can only get damages going back six years from the date of the filing of a complaint in patent suits anyways.

Re:Patent expired?

[hazydave]

As many have pointed out, the patent was applied for in 1987, but only granted in 1991... thus, its in effect for 17 years from the date it was granted... that's the system prior to 1995.

However, it should be painfully obvious this is the illegal sort of submarine patent. Usually, companies used to attempt the legal sort -- they'd apply, they'd try to drag the process along as slowly as possible, counting on the 17 years they'd get once the patent was granted, the extra time before the patent is granted would hopefully get that patent into common use... particularly when the patent, such as this one, was so frickin' obvious that people re-created it continuously. The 1995 changes were designed to stop this as much as possible.

But tabbed interfaces have been around for quite some time. There were tabbed interfaces in AmigaOS programs... I can't swear they showed up before 1987 (AmigaOS 1.x), but this was the latest thing in the early 1990s. I know I've seen computer Rolodex-type programs using a tabbed interface (since that's basically the metaphore), very likely before 1987, though I can't think of the specific example. But obviously, this has been used in Windows and many other programs since then. They ought to lose enforcement rights on this patent due to the fact it hasn't been enforced for the last 15+ years.

Re:Patent expired?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a patentee has no rights prior to the issuance of a patent, patent damages are not generally available prior to issuance.

I'm confused. If someone invents something today, how can there be an infringement last year? Surely that would be prior art, which would invalidate the patent?

Re:Patent expired?

[CrankyOldBastard]

I'm pretty sure that Alan Kay invented the tabs concept at Xerox PARC when he invented Smalltalk (and the GUI) sometime in the 1970's.

Re:Patent expired?

[ajakk]

There are multiple dates that matter in patent law:

• conception - the day someone came up with the invention
• reduction to pracice - the day someone figured out how to fully make the invention (after functional testing, etc)
• filing date - the actual day the patent application was filed
• publication date - the day the patent application is published (usually about 1 and 1/2 years after filing)
• grant date - the day when the patent comes into effect

Damages are only available back until the publication date at the earliest, and that is only if the patent claims didn't change during the time between publication and grant. Prior art has to be known either more than one year before filing, or before conception.

Re:Patent expired?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's the greater of the two, so if the patent takes less than three years to get issued (yeah, right!) then it is longer than 17 years, otherwise the 17 year rule stays in effect. I believe that was retroactive but in this case doesn't matter, patent expires Dec 2008.

Re:Patent expired?

[jez9999]

Slashdot summary said it was issued in 1987. :-)

Re:Patent expired?

[DRJlaw]

But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.

No. Not even if Wikipedia says so, since, of course, Wikipedia also says otherwise.[2]

"In the United States, under current patent law, for patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (See: Term of patent in the United States)."

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent

This entry is far more accurate, but still contains errors. If the applicant filed a provisional application, and subsequently filed a regular application claiming priority from the provisional application, then the normal term of the patent might expire 21 years after the "earliest claimed filing date." Also, there are patent term extensions that have nothing to do with administrative delays. More to the point, Wikipedia is wrong, and the patent likely has not expired.

What we appear to have here is a patent troll who waited until the last minute to file, hoping to grab as much infringing money as possible.

Patent owners are not required to sue while the patent is still in force, although most do. There is a six year statute of limitations on patent damages, so that in theory the patent owner could still file suits over this patent in 2014.

*sigh*

Why can tabs be patended?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know tabs have existed and been popular long before computers even existed.

Biased Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Im as much for patent reform as the next guy, but can we please have story summaries that state the NEWS ONLY?

Leave the comments ("patent troll", etc) for the, uh, comments.

what a mess

[FudRucker]

i think all software patents should be banned, whos next? Opera or mozilla/firefox web browser? fluxbox?

maybe even closed source software should be outlawed and make ALL software mandatory opensource...

this is getting ridiculous...

Re:what a mess

[QuantumG]

Hey, nice job. I like the way you got em nodding then slipped that little gem in there.

Well done.

You all miss the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents in general are ridiculous. They hold back the advancement of humankind at the expense of ensuring financial security.

We as a race do all this work, create all these wonderful tools....for what?! For the sake of business? Surely we could find a greater cause.

Re:You all miss the point

[Beolach]

Patents in general are ridiculous. They hold back the advancement of humankind at the expense of ensuring financial security.

I wouldn't say they're ridiculous in general. There are good (IMO) reasons to have patents. The thing is, as I understand it, patents were originally intended specifically to promote "the advancement of humanckind." Say I invent the proverbial "better mousetrap" - I build my new invention, and now my house is 100% mouse-free. But without a patent system, I'm not interested or able in selling my better mousetrap to the general public: after all, my design is pretty simple, and the general public could easily build their own just by looking at one of mine. So there's little to no incentive for me to tell anyone how my better mousetrap works - in fact, if I did want to try to market it, there'd be incentive to obfuscate it. So I keep my better mousetrap secret, and eventually I die. Now, since no one else knows how to build my better mousetrap (or even that it ever existed), where's the benefit to humankind?

Now, if there is a patent system, then I can file a patent for my better mousetrap, and receive legal protection for the exclusive right to market it, for a limited time, and in exchange for disclosing the details of how my better mousetrap works to the general public. So now it's a win-win situation - I as the inventor get rewarded, and the general public gets the benefits of my invention.

There are, of course, many problems w/ our current patent system, and I would definitely like to see major reform; but I don't think patents are ridiculous.

Re:You all miss the point

[Maximum Prophet]

Now, if there is a patent system, then I can file a patent for my better mousetrap, and receive legal protection for the exclusive right to market it, for a limited time, and in exchange for disclosing the details of how my better mousetrap works to the general public. So now it's a win-win situation - I as the inventor get rewarded, and the general public gets the benefits of my invention.

Yep, that's what's good about patents. What's bad about the current system in the US, is we started allowing "Business Process" patents, where you didn't even have to show that the process was in use or even prove that it could be in use. Same with software patents. You don't have to disclose your source code. To get a software copyright, you don't have to disclose your source code. So, with software patents, and to a lessor extent, business process patents, if you die during the patent period without disclosing your secrets, the public is the loser. You've had the benefit of a patent, without allowing the public to see your designs and methods.

Any form of exclusive protection for software should require full disclosure. Source code and makefiles that build to the shipped object code, or the copyright/patent is void.

Re:You all miss the point

[autophile]

Say I invent the proverbial "better mousetrap" - I build my new invention, and now my house is 100% mouse-free. But without a patent system, I'm not interested or able in selling my better mousetrap to the general public: after all, my design is pretty simple, and the general public could easily build their own just by looking at one of mine.

I think there's a fallacy buried in here. You are implicitly assuming that one and only one person is capable of that particular "a-ha!" moment. The reality is that while the billions of humans on the whole may not have come up with your particular idea at the exact same moment as you did, the chances are very high that someone else will +/- a few years. Or in the software world, within a few months. When it's time to railroad, people railroad.

Bringing it back to software, sit a hundred good developers in front of a dev environment, and ask them to solve a problem, you will get 90% of them developing any solution at all, and there will be three or four different solutions. That means that on average, 25 or 30 people will have come up with the same idea.

--Rob

Re:You all miss the point

[symbolic]

and in exchange for disclosing the details

It is my opinion that modern-day patents, particularly software patents, go out of their way to reveal a generalized and overly-broad description of what's being patented. They cover the what but avoid discussing as much of the how as possible, and the reason they do this is obvious - more detail offers more opportunity for innovation when people can make incremental improvements. More incremental improvements means more competition- but why endure competitive forces if you can simply scare anyone away from even trying?

Re:You all miss the point

[crivens]

"So now it's a win-win situation - I as the inventor get rewarded, and the general public gets the benefits of my invention."

I'm not terribly familiar with all this, but how about the case where a company buys the rights to your patent for the sole purpose of profit? Sure it's legal and acceptable use of the patent system. But is it fair or right? I don't know, I see your point, but I also despise the side effects such as this one. I forget the company's name in this story but their only interest in the patent is as a means of income. That provides no benefit to the general public, only to the company's shareholders etc..

Screenshots

[remmelt]

Gotta love those screenshots!

No

[EmbeddedJanitor]

That only applies to trademarks

Re:No

[grs1969]

I've long thought that patent reform should introduce a "use it or lose it" principle.

If a patent holder lets other companies establish use of the patented technology or intellectual property without contest the patent should be invalidated.

Similarly, if the patent holder does not create products that use the patent or license the patent to others, it should be invalidated also.

Re:No

[mlk]

thanks.

Re:No

[realthing02]

So small companies that can't afford lawyer fees should go bankrupt trying to sue everyone that use their patent?

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Skizmo]

Do you really think I'm going to reading this story ??

It works like this

[EmbeddedJanitor]

First you test the waters with one infringing company. Get some cash out of it, then chase the others.

This approach has numerous benefits. It reduces your cash outlay (lawyer' fees) and risk. Secondly, once you have a judgement in your favour then it is easier to pick off the others with less court costs etc. It is probably easier to chase Apple than MS, so wait until you have more strength to chase them. Opera is too hard to chase (Offshore)

Cashcows

[tibike77]

IANAL, so let me rephrase that in layman's terms.

