Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Decade-old Patent On Tree-view Mode!
BhaKi writes "Remember the Tree-View mode in many file management applications? It's shocking to know that this omnipresent feature was patented by Microsoft back in 1995 (granted in 1997). I'm not very sure about the implications, though. The patent is so general that it can be related to many things from tree-mode to virtual filesystems. Check out claim no. 3 of the patent for the most clear part."
I patented trees in general in 1992. I'm going to sue.
You can get patent results ad-free from Google or straight from the USPTO.
Hell, its vague enough to cover slashdot's hierarchical nesting message view. Pay up, slashy!
Table-ized A.I.
Thank god for mc and ztree
I have to give MS kudos for not using this patent offensively.
There is a war going on for your mind.
There's so much prior art here it's not funny. For example, Executive Systems first published XTree for DOS (later XTreeGold) in April, 1985. It was the absence of this functionality in MS/DOS that make the functionality so popular. This is just another example of how the software patent system is truly messed up and needs (and hopefully will get) a serious overhaul.
Generally, very little. Yes, most low-level things in CS have been patented in some sense (XOR cursors, one-click checkout, run-length image encoding, multi-hash lookup, stacktrace error display strategies.)
In theory, all software development grinds to a halt. In practice, no one gives a damn.
Trying to enforce a very broad software patent usually just gets the entire patent invalidated. Even if you win, you get to play whack-a-mole with a thousand open-source projects. And most software is bespoke stuff within corporations: good luck tracking that down to enforce patent claims.
Unless you are a law firm with the business model of extorting cash for infringment, you lose by going to court. Bad press, skeptical judge (unless you are suing a direct competitor,) workarounds from the peanut gallery provided pro-bono, countersuits from others with overlapping clainms: it gets ugly fast. Better to just cross-license and get on with life.
This patent isn't just about trees, or even file-system trees (which Microsoft made prior art for with the old Win3.1 File Manager). This is about file-system trees that also include things that aren't actually in the file system. It's about how things like Control Panel and My Network Places can appear in the same Windows Explorer tree with your C: drive.
Hopefully, though, the whole thing is now moot.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Each claim of a patent is presumed valid independently of the validity of the other claims. See 35 U.S.C. Sec. 282. If one claim is invalid, then other claims that include additional or different limitations will still be presumed valid until proven otherwise.
You may have noticed that patent claims themselves form a hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy are the independent claims. You can recognize them because they do not refer to other claims in the patent. Then there are dependent claims. These are claims that add additional limitations to the claims from which they derive. You can recognize them because they refer to other claims in the patent.
The independent claims, which have the fewest limitations, are the easiest to knock out with prior art references. The dependent claims, especially dependent claims that depend on dependent claims, are the hardest to knock out with prior art references, but are easier to engineer around (all you have to do is ensure that your own implementation does not include one of the limitations or its equivalent; but you still have to be careful because the courts often find weird equivalents when it comes to litigation). Patent practitioners usually draft a variety of independent and dependent claims to make a patent harder to fully invalidate or engineer around.
Because it is hard to knock out all the claims of a patent, defendants in patent litigation often look to ways to attack a patent as a whole. Defendants often accuse the patent applicant of withholding information from the patent office, such as knowledge of prior art or the best mode embodiment of the patent. They may even try to find inventors who were not named on the patent application and license the patent independently from them.