The patent basically looks like it covers anthing resembling a modern user interface.
The patent more specifically stresses mechanics like the Opera/IE/Mozilla browser tabs, spreadsheet "workbooks", the Windows taskbar, you name it.
So, in other words, just about any software on the market today.
Well, that's what I seemed to gather from the passing glance I gate the patent text. So I might be wrong. Please correct me if that's the case.

Assuming I'm right, this is a "blanket patent" that can be sicced on anybody they chose to.
One would expect them to go after several small companies at once, with several lesser damage claims, companies that might not afford to pay a lawyer.

Instead, they go after a rather large company (again, correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple is a pretty big company), and claim a relatively unimpressive sum (20+ mil).
I could only suppose again that damage claims must be related to number of users that the product was sold to (or somesuch).
Still, going after Microsoft and claiming damage for... heh... EVERYTHING Windows and Windows-based Microsoft ever made and sold, now that would be a huge sum we're talking about.
Claiming Apple wouldn't have the money to go into court for this is pretty ridiculous... well, unless, maybe they're counting on Apple settling out of court for such a paltry sum ?

I can only hope they get smashed in court, and smashed good.

Re:Cashcows

[arivanov]

No.

The mechanism which you describe is used in the porn, ad, etc industries where the small guys have positive cash flow and something can be collected out of them. That is not valid for most small guys in the software industry. Further to this, there are not that many small guys that do stuff that do anything new and UI related. Most just reuse what is supplied to them in the latest SDK and do not do anything new.

As far as the claim size, it is aimed to make Apple seriously consider settling.

If they settle there is enough war chest to pay for a couple of legal daisycutters to be dropped on some small guys (if you find any to drop it in the first place, no small commercial UI companies left around). There will also enough money to lob one big bunkerbuster at Redmond and fight a properly sized claim.

Re:Cashcows

[walt-sjc]

Oh come now... It can be rephrased much more simply...

It's like a 3-ring binder, but "on the internet!"®©

All rights reserved. "on the internet!" is a registered trademark of Patent Trolls Inc.

Re:Cashcows

[Anonymous Coward]

People forget, but back in the days of yor when the world was florescent green, or orange, ascii characters were commonly used to draw visual metaphores. If someone wrote a contact management program themselves it was probably MOST common for them to use ascii characters to draw tabbed "cards" not unlike Rolodex cards one might find in a Rolodex. Its absolutely obvious to me that if ANYONE ownes a patent on tabs on computer interfaces that it is Rolodex, even if they're not the first company unite the two. That it's their metaphore digitally extended seems pretty much beyond debate.

Re:Cashcows

[asninn]

That may indeed be what they're counting on - the equivalent of the RIAA's "a settlement will be cheaper than a drawn-out court case" strategy. And add to that the fact that a precedent (Apple paying for the right to use this "patent") is valuable for them (obviously) *and* Apple (since it will make it more likely that Apple's competitors will be sued and lose money, too), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was settled out of court after a while "for an undisclosed sum" (which, given the mutual benefits, would probably be very small - significantly smaller than even the 20 million they're asking for now).

Re:Cashcows

[kripkenstein]

You've got the right idea. Yes, they can sue any modern desktop or web browser. Their strategy appears to be to get a small settlement (only several million) from Apple, who might prefer that to a lawsuit that might cost just as much (and in which they might lose). Then, given that settlement, they can go after bigger fish, like, say, Microsoft, and demand much larger sums of money, while saying that the industry (i.e. Apple, a prominent member in that industry) has already acknowledged their patent as being valid. Not that they need the industry's seal of approval, but it can be of help.

Re:Cashcows

[jj13]

Apparently there is some "prior art" (IANAL) from about 1985, from apple of all places! If anyone has ever used a really old mac, they'll know about the Switcher program that allowed programs to switch in and out of memory, effectively allowing the system to "multitask" (it could switch between already started programs, but only one could use the system at any time). Even better, I'm pretty sure the switcher had a scrolling effect applied to programs as they were switched into and out of memory, giving a "spacial relationship" between the "views" you were navigating. Since they would have internal documentation regarding the development and use of this technology (and maybe even some UI patents of their own), this might be a slap in the face to any kind of settlement.

Re:Cashcows

[wellingj]

Wow, so it's like what MS is trying to do to Linux right now.

1.Set a stupid precedence with some unknowing schmuck(s) of a company who knows nothing of the common good.
2.Apply precedence ad nauseam, creating more FUD than anything real.
....
3.Profit!

I find the state of business quite sad. There are too many companies who try to get away with dubious deeds just to make a buck.

Re:Cashcows

[AndersOSU]

Settling out of court doesn't set a precedence, so there would be no benefit for apple to cave unless they think they are going to lose and can get away paying less.

Re:Cashcows

[iperkins]

The "small" sum of $20 million may be an attempt at an inducement for Apple to settle, thus validating the claim and giving them ammunition to go after anyone else they see fit to sue (i.e. Microsoft, maybe?)

I think I am going to file a patent on the "pattern and practice of breathing, by the drawing of air into the lungs, exchanging it for depleted air and carbon dioxide, then expelling it out of the lungs". Then, I can license it to everyone (for a nominal fee).

Re:Cashcows

[Savage-Rabbit]

I find the state of business quite sad. There are too many companies who try to get away with dubious deeds just to make a buck. Dubious business practices have been going on since the first few cave men/women invented commerce.

Re:Cashcows

[Nazlfrag]

Wait.. there are patents in the porn industry?

Re:Cashcows

[Gr8Apes]

Let's see - Excel existed prior to 87 (85) on the Mac. Was it tabbed then? If so - prior art right there.

Also, isn't the patent out of date? it's been 20 years, or pretty close to it.

Re:Cashcows

[Keeper Of Keys]

Maybe Apple will settle, to increase the likelihood of a much larger bomb being dropped on Microsoft.

Re:Cashcows

[OldeTimeGeek]

It may not set a precedent, but it may give them a large enough war chest to go after a bigger company...

Re:Cashcows

[Heymdall]

Very good post. I'm just not quite sure Windows taskbar would fit into definition since the patent specificaly claims: "while still giving a spatial frame of reference and the same general interface during the switch." And program windows are not all of the same size and style. Wanna search for more tabs? MS Office has been using them for many years in their options dialogs...

Re:Cashcows

[squiggleslash]

Windows 1.0 (possibly later versions, I didn't have a lot of exposure to Windows versions 2.x and 3.0) had a "database" app called "Card file", IIRC, that worked in the way you're describing.

Re:Cashcows

[joshsnow]

Yeah, patent tits and such. BTW, the subject should be cash-udders. Or something.

Re:Cashcows

[AndersOSU]

Clearly it is in the trolls best interest to be paid by Apple (or anyone for that matter).

Apple only gains a benefit if a precedence is set, and $200MM and a judgment is a lot to pay a troll for maybe damaging the competition.

Apple won't settle out of court unless they think they're going to lose.

Re:Cashcows

[Lockejaw]

I imagine there's plenty more than that. The summary mentions "Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches." That's the same type of organization the Finder has used for a long time when you tell it to display items "by row."

Re:Cashcows

[Anonymous Coward]

There are too many companies who try to get away with dubious deeds just to make a buck.

Reminded me of an old favorite, Satirewire: http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/lies.shtml

Re:Cashcows

[h2g2bob]

Your suggestion is (paraphrasing):

PatentTroll: Give me $20m
Apple: Why?
PatentTroll: We'll sue MS with it
Apple: OK then.

Wait, does that sound like SCO?

Re:Cashcows

[rucs_hack]

chances are losing wouldn't cost them a thing. If apple failed to settle they could just fold and go after someone smaller.

Like it or not, what these guys are doing is an established way of making money in the industry.

Like any complex eco system, you always get the equivalents of the vampire bat, feeding off the success of others. It's practically inevitable.

Interesting that this is purely a phenomena of the proprietary industry isn't it.

Re:Cashcows

[arivanov]

The porn industry is the favourite target of web interface patent trolls. Nearly every web interface patent troll in the last 5+ years has gone after web porn companies as the first target.

The primary reason is exactly this:Wait.. there are patents in the porn industry? The rest of the web does not take the case seriously and laughs it off until the troll has collected a sufficient war chest to go after bigger guys. At the same time nearly any web business method, antipiracy or ui patent is applicable so you have plenty of targets to chose from.

Re:Cashcows

[Markspark]

it had this all the way up to 3.11.. however, if the patent is older than this, it's actually worse for MSFT right?

Re:Cashcows

[OldeTimeGeek]

That's what I meant. If they lose, they deduct the lawyer's cost from their taxes and move on to the next patent that they purchased from some now-defunct company. If Apple settles, they don't have the precedent, but they've got the money and a sort of a precedent - Apple settled, so the suit must have had some validity. If they win, they get the money and the precedent.

It's win/win for them, lose/lose for everybody else and the stock market goes up and up...

Re:Cashcows

[rbanffy]

By settling, Apple gives 20M for the guys to go after Microsoft in a very high profile case.

Not a bad deal, IMHO. Much better than spending more than 20M in court defending from this patent as it could be used against Microsoft in the future.

Re:Cashcows

[squiggleslash]

Windows 1.0 was previewed around 1983, and released in 1985. Supposedly this patent was initially filed in 1987 and granted in 1991. So MSFT would almost certainly prevail in any patent lawsuit covering Cardfile.

Re:Cashcows

[DudeTheMath]

... if a precedence is set, ... (emphasis mine)

The word you're searching for is precedent. OldeTimeGeek tried to correct you subtly, but you either (a) missed it or (b) assumed OldeTimeGeek was wrong. Perhaps English is not your first language (just a guess from your name).

Hopefully, others who comment on legal topics will take note as well--you're not the only one to misuse this.

Re:Cashcows

[avronius]

Cloning from wikipedia:

In 1986, Apple released the Mac Plus which came standard with 1MiB of RAM. This amount of memory was sufficient to support some form of multitasking, which was first implemented by Andy Hertzfeld in his Switcher program released in April 1985. Switcher worked by designating a number of fixed "slots" in memory, into which applications could be loaded. The user could then switch between these applications by clicking a small button on the top of the menu bar. The current application would horizontally slide out of view, and the next one would slide in. Despite its awkwardness, this approach did fit well with the existing system's memory management scheme, and applications needed no special programming to work with Switcher. This early work on Switcher led to the development of MultiFinder by Apple system software engineers Erich Ringewald and Phil Goldman. Also sounds like prior art, n'est pas?

Re:Cashcows

[cmburns69]

Corporations don't exist for the benefit of the "common good". Corporations are bound by law to make as much profit as possible for their stakeholders.

Sometimes there's money to be made by temporarily aligning with the common good, but when money gets tight, that's the first thing to go.

Re:Cashcows

[servertary]

Modern society rewards ruthless cleverness far more than intelligence plus morality. Back in the day I would have run my Trusty Bastard Sword of Attorney Slaying© right through the court system. Damned savages...

Re:Cashcows

[pak9rabid]

One can only hope Apple follows IBMs lead and bleeds this fucking company out in court, thus ruining them as a company and setting another legal precedent to help support abolishing bullshit patents that stifle innovation

Re:Cashcows

[HTH NE1]

Wait.. there are patents in the porn industry? Well if you can patent swinging sideways, then you can also patent swinging sideways (provided a novel definition).

Re:Cashcows

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that settlements usually spell out in the agreement that the defendant acknowledges no such thing.

Re:Cashcows

[chochos]

To me it was even more shocking to find out that there are small guys in the porn industry (all of them must be off camera)

Re:Cashcows

[Jorgandar]

There really ought to be a universal code of ethics for business (written by software developers, because they're smarter :), and any executive found violating it ought to have jail time.

Re:Cashcows

[Sylvak]

n'est pas? is like saying 'is not'. It should be "n'est ce pas"... (is it not)

Re:Cashcows

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but I'd say the guys from kink.com are likely to have patents for some of these devices.

Re:Cashcows

[roman_mir]

get a small settlement (only several million) from Apple, who might prefer that to a lawsuit that might cost just as much (and in which they might lose). Then, given that settlement, they can go after bigger fish, like, say, Microsoft, and demand much larger sums of money, while saying that the industry (i.e. Apple, a prominent member in that industry) has already acknowledged their patent as being valid - when patenting rules change so that the first to apply for a patent receives it and the prior art argument after something is patented wouldn't apply anymore, I would like to patent this business idea you have expressed here and to sue this company, who is suing Apple for a patent violation.

Re:Cashcows

[Jtheletter]

hen, given that settlement, they can go after bigger fish, like, say, Microsoft, and demand much larger sums of money, while saying that the industry (i.e. Apple, a prominent member in that industry) has already acknowledged their patent as being valid.

IANAL so someone please correct me, but usually in settlements isn't there a often a clause along the lines of 'the defendent denies any wrongdoing/validation, etc but will pay X amount to settle out of court'. We saw this in the Sony DRMed CDs cases didn't we? They settled but denied any wrongdoing. Why would Apple choose to settle in a way that validates the patent? If this company doesn't accept those terms then Apple might have to decide between taking one for the "team" and going to court or deiciding to settle for the $20 million and let everyone else figure out how to escape the lawsuits that will follow from this backhanded validation of the patent.

Re:Cashcows

[kripkenstein]

Apple may be given two options:

1. A license for the patent at $10 million.
2. A settlement, without admission of guilt, for $20 million.

Obviously the first is better for Apple and the litigating party (less cost for Apple, more chances to sue other people for the litigating party).

Actually I think things are even more complicated. You can't just 'settle' a patent infringement case. Say that you pay them $X to stop the current lawsuit. What is to stop them from suing you again tomorrow? The only thing would be an agreement for them not to sue you later on. Such an agreement - not to sue you for using a patent of theirs - is, in fact, a patent license agreement, in essence, I believe.

(IANAL)

Re:Cashcows

[avronius]

Sorry - thanks for the correction. I did, indeed, mean "n'est ce pas".

My bad... que je suis bete.

Re:Cashcows

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I hope they get smashed good.
Maybe patent trolls are a free software advocates best friend.
Patent trolls are trying to get an unearned chunk of an unfair pie. Sure, I hate frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but if the patent trolls keep going after the big companies, maybe someone like apple will advocate for patent reform in a meaningful way.

Re:Cashcows

[ahknight]

Claris/AppleWorks on the Apple II used a tabbed/folder interface. There's your prior art.

Unless, of course, this was issued before then, and it appears that it was at least applied for before then (1987). So then the problem is enforcement. Everyone does this ("this" being you click somewhere and some UI elements are hidden and others appear) and no one defended it. Since no one has defended it in the 16 years it's been around, it's kind of already dead. This won't fly.

Re:Cashcows

[thejynxed]

It is indeed a blanket patent, and even covers icons as well as tabs. It also apparently is trying to cover mouse pointers, windows, menus, saving, editing, minimizing, maximizing, the Beryl "cube" interface, etc as seen here:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the user interface of a data processing system. More specifically, the invention relates to the organization of display objects such as windows into groups which are displayed together on a display-based user interface, each group being appropriate to a particular user task.

Current user interfaces typically include various types of input/output (I/O) devices-display outputs such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) and manually operated inputs such as a keyboard and a mouse. For example, a user provides alphanumeric and other inputs using the keyboard and provides inputs indicating position on the display using the mouse. The data processing system provides a display that helps the user to provide a sequence of manual inputs which will lead to the results the user desires.

One conventional technique for helping the user of a display-based user interface is to provide visually distinct display objects on the screen, each object fulfilling a corresponding function. For example, a pointer such as an arrow can be displayed on the screen, moving in response to a mouse or other pointer control device. The pointer appears to move over a number of other display objects which the user may select. The user typically selects a selectable display object or a distinct internal part of such a display object by a pointer signal, as by pressing an appropriate button on the mouse, when the pointer is on that display object or that distinct internal part. A user selection initiates operations of the data processing system which bear some logical relation to that display object.

The selectable display objects take many forms. The term "window" is applied to selectable display objects of various types, and one typical characteristic of windows is that the effect of a pointer signal within a window depends on the pointer location. The term "menu" is usually applied to another type of display object which also has this characteristic of distinct internal locations, because a menu typically has several areas within it, each of which represents an option which the user may select with a pointer signal in that area. The term "icon", on the other hand, is usually applied to a display object which does not have this characteristic of distinct internal locations, but which is a relatively small and visually suggestive of its function. A pointer signal within an icon typically produces the same effect regardless of the pointer's location within the icon.

Conventional display-based user interfaces thus may include at least three categories of display objects: a position indicating display object, such as a pointer; selectable display objects without internal location distinctions, such as icons; and selectable display objects with internal location distinctions, such as windows and menus. In addition, the user interface includes a set of procedures according to which the data processing system responds to selections and other inputs from the user. There is tons more to read over even after this point. Basically, this patent is trying to cover every aspect and implementation of a GUI interface. The funny thing is, they mention the Apple Lisa, and even earlier publications and applications using these very methods in the patent text itself, and even try to claim some of them as not being prior art, when clearly they are, no matter what they try to claim otherwise.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Reez]

Hi, my ID is lower than 2^16. Oddly I never changed my email address from that time, so it's invalid for a long time now.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Bryan Ischo]

Your Slashdot ID is not low so you are not a person I was targeting with this post. Feel free not to read it.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Bryan Ischo]

When were 65K IDs being given out? I'm guessing in 1999 sometime?

Why so late??

[Jugalator]

Oh wait, I guess it took them 2 years to learn how to write a letter.

Re:Why so late??

[Tran]

No, it took so long because they had to check for prior art.

Re:Why so late??

[Alchemar]

The only word processor they could find that didn't have tabs, and would have portrayed them as supporting willful infringement by using it was vi.

Re:Why so late??

[SeaFox]

Oh wait, I guess it took them 2 years to learn how to write a letter.

It does when you're using MS Works 2.0 for DOS. With no WYSIWYG editing, it was hard to get the document looking right. This is also why they are only just now finding out about tabbed windows being used in operating systems.

What's the real story?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're suing they presumably failed to convince Apple to license this amazing invention. Who else did they approach? Has a certain company licensed this patent knowing the trolls will cause undue harm to the software industry?

What are they basing damages on, what financial loss has this company (that produces no products) experienced because of Apple's UI design? I really hope Apple do the right thing and fight this one, software development in the US is going to reach a standstill unless this crap ends.

What other products infringe? Firefox, Java (JTabbedPane), Websites?

The C.Y.A. clause

[noobishness]

From the USPTO document:

Although the invention has been described in relation to various implementations, together with modifications, variations and extensions thereof, other implementations, modifications, variations and extensions are within the scope of the invention. The invention is therefore not limited by the description contained herein or by the drawings, but only by the claims. In other words, we've described what we think we're patenting, but it could be so much more! Please, dear USPTO, please give us a patent on anything that could ever possibly have any type of navigation structure! Next up for an infringement lawsuit: tabbed file folders!

Re:The C.Y.A. clause

[kansas1051]

I'm not sure why this was modded "informative." The scope of a patent is always determined by its claims (see 35 U.S.C. 112. The language you copied is a standard disclaimer relating to the doctrine of equivalents. . The clause is always included in patent applications because it is impossible to describe all minor variations of an invention (using a nail instead of a screw, using C++ instead of C, etc.).

Re:The C.Y.A. clause

[noobishness]

I'm actually not quite sure why it was modded Informative either. It was meant to be funny.

All your tabs

[Anonymous Coward]

All your tabs are belong to us!

To heck with patent reform

[ricree]

It seems to me that venue shopping is the thing that needs to go here. The idea that it is possible to pick and choose who gets to decide on the lawsuit based upon how easy it will be to win simply boggles the mind.

Re:To heck with patent reform

[mikelieman]

For some silly reason, I thought that Ex-Post Facto Laws were prohibited by the Constitution.

Shouldn't a patent only provide coverage lifetime of the patent, when the patent was granted?

Reap what you sow..

[delire]

Worth mentioning that Adobe has a similar patent (ironically presented in a webpage that breaches both the aforementioned patent and this patent):

Abstract of EP0689133 A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis, comprising the steps of: (1) Establishing an area on the computer screen in which the multiple sets of information are to be displayed, the established area having a maximum size which is substantially less than the entire area of the screen. (2) Providing within the established area a plurality of selection indicators, one for each of the multiple sets of information. (3) Selecting one of the multiple sets of information for display within the established area by pointing to one of the selection indicators within the established area, whereby the selected set of information will be substituted within the established area for the set of information previously being displayed therein. A selected set of information may also be moved out of the selected area by pointing to its selection indicator and dragging it away.

Anyway, you reap what you sow. Apple is a member of the Business Software Alliance, one of the heaviest lobbyists in favour of software patents (and their synchronisation with the cannabilistic US model) here in the EU.

Re:Reap what you sow..

[SenorCitizen]

Apple is a member of the Business Software Alliance, one of the heaviest lobbyists in favour of software patents (and their synchronisation with the cannabilistic US model) here in the EU. Now, the best solution to all would be to trash the US model and adopt the cannabinistic Netherlands model.

Re:Reap what you sow..

[shmlco]

Check out Zoomracks, which presented information as filecards, but for all but the frontmost card only showed the first line in a tabbed arrangement.

Ironic

[octal666]

IP Innovation sues for a 20 years old patent they bought from Xerox... good thing those software patents things. It's a pitty the rest of patents don't go the same way, patenting the "four wheeled vehicle with engine" would have been a smart move.

Re:Ironic

[mr_matticus]

The thing is that "four wheeled vehicle with engine" at one time would have been truly novel and patentable. As technologies progress, they're supposed to be compressed and the initial patents lapse and society goes on.

The problem with software patents is that software moves a lot more quickly than most kinds of manufacturing and design; it is also more likely with software that good ideas will be emulated across the board as users begin to expect it--to the point that it becomes standardized. The steering wheel, after all, is not the only possible navigation interface for a car. However, car users have come to expect it.

Other companies are supposed to license the really good ideas and adopt and improve upon them. You get to a mature system in which US car manufacturers all hold a number of patents, and all license patents from each other. No one gets saddled with dramatically higher or lower costs, and the companies all continue to innovate.

The big difference with software is that lots of companies don't want to license patents from each other, and innovation/evolution has occurred so fast that it's quite difficult to keep up. In 1981, a tabbed visual interface would have been groundbreaking. In 2007, filing that same patent would be absurd. The USPTO would be served quite well to implement mandatory licensing of software patents; patent owners could continue to reap the legitimate benefits of patents, while having each company pay a "bulk licensing fee" would prevent these infringement suits as a profiteering business model. It would lessen pressure on the courts and leave room for actual patent infringement suits to be heard LESS than two years after filing.

Re:Ironic

[Cheeze]

and what would happen if someone patented the steering wheel in 1902, but didn't do jack about enforcing the patent until the mid 20s after it had 100% market penetration?

Re:Ironic

[mr_matticus]

Then they'd be guilty of the same kind of profiteering that I already stated should be outlawed. You shouldn't be able to file a patent and let it propagate until you have lots of ripe targets for infringement suits. Patent holders should be required to defend their patents from the beginning or forfeit the right to sue for infringement.

Once your invention has propagated to achieve so much market share that no one can even identify you as the creator without methods more complicated than a one-minute Google search, you don't really have a stable ground to sue from if you've never filed suit before. While it isn't reported on Slashdot, these suits ARE dismissed for blatant profiteering so long as there is some meat for a judge to cling to elsewhere (since profiteering itself is not currently illegal).

Re:Ironic

[marcosdumay]

The patent of a "four weeled vehicle with engine" would be denied, just because it doesn't explain what sort of verhicle it is. The (very insightfull) gear that transmit power from the engine to a pair of weels while permiting them to have different velocities (and made a 4 weeled vehicle possible) was patented, and rightly so.

See, generic patent that applies to anything at the horizon despite the actual technology used -> denied. Specific patent that applies to well defined piece of technology -> granted. That's the way it was, and that is what doesn't happen with software patents.

And, by the way, everybody was after a four weeled vehicle by that time, but nobody had the means of building one. What do you think would happen if somebody was able to patent a "four weeled vehicle with engine" before the diferential gear was created? Do you think it would be developed?

Re:Ironic

[mr_matticus]

The patent of a "four weeled vehicle with engine" would be denied, just because it doesn't explain what sort of verhicle it is. Sure it does. It's a motorized carriage. If you're the first one with the foresight to use an engine to generate rotational force to drive wheels, you've got yourself a patent. Something can only be obvious after someone has thought of it.

Specific patent that applies to well defined piece of technology -> granted. That's the way it was, and that is what doesn't happen with software patents. I'd say a "personal computer" is a fairly well-defined and sufficiently narrow innovation space. If you're an aeronautics engineer, you would think that patents that apply to aircraft generally are too broad, but that's not the case. There are lots more software titles than there are brands of pencils or models of cars, to be sure. But even if you think about your example, the differential, you'd realize that it applies to countless kinds of products with axles of some kind, from conveyor belts to dune buggies to space probes. Anything at the horizon, indeed.

What do you think would happen if somebody was able to patent a "four weeled vehicle with engine" before the diferential gear was created? Do you think it would be developed? Absolutely. The guy who invented the differential and the guy who invented the motorized carriage with turning problems would have gotten together. The differential guy can't just sell his gear--he'd need a product for it. The carriage guy benefits from an improved product. Bam. Patents at work.

I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[jotaeleemeese]

It will not be until

a) Big companies are hurt badly by ludicrous patent claims.
b) They buy, I mean, lobby politicians to kill software patents in the US

that we will have something resembling sanity.

Companies can use copyright to protect what is theirs and shoulder the fact that other people will copy their good ideas, that would benefit everybody.

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[dbIII]

None of these will help. Reducing political corruption and turning the patent office into something other than a rubber stamp and a money collection box will.

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[NewWorldDan]

Microsoft is already lobbying for patent reform. This doesn't stop them from filing thousands of patent apps a year; that's a necessity of the business. However, most of the big software houses would be perfectly happy to do without software patents. Microsoft has been hit repeatedly for hundreads of millions of dollars on patents that were absolute garbage. Frankly, for a matter of only $20 million, Apple could probably pay that cheaper than they can fight it. Given that this case is unlikely to succeed, Apple could probably settle for about 10 cents on the dollar.

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[Afecks]

I'm just glad you aren't trying to patent those comments because there is A LOT of prior art...

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[ajs]

I have no problem with software patents, and would even be happy to see them expanded... IF we didn't grant every patent that's re-submitted after every first-round rejection, but rather awarded a small number of patents per year (say, 10,000 across all fields) to those innovators that their peers feel have contributed the most to their field through their inventions. If the most respected CS researchers really feel that the most innovative contribution this year was someone's take on tabbed browsing, then award that person a lock on commercial use (but exempt open source) of their idea for, say, 10 years with mandatory licensing. This is essentially a cash reward for having moved the state of the art forward. THAT is what patents are meant to do. The current system retards innovation and makes lawyers rich.

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[stubear]

"...(but exempt open source)..."

Open Source is now the foundation of many businesses and thus should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If they can't afford to license the patent, too fricking bad, they should sell more t-shirts or find another business model to be able to afford to pay the required licensing fees.

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Real patent reform would be nice, but it isn't going to happen -- not if you rely on big-company lobbyists to do it. From the point of view of the big companies, the problem isn't software patents but software patent trolls. So the solution they will lobby for is one that will allow them to keep their patent portfolios but get rid of the trolls.

Thus, you will see them pushing for increased patent fees, for wider searches of prior art or previous patents, and for a requirement that you must be actively trying to make a product that uses the patent before you can sue for infringement. That last requirement is particularly important, as it ensures that not only will there be fewer patent aggressors, but the aggressors will have both money to lose and a product that can infringe on someone's portfolio, so they will be open to cross-licensing.

All of these initiatives work against the independent inventor and increase the power of existing patent portfolios. They increase the barrier to entry for small firms and stifle innovation. But this is what you will get if you let the big companies to write patent law for you.

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[QuoteMstr]

And who do you make license the patent? Everyone who downloads the source tarball? Licensing requires distribution restrictions, and that's antithetical to the whole idea of open source software. It can't work.

Re:I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[ajs]

"...(but exempt open source)..."

Open Source is now the foundation of many businesses and thus should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If they can't afford to license the patent, too fricking bad, they should sell more t-shirts or find another business model to be able to afford to pay the required licensing fees. No. First off, I don't know of any business that makes money from open source software. Support, yes, but you don't need a license on a patent to provide support. Auto garages would go out of business tomorrow if they needed such.

Second, you're confusing a "right to profit" (which does not exist) with the reasons for the patent system.

The question is, is the software itself infringing, when it's available for modification and redistribution without restriction?

I can't see any interpretation of the Constitution that leads us to believe that the founders would have wanted to retard such an enrichment of the "sciences and useful arts," as they put it. We also have clear evidence that proprietary software can continue to play a roll in the market. So what exactly is the problem, here?

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Anonymous Coward]

This sound like a e-bay account buyer to me :P

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[jb.cancer]

CmdrTaco where are you when we need you!

You're right

[remmelt]

There you have it. Apple, the cake, and eating it, etc.

Anyway, I hope that DRM will fall through as horribly as this will. Fucking hypocrites.

Ha!

[Rynth]

Pfft, the way Jobsie robs us all blind, I'm sure its just Karmas way of getting back at him..

So did System 8

[dysprosia]

Mac OS System 8 (IIRC) had tabs too, for spring-loaded folders.

These guys really invented tabs!

[durin]

I mean come on, their name is IP Innovation LLC ffs.

Re:These guys really invented tabs!

[tehwebguy]

Now I understand what people mean when they say "Software patents fuel innovation"..

They REALLY MEAN "Software patents fuel IP Innovation LLC"

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Mr. Hankey]

Probably, that's around the time I actually got off my arse (figuratively of course) and applied for one.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Clarus is a misspelling of Claris, you REALLY, REALLY need to get the FUCK off my platform. RIGHT. NOW.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[hrm]

As per that Jon Katz guy: he seemed to drop off the earth (well, at least slashdot) all of a sudden. I didn't have him blocked, cause I kinda liked his subjects, and still he disappeared without trace. If I were paranoidically inclined, I'd suspect a slashdot editor cover-up, they probably buried the body in the backyard under sheets of unused VA Linux call options, but really I can't be arsed to care.

I say I liked his stuff, but that'd be except for the "post-columbine world" and "the Net" nonsense. Oh, and his seemingly endless "quest to install linux" which was perhaps the worst tech writing/whining since Jerry Pournelle's monthly never-ending-stories on installing windows mouse drivers and shit like that in (the now defunct?) Byte magazine. Oh, and his movie reviews, which always had to tie in to columbine again and the net.

Anyhow, I googled for Katz once, and it seems now he is writing about dogs.

Opera next?

[Vandil X]

Opera could be a good second target. Not too much money, but not too small a company.

These patent lawsuits are getting ridiculous.

Re:Opera next?

[bryhhh]

What? Firefox has always had tabs, The very first release (back in the days when it was known as Phoenix) had this feature built in (i.e. not a plugin).

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/07/26/cybernotes -a-look-back-at-firefox-phoenix-01/

Re:Opera next?

[Ash Vince]

You too can have karma like mine! Just know when NOT to submit!

This post would have been a fine example since it is factualy innacurate. Mozilla Firefox had tabs in version 1.0.

Re:Opera next?

[notthe9]

And well before.

Re:Opera next?

[arminw]

.....What? Firefox has always had tabs........

My Father's files in his file cabinet had tabs which he made from cardboard. Tabs are tabs after all, just as a wheel is a wheel. Whether the tabs are on a screen or the wheel is made of titanium, rather paper and wood respectively still doesn't change the basic idea of either one. Besides that, don't patents run out after 20 years?

Sounds like the SCO lawyers are realizing that they'll soon be out of work are scouting around for a new source of income.

Re:Opera next?

[cgenman]

I think what the grandparent poster meant was that Mozilla didn't have tabs until long after Opera tried them... ironically, Opera was from their beginning a variant of tab-based, using the very old-school MDI interface style.

Re:Opera next?

[gerrysteele]

Pretty hard to apply american patent law to a free product manufactured in the free world though.

Re:Opera next?

[Nicolay77]

It says Phoenix was first released in September 2002.

I use Opera since 2000 and it had tabs then. In fact the ads said: "Opera, the tabbed browser".

So what's your point?

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus what a cock the switcheur twitcheur is. Good catch.

You should have said "if you're a weird loseur who posts on Slashdot without even knowing how to spell the products you masturbate over - GTFO"

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I am a complete newbie compared to you, but I've seen my share of slashdot for quite a while in most people's time frames and I think you're on the same level as me.

I enjoy slashdot for the geeky news, for interesting articles, not for "This guy said Windows sucks" or "this guy wrote a song about this and that in Cuba". Geeks are quirky and like hacks as well as news, Slashdot needs more articles aimed to stimulate our minds not our post counts.

But hey you're not the only one who wants a lower ID. I dread to think that I'll be here in ten years and thought of as a low ID, but hey who knows.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[empaler]

(I know I'm feeding but this is getting tiresome)
Aren't you getting tired in that lonely, xenophobic corner of yours?
IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW SOMETHING, DON'T MAKE ANY EFFORT TO LEARN IT!.

Jeez.

Read the article it deals with universal tabs

[majortom1981]

They are suing them because of the universal tabs bnot just the use in the web browser.

but...

[Darkinspiration]

os/2 warp ad tab for almost everything would that not invalidate this pattent since it was granted in 1991 and os/2 predate this ?

Re:but...

[mei_mei_mei]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/176/471137550_26b80 88a8e_o.jpg Windows has tabs everywhere too.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Bryan Ischo]

Thanks for your response. It is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for, although I'll forgive you your 700,000+ Slashdot ID :)

Just curious, when did you get your ID? When was Slashdot in the 700,000s? It looks like it must be over 1,000,000 now because I've seen quite a few people with 980,000+ so there must be some 1,000,000s out there ...

Also I think your comment about Slashdot needing more posts to stimulate the mind and fewer to stimulate the post counts, is spot on.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[robably]

Hey, I'm trying to see how many people who have low ID numbers are still using Slashdot.

I'm told the guy who has ID number 1 still posts here occasionally.

And IE7

[Arancaytar]

Microsoft has money too, and they put in tabs in the new version.

And to think how all the browser folks have been squabbling about who had them first...

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[mikeb]

I guess that 6025 counts as pretty low then. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear!

Marshall, TX will have prior art

[Livius]

I can't see how prior art could be difficult. Paper filing systems have had "tab" technology for something like 150 years or longer. In fact, the courthouse will probably be full of examples.

Re:Marshall, TX will have prior art

[azrider]

I can't see how prior art could be difficult.

Let me take a stab at this (having been through it before). The current (and past method) of handling patents in the USA has been that methods and means as well as prior art are required to be disclosed fully when filing the patent application. This is why you see the words "Patent Pending". The basis for this is to prevent someone (in the USA) from inadvertently violating your patent while going through the process. Once a patent is granted, there is a rush to get international patents (except in those countries with reciprocal patent agreements. "Prior Art" is specifically meant to disclose what previous patents were used in the development of your invention. This is due to a recognition that, in most cases, your idea was an (non obvious) extension of someone else's work (possible in an entirely unrelated field. In other words, as soon as the patent is published (again according to rules in the USA - not all countries), the full nature (with the exception of "Trade Secrets" - think Coca-Cola) is made available to prevent someone else from copying your idea. The purpose is not to prevent someone from inventing a "better mousetrap", it is to prevent them from inventing the same mousetrap. That said, the current case is a perversion of the process, since the companies who are suing did not even try to invent and/or sell a mousetrap in the first place.

Is there patent insurance?

[aplusjimages]

Like when you buy a house you get title insurance just in case all the lawyers missed some old title to your house somewhere. Is there a patent insurance that protects the company from the person who patented the idea?

Re:Is there patent insurance?

[ajakk]

You can get patent insurance, but these days it tends to be very expensive and have lots of loopholes. One the main reasons it can be expensive is because one of the largest costs companies want to offset is the cost of getting around an injunction. However, that can be very expensive, and very hard to determine.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he does.

optional menus

[WillAdams]

NeXTstep had an optional pop-up main menu which was mapped to the secondary mouse button when it was enabled --- its handiness varies on the intricacy of the motion required --- ``Punch'' in Altsys Virtuoso is nearly a gestural command for me (esp. on my Wacom ArtZ tablet --- click, down, over to the right through two menus).

I believe there's a kext which makes this happen for Cocoa apps in Mac OS X, but it's of limited utility for those of us who have to spend a lot of time in Carbon apps.

I'd liefer not waste space on simultaneous multiple menus myself --- just crank up the mouse acceleration factor (I use MouseZoom on my dual 17" display setup at work) to get to them quickly.

William

If only....

[grimdawg]

If only I'd patented my 'cure for disease' when I had the chance.

Re:If only....

[dlhm]

It's ok, There's little money in cures,, It's the "Treatment Of Disease" patent that you need.

The name says it all

[Warlock7]

These two "companies" are obviously in the business of acquiring intellectual property patents in order to file lawsuits. This is hardly a business.

Isn't there a time limit on filing patent suits? If the patent is over 20 years old then isn't this way out of date?

Re:The name says it all

[k_187]

Patents are currently granted for 20 years from the date of filing. At the time this patent was granted, patents were awarded for 17 years from the date of granting. This means that the patent expires next year, as it was granted on Dec. 10, 1991. So yes, a patent that is 20 years old is out of date, this patent is only 16 years old. The summary gets that wrong.

Re:The name says it all

[tepples]

For those patents in effect at one point in the mid-1990s, the term is the greater of 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant.

Not your peer

[Anonymous Coward]

that's your competition.

Your peers are those working in your area. Since the only legitimate business of "Murderer" is actually "Soldier", your peers would be "other soldiers". I would call that trial by soldier court a court in a martial theme. Or, simply a court martial.

Maybe I should patent that idea..?

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[dbIII]

Some of us didn't bother to get an ID for a long time, just posted as AC until mods made it no longer worth it and then I lost the password to the first account (which was 308591 by then anyway). There were a lot more than 900 people there on the first day anyway since Rob Malda's ePlus and the Enlightenment theme Obsidian were popular before the Slashdot page was put up so we took a look to see when it was announced that it was ready (there was news that something was going to happen for a while proir). So put me and a pile of others down as subzero, or liars if you want - I don't care.

What really matters is those who submit interesting stuff whether they heard about this site a long time ago or last week, and the people who actually run the site.

Back to what got me interested in the first place - ePlus was very cool but good luck tracking down the old dependancies now, it's all out there but would require a bit of mucking about - multiple instances of gkrellm fill the role now but do not look anywhere near as good.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[kokido]

My ID is way way way lower than yours, sadly though I never actually log in and use it, in fact it took me 3 attempts to remember what password I used for it so I could write this reply.

Your IP laws at work!

[Opportunist]

Here's one company, essentially not inventing or producing anything, but they're sitting on a patent. This alone gives them the right to milk anyone who dares to invent something that their patent (which is worded in a way that it would include pretty much everything from egg cookers to gas power plant control panels) allegedly covers, to bully the inventor into paying them whatever sum of money they deem right.

They serve no purpose, produce nothing, don't add to the amount of goods and services circulating and are generally harmful to invention and commerce in general. In a working free market model, those companies would cease to exist immediately.

Unfortunately, we're far from a free market.

SwPat reform? No! We need SwPat Retirement!

[Cyclops]

We don't need a Software Patent reform, we need it to have a quite sudden early retirement.

If you have a nice glass broken in two halves, you can consider glueing it together again.

If it's broken in thousands of miniscule pieces... you simple throw it away.

Software Patents are like glass broken in thousands of dangerous miniscule shards that if ingested only hurt the industry by the inside.

Retire it. Now!

It the patent is 20 years old...

[lord_mike]

Shouldn't have it expired by now?

Thanks,

Mike

Re:It the patent is 20 years old...

[Harin_Teb]

Preface: I'm not sure if the patent has expired yet or not.

Comment: Even if the patent has expired, if Apple infirnged while the patent was still valid, and the statute of limitations (which I'm not sure how long it is in patent cases) has not run, the Plaintiffs can still bring a suit based on the past infringement. Basically saying "We know we don't own the rights now, but while we did you infringed, so pay up for that time period."

Lawsuit as a business plan -- the US problem

[Morgaine]

Patents provide the low-hanging fruit in this area, but the actual problem goes much deeper.

As we all know here, software patents are wholly inappropriate in software, as they undermine the very basis of computing. But as long as companies are free to engage lawyers to litigate as a business plan, no amount of patent reform will fix this issue, because lawyers can literally create a case out of nothing. And they do so regularly, as we've seen in hundreds of examples recently.

The problem lies in part with lawyers (basically for being pricks without any moral standing, and happily taking money for their services regardless of purpose), and in part with judges and the judicial system as a whole, for not applying massive penalties to lawyers who use law merely to underpin a company business plan. Judges need to see through the purpose of a suit, and stomp heavily on lawsuits being used purely as a means of financial gain. The reason we've got into this mess is largely because lawyers benefit from all litigation, and judges have no interest in stopping that.

A complete ban on software patents would at least place that low-hanging fruit out of reach, but it won't solve the greater problem faced by corporate America, which is that it is at the mercy of a huge tier of parasites wearing suits, whose whole idea of worthwhile activity is to prevent worthwhile activity by others. Lawsuits are being used as an anti-competitive weapon by every man and his dog now, and that's the key problem here.

Re:Lawsuit as a business plan -- the US problem

[jez9999]

And I think you should always emphasize that some, probably many, lawyers actually fight lawsuits that they consider to be valid and just. Only some are assholes. This illustrates the fact that they could practice law without being assholes.

Re:Lawsuit as a business plan -- the US problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Only some are assholes.

Of course. But the fact that some are very honorable indeed doesn't help.

If the problem is that asshole and semi-asshole lawyers exist, then there is no solution, because they're not going to go away.

As long as corporate America endorses litigation as a valid MO for business, more and more lawyers will join in the fun, as it's profitable for them even when they're on the losing side. That's why we're seeing more and more of this crap.

It's endemic in the current business and legal systems, and it's turning even the previously honorable lawyers into more assholes every day.

Until the American Bar Association or the Supreme Court or someone insightful and and influential tackles this litigation-as-business issue head on, the US is going down the tubes, because it's devastating to the concept of profit through competition on merit. And I don't see any moves at all to even recognizing the problem, let alone fixing it.

Universal Use of Tabs?

[Kevinv]

"Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' infringes an interface patent relating to the OS's nearly universal use of tabs."

What the heck? I sit here on a Mac mini running Tiger. Only Safari has tabs, and that only occured after a LOT of bitching from users. Where is the universal use of tabs at? I had to install Path Finder to get a tabbed finder interface.

Not one of the iLife applications uses tabs. iTunes, no tabs. Mail, no tabs. iCal, Address Book, no tabs. Even XCode, no tabs.

Re:Universal Use of Tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Mail.app does indeed have tabs.

Open Mail, search for something, and you will get a row of tabs (in "Spotlight blue") across the top of your screen, listing places and options for searching.

Re:Universal Use of Tabs?

[gbridge]

iTunes now has tabs on the iPod page. System Preferences has tabs on several of the preference panes too. Pages also has tabs on the inspecter. These are the ones that spring to mind straight away; there's undoubtably more. Perhaps the whole of the System Preferences app could actually be defined as being one large tab, with each preference pane being an individual tab. Who knows?

Re:Universal Use of Tabs?

[Kelson]

Not one of the iLife applications uses tabs. iTunes, no tabs. Mail, no tabs. iCal, Address Book, no tabs. Even XCode, no tabs.

I take it you've never opened a preferences panel for any of your applications?

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

His name is spelled "Clarus," you ignorant fucking crotchcuddler.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[firewort]

Some of us have old accounts, but mostly read not-logged in anyway. I haven't logged in except to submit a story in....
ages.

It might even be since 2001 that I haven't bothered to log in.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

get the FUCK off my platform. Your Platform? YOUR PLATFORM? Who the fuck are you? You whiny little bitch, you don't own shit, except for the privledge of sucking my fucking dick. I hope you don't represent most Mac users cause if you do it'll be a cold day in hell before apple takes the number one spot in market share. Hell, with an attitude like that I would bet that we'll see OS/2 on every destop before YOUR precious platform. Your a piss poor example of a Mac user and everyone knows it. Why don't you fucking take your self rightous attitude, jam it into your macbook, and shove it up your fucking ass.

Tabs?

[dlhm]

Oh! Tabs. I was thought I ws going to get into trouble.. I allready removed the tab key from my keyboard. I programm in Visual Studio and have occasionally used the tab control in my programs without notifiying this company. Is all my software in violation?

no patents here, move along

[glas_gow]

How can someone get a patent for tabbed page navigation, is what beats me. Its really the only way to offer that particular functionality. Ring-binders and pocket phone books have had them for eons. Heck, the navbar on the left of this page could be considered a tabbed-index, from a functionality stand-point. When you think of it like that, what does that leave for 'originality', the mere appearance of the tab resembling a real-world example? Hardly a patentable innovation.

20 year limit on patents?

[Andy_R]

Can someone in the know explain haw patent expiry works in US law? Here in Britain, patents last for 17 years, but can somesimes be extended to 20, so this patent filed March 25, 1987 wouldn't be valid - unless it's the date the patent is granted not the filing date that counts?

Re:20 year limit on patents?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Bingo... Up until the mid 90s, a US patent was valid for 17 years from the date of issue, and sometimes actionable after that for infringements during the patent's validity.

Now it's 20 years from date of application plus any time the USPTO spent sitting on the patent, waiting to process it.

Re:20 year limit on patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Apple sue the USPTO for granting this ridiculous patent? There are some scanned Polaroids further up this page showing a tabbed interface on the Apple Lisa from the early '80s - the USPTO either did NO investigatio or did not understand the patent. Either way, they're the ones to blame here.

Tabbed Finder

[ThirdPrize]

So that why they haven't implemented this yet. I knew there must be a reason.

Re:Tabbed Finder

[Ilgaz]

No, Apple is fairly conservative about Finder which is called "The Macintosh Desktop Experience" (about box), that is why.

When they decided the majority of their userbase are fine with tabs, they enabled it in Leopard. Speaking about enabling, did you know Safari comes with tabs switched off by default?

Ahh man i screwed that up - meant to say

[Tran]

Took so long to file becuase they had to check on prior art on filing software patent suits...

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[frdmfghtr]

UID of 1? Heck, I want to know who got 1000000.

Interesting...

[CCFreak2K]

...but this makes me think of how Mac OS 8 allowed you to stick directory windows at the bottom of the screen and have a tab button that popped up when you clicked on it. Could this be an example of prior art?

Laches?

[tepples]

What is your citation for the implication that estoppel by laches applies only to trademarks?

Re:Laches?

[squiggleslash]

Not every case of "not defending your patent" would count as laches, for example, if the patenter had only just discovered Apple was using the technology covered by the patent, it's hard to see how Apple could prove laches are in any way relevent.

Further, according to the article you link to, laches do not get Apple off the hook, they just reduce the amount in damages the patenter can claim.

A successful defense of laches will find the court denying the request for equitable relief. However, even if equitable relief is not available, the party may still have an action at law if the statute of limitations has not run out.

So, even if laches provdes to be a valid defense, Apple may not have to pay damages, but would most likely still be forced to choose between dropping the technology, or paying royalties on it.

Biased Edit?

[ohearn]

I know this will probably kill karma, but here goes.

"IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 million and an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!"

I really have to wonder if the article summary would have just cheered wildly and forgotten about patent reform for a few minutes if it had been MS they were suing, or if all the fans of Apple and MS bashers would have taken a break to still support the bigger issue on this one.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think we care about market share? What's best is not always what's most popular. Jesus everfucking Christ, when will you accountant types get it through your heads that not everyone shares your fascination with numbers?

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know who Clarus is either, stop embarrasing yourself.

Learn to fucking type and visit www.google.com for answers.

These guys have no chance ...

[plurgid]

Queue the Vince McMahon Music ....

Apple beat the Beatles after like a 20 year court battle over the name "Apple".

Apple's lawyers are fueled by an enormous never ending supply of hipster money from it's iPod sales. These are no ordinary lawyers ... these are APPLE lawers ... impecably dressed, chi-centered, zen-bhuddist, miso soup sipping legal ass kicking machines. They also tote the coolest damn industrial-designed breifcases you've ever seen.

no chance ... no chance in hell.

Sorry for interrupting...

[RulerOf]

...But I see a point to the other poster's argument. I switched to Mac OS X from windows for about a week, and all the while I was using it, aside from mouse issues, it took me a while to get used to the single menu bar. It felt like something was missing from all of my apps, but seeing as how M$ is trying to do that anyway (see Office 2k7, WMP, and IE7 with default settings), it was easy to accept.

Nonetheless, as time wore on, I found myself clicking the menu very infrequently. I moved almost completely over to keyboard shortcuts and had to use the objectdock to determine what apps were open (because that damn X doesn't close anything, so I almost never used it) and I had to look at the menu bar to see what was in focus. I never even thought of what a nightmare multiple monitors might be with relation to that menu. Still, WinXP doesn't scale the taskbar to multiple monitors elegantly (or at all), but then again, it doesn't rely on the taskbar like OS X does on its menu.

While I don't forsee anyone switching to 18 monitors anytime soon, I always like to keep in mind that the only implementations that survive in the IT field are those that meet one demand: Scalability.

Expired patent

[griffjon]

Am I missing something here? The patent was filed on March 25, 1987. The motion was filed April 18th, 2007. Patents last 20 years. These asshats lost their case by a few weeks. (OK, sure, Apple's OS was probably infringing before the patent expired, too bad they didn't file then)

Patent Duration?

[Phanatic1a]

2007 - 1987 = 20 years. Utility patents last 14 years from date of filing, utility patents last 20.

How's this patent even still...well, patented?

Hypercard

[Paradise Pete]

The patent was filed in March of 1987. Apple released Hypercard in 1986.

HyperCard is based on the concept of a "stack" of virtual "cards". Cards hold data, just as they would in a rolodex.

Look at all the tabs in this screenshot.

Looks good on 'em

[stratjakt]

Apple was a pioneer of these sort of bullshit "look and feel" suits.

It's nice to see corporations hoist by their own petard.

Re:Looks good on 'em

[russotto]

Apple sued Microsoft based on a look-n-feel copyright suit. And Apple lost, which means by rhetorical reverse estoppel, you can't blame them for defending themselves against the same sort of thing now.

I gotta admit

[iminplaya]

Your IP law provides for some the best soap opera in town. It just keeps getting better every day. The idea of "reform" is a complete fantasy, and it nothing but a vain attempt to keep the whole system afloat and to make sure the public doesn't wake from its slumber and demand a real fix in the form of complete abolition. That would be the only reason the biggies are behind it. And they need it fast! If it isn't fixed before the campaign season gets seriously underway, it could very well become an issue if we can make enough noise about it and rile up the natives. I can always hope, right? Abolitionists unite!

Re:I gotta admit

[Quiet_Desperation]

to make sure the public doesn't wake from its slumber and demand a real fix

To be fair, what stake does the general public have in this? One SW company suing another SW company. "Who cares?" is what Joe Average says. Does this affect their pensions? Their IRA? Their 401K? Will patent reform lower gas prices? Reduce the sales tax? End the Iraq war?

That's the sort of stuff *really* matters to the average person on an average day.

Re:I gotta admit

[iminplaya]

Yes, you are absolutely right. It is extremely unlikely to become an election issue. That's why the abuse is so rampant now and will only get worse with infinite copyright etc., and nobody will know the better, much less care. So, we need to do what the other side does and explore it from an emotional, instinctive angle. We need to use the same scare tactics that they do and go with attitude of doing whatever it takes to win, seeing as that we are not dealing with human logic here. However, I'm not really counting on anything but the continuation of what we have now. So, I guess I'll just sit back and watch the show. Got some popcorn?

Patent expired?

[j-beda]

According to wikipedia, patents expire something like 17-20 years after being issued in the US. A 1987 patent should expire this year, shouldn't it?

They're not tabs for f's sake.. they're toes...

[foniksonik]

Tiger Toes. You know the old game rhyme, 'catch a tiger by it's toe, if he hollers let him go, my mama told me to pick the very best one and you are IT!'

See IT is in that rhyme and the 'buttons' that get clicked are simply graphical representations of Tiger Toes... you pick one and then it's the one you picked. Simple really and it has nothing to do with tabs.. which BTW are taken from paper organization products, which doesn't make any sense on a computer.

Furthermore: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how goes your shitty job as an anonymous shill for a 3rd party marketing company contracted for apple going? :)

Any Window Manager

[Anonymous Coward]

...with virtual desktops would then also infringe on this patent. Any prior art?

System 7 had tabs

[bynary]

Apple System 7.5 had tabs. Remember the Launcher control panel? There may have been earlier instances, but that's the first that came to mind.

System 7.5 came out in 1994. Thirteen years is a long time to wait to sue someone over patent infringement. Any lawyers care to comment?

MS Panels also use tabs

[wardk]

or is that abuse tabs?

anyway, how can they now sue apple after everyone has used tabs for at least a decade?

hell, OS/2 had tabs. and it's been dead as longer than windows and of course, BSD.

Here was go again

[Amazetbm]

Not more of this "look and feel" B.S.

Cruel and unusual punishment...

[forgoil]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

I think this text is interesting in conjunction with the current patent situation...

(If you want to know who wrote what I quoted, I recommend googling it, you might learn something:) )

Justice System/Patent System Reform

[allometry]

I'm pretty ready to see the justice system get an upgrade to 21 century standards.

Lawsuits cost money and they seem to be a loss a majority of the time. It's costly to tax payers and to companies alike. I think it's about time for suits such as this to be paid in full by the losing side.

Doing so would deter frivolous lawsuits such as this one and force companies to strongly consider the losing consequences of going after the big money, such as Apple.

In addition to the legal system needing reformation, so does the patent system. I have no issue with inventions being safeguarded, but what the hell? Tabs?!

Generalizations such as universal tabs are ridiculous and should be thrown out of the patent office.

I'm ready for patent reform!

Can't believe this is still up for debate

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that people are still having the top menubar vs. window menubar argument. This has been tried and tested by (non-Apple) research labs, with people who are used to repeated movements. No matter how fast you think you are at 'precision' mouse movements, you will be faster aiming at the edge of the screen. Especially if you use that well-practised precision to hit the right horizontal position.

Experienced or novice, accessing a menubar at the screen's edge is incontrovertibly faster that hitting any other target of the same size. What ever skill level you already have with the mouse plays into it as well, of course, but these advantages *are* cumulative -- unless you think that you are already moving the mouse at the speed of light, which can't be exceeded.

You have a point about the problem with multiple screens, but this should be solved by more intelligent positioning of the menubar on the local screen to the app, not by abandoning the best real estate available for the sake of the tiny minority of two screen users. Now THAT'S brain death, right there.

And BTW if you can't tell what app is in focus simply by reading the name that is always situated in the same place on the leading edge of the *very menubar you are targeting*, then you don't deserve to use a computer.

Re:Can't believe this is still up for debate

[pherthyl]

This has been tried and tested by (non-Apple) research labs, with people who are used to repeated movements. No matter how fast you think you are at 'precision' mouse movements, you will be faster aiming at the edge of the screen.

Sources please. Without a reference your claim is worse than useless. What was their testing methodology, what screen sizes were used, multiple monitors, what window sizes for apps? There are many variables that can be played with to get the result you want. If you had ever done any user testing you would know that you almost never get a hard and fast result that can be generalized to all users.

My biggest problem with the window on top is that even if it is faster to access, does that actually help me? If I'm experienced enough to be very fast with the mouse, I really don't use the menu very often at all. All the common actions are either in the toolbar or have a keyboard shortcut. The menu is the least used part of a program for me. So why would I care that it takes 1/2 second less time to access something that I access only once an hour? However I do use the close and minimize buttons a lot, and in OS X these are tiny and hard to click. In KDE I have it set up so they are at the top right and top left corner in a maximized window. This lets me toss the mouse there without even thinking about it to close/minimize an application. Much more useful to me than fast access to a menu which I almost never need.

Re:Can't believe this is still up for debate

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize you're in a tiny minority of users who have this configuration? Even the percentage of users who use more than one monitor is in the single digits. You presume the entire system is broken because it's not how you prefer it to be, when in reality for most users it's the better choice.

Re:Can't believe this is still up for debate

[Anonymous Coward]

What configuration? I don't even have multiple monitors, and the top menu still doesn't make sense to me. If you want people to believe that the top menu is advantageous for most people, then produce some evidence to back up your claim.

misconception: software patents are different

[reversible physicist]

There are very clear problems with the patent system, but it is a misconception to think that it helps to outlaw software patents. Were things any better when software patents were disguised as device patents? Any piece of software is ultimately implemented in a physical device.

Suppose, for example, that advancing the timing on a car engine reduces emission of some pollutant. Can this be covered by a patent as long as you use mechanical devices to advance the timing, but not if you use a computer chip? What if you use digital logic rather than software?

The abstraction of method from implementation is exactly the difference between patents and copyright. If you want to fix the patent system, you need to fix the whole patent system. Outlawing software patents doesn't fix anything.

Slashdot uses tabs!

[TheSlashaway]

Slashdot uses tabs!

Scope?

[dasunst3r]

What?! Prevent Apple from selling 10.4? No worries... just stall this lawsuit long enough and they'll have Leopard out! Crafty, eh?

Ridiculous!

[vrochette]

This is really laughable.
I think I'm going to patent this one: "method to evacuate digested matter".
I'm going to be rich!

When does this patent expire?

[TheSlashaway]

When did it start and when does it expire (17 yrs later presumably)? I seem to remember tabs in products in software programs going back before 1990. How about HyperCard? http://weather-dimensions.com/tedkaehler/us/ted/re sume/hypercard_help.gif

Obviously not.

[porcupine8]

In a murder case, you're trying to prove that you're not a murderer. And they already get juries of not-murderers. Duh.

I can see it now - "Your Honor, I'd like to request a jury made up of my fellow serial killers." "Is that a guilty plea I hear?"

Re:Obviously not.

[SeaFox]

In a murder case, you're trying to prove that you're not a murderer. And they already get juries of not-murderers. Duh.

No, isn't it the other way around? You're innocent until proven guilty, therefore the D.A. has to prove you are a murderer. If they walk in with no case whatsoever ("You're honor, we think Mr. Smith is the murderer." "Why?" "Uh, we don't have any evidence, we just think he is.") you wouldn't have to defend yourself, as its been assumed you didn't do anything to start with.

I'm probably wrong but...

[mindwhip]

Isn't there some limitation that if you fail to enforce a patent in a timely fashion from knowing something infringes your patent is rendered invalid? Or am I thinking of copyright or trademarks or something?

And if there isn't, there should be.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[porcupine8]

Hey now, that's MY platform you're talking about, and I don't appreciate you shooing all the nice people away with your dirty mouth. I don't think Clarus appreciates it much either, can't you hear her growlowing at you?

Now why don't you go play with HyperCard for a while? You know that always calms you down.

1987?

[kpainter]

The patent in question is 5072412, which was originally issued to Xerox in 1987 I thought that patents issued prior to 1995 expired before 17 years and after 1995 expire after 20 years? How can they hope to enforce an expired patent or is there a way to get around expiration now?

Perhas Avery should sue IP Innovations

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't file folders in a file drawer have tabs long before any software did?

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[timseal]

same here

The EOLAS patent didn't help much

[Kelson]

If Microsoft couldn't squash the problem in a business-friendly government, Apple isn't going to have any better luck.

I remember using tabs in software on an Apple II+

[WillAffleckUW]

And the year was 1980.

In fact, I wrote the whole thing myself, back when I was a game designer.

Sounds like someone owes me a lot of money ...

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[kju]

93414 is lower than 893? What kind of math is that?

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[SpookyFish]

Moof!

In 1981, the HP 2621 had a tabbed visual interface

[argent]

"In 1981, a tabbed visual interface would have been groundbreaking."

In 1981, the HP 2621 smart terminal had a visual interface for configuring the terminal in which a set of tabs across the bottom of the screen, selected by function keys, displayed views of related configuration pages that retained their state and settings and you could jump back and forth between them.

Is Capitalism the problem?

[bussdriver]

Blaming capitalism is just blaming human nature and the failure of government to define the ideal battle field on which the barbaric "survival of the fittest" game is waged. Hey, humans are a pack of almost-rabid animals and that is why capitalism works so well.

The reason corporatism (where the USA is headed) is so evil is because it corrupts the government's job to define and referee the game. Then you have wars for commerce for example... Or you kill foreign leaders who are bad for business..

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you really need to get a life.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah - it's the female sexual organ. I always wondered what that meant.

Re:Mozilla? What next?

[davidsyes]

Will they go after Lotus/IBM for having tabs in the old Lotus Notes (say, back to 1996/1997)? Or, will they go after Lotus' and others' organizers? Will the suit be limited to browsers? Or expanded to anything on a computer display that organizes or differentiates document access portals?

Sheesh. Seems they waited to long to demonstrate due diligence. IP litigation is way, WAY out of hand.

Researching expired?

[Anonymous Coward]

Theyre'd be less confusion in these discussions if people read up on IP law, and if you don't want to buy the books, most libraries have copies. Doesn't mean one will not need a lawyer in some cases, but at least you all will be ahead in the discussions.

Wrong owner cited

[Orig_Club_Soda]

The person who owns the copyright for tabs is the guy who put tabs on the paper folders in our filing cabinets. Software is emulating the physical world. How can we forget that!?

Is there a Slashdot version of this patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame I can't vote you friend. Interestingly enough these IP discussions remind me of religious discussions with all the heat, and the "quoting" by people who think they understand what's between the quotes.

Originally issued in 1987...

[Myrkridian42]

Which should mean it's expired.

The pattent has expired

[wafflemonger]

The part I don't understand is that the patent has expired. Software pattents expire 14 years after they are granted http://www.clemson.edu/research/ottSite/ottStart_I ntelectPatents.htm#Duration. That is in 1991 according to the link that was provided in the summary. So I guess that they can sue for any infrigement before 2005. After that there is no protection on the idea. Going after the current version of OSX seems dumb because it is not covered by the patent.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I have no idea, I think it must have been 2 or 3 years ago now, since I remember at least 3 (maybe 3) april fools days. If you're a subscriber you could check the crap I've posted from back at the very start, which might help.

You'd think with Digg around Slashdot would attempt to aim at us geeks instead of being a catch all Zonk-whorefest wannabe news outlet that it is :(

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[LocalH]

You're wrong. And my ID is lower than yours so I'm right by default.

Re:Low Slashdot IDs Please Post Here

[NickFitz]

Not really ;-)

Re:I think Tom Rolander has prior art

[Douglas Goodall]

In the early 1980's, Tom Rolander showed me a terminal (text) based office interface he was working on where you clicked on a file cabinet, clicked on a file folder, and displayed the contents of the file. I am pretty sure the folder was a form of tab. I was in the basement with Gary Kildall and Tom Rolander and their Vax on Lighthouse Ave in Pacific Grove, CA. That was back when I worked in OEM Systems at Digital Research.

I am going to sue as well

[AdebisiTheGamer]

I was using tabs in my filing system even before there was an internet and home computers. I am going to sue all of them!!!!

F*** My Goat

[bandmassa]

How could tabbing have been granted a patent anyway? It's just a virtual representation of a mechanical system used in card files - pryor art by any definition. J. H. Christey, there is some angrifying twaddle pedalled in the US courts.

I'm jealous .. can we swap ...

[freaker_TuC]

ID's ? yours is lower than mine ...

Must be the redefinition of "size-queen" ;)