Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Patents "Pg Up" and "Pg Dn"

An anonymous reader notes that Microsoft has been granted a patent on "Page Up" and "Page Down" keystrokes. The article links an image of an IBM PC keyboard from 1981 with such keys in evidence. "The software giant applied for the patent in 2005, and was granted it on August 19, 2008. US patent number 7,415,666 describes 'a method and system in a document viewer for scrolling a substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page, regardless of whether the zoom is such that some, all or one page is currently being viewed.'... The company received its 5,000th patent from the US Patent and Trademark Office in March 2006, and is currently approaching the 10,000 mark."

350 comments

  1. Ok by me. by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's ok; I don't RTFA anyway.

    1. Re:Ok by me. by spazdor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I skipped past your reply using my pgDn button. So there.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    2. Re:Ok by me. by everynerd · · Score: 5, Funny

      See you in court.

    3. Re:Ok by me. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, mods are touchy tonite!

      I prefer the term Karma Pimp.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Ok by me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      >That or the porn site is down.

      You're right - porn.slashdot.org is definitely not responding.

    5. Re:Ok by me. by PaKL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hey! I read RTFA yer, yer I know... I realise that it refers to a "page" and not the keys on the keyboard. However! Anyone seen a patent on the "Any Key" yet ? :P

    6. Re:Ok by me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I patented the pressing the letters c-o-u-r-t in that particular order.

      See YOU in court.

    7. Re:Ok by me. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're right - porn.slashdot.org is definitely not responding.

      That's a subscribers only section.... try logging into your account ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Ok by me. by kdemetter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well's that nothing a screwdriver can't fix. I'll replace Pg Up and Pg Down with Scroll Lock and Pause. I can type blind anyway.

      Good Luck patenting that ! .

    9. Re:Ok by me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I skipped past your reply using my pgDn button. So there.

      I found your reply by using the mouse wheel. I was too scared to use my pg up and pg down keys. Maybe my windows now records actvities on the keys and reports them back to M$ for analysis.

    10. Re:Ok by me. by Swiper · · Score: 1

      I wonder... Has anyone told Adobe about this? I welcome you to the Patent Wars. Gentlemen, get your laywers....

      --
      ~We demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty~
    11. Re:Ok by me. by Saint+Gerbil · · Score: 1

      That will be $5 please. That patent is more than a bit vauge it could include clicking on the scroll bar so it jumps down a set amount.

    12. Re:Ok by me. by JunkmanUK · · Score: 2, Funny

      They own the patent on the mouse wheel as well.

      I think the cursor keys might still be free... or dragging the scrollbar ... hmmm no, that's been patented...

      I found this by printing the document and slide it behind a picture frame, it's the only safe way...

    13. Re:Ok by me. by MrMr · · Score: 2, Informative

      You didn't read TFP: What is claimed is:...
      2. The method of claim 1 wherein receiving a command indicative of a page-based incremental scroll request comprises receiving a Page Up command...

      And further down: .... This operation occurs on receiving specific user input, e.g., a Page Up or Page Down key command.
      So this patent really claims the use of the Page Up key to move a page upwards by a specific amount. I think I'm going to patent a method to insert an 'e' into a digital text by pressing the 'e'-key on a keyboard.

    14. Re:Ok by me. by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly.

      Isn't it about time that crap dinosaur companies like IBM were bought up by dynamic young companies going places like Leveno? I am sick and tired of hearing about random US mega corporations attempting to patent 'breathing' yet again so that they can sue the asses off of other big companies and ensure that the Chinese have to pay taxes to manufacture our goods for us. We used to think communism was evil because it gave people a poor life. Well I'm beginning to think the same thing about large businesses, they want us to serve them rather than them serving us and that is evil too.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    15. Re:Ok by me. by sqldr · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a subscribers only section.... try logging into your account ;)

      ok.. *clicks*

      AAAIEEE!!!! JESUSFUCK, MY EYEEEES!!!!!!!!

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    16. Re:Ok by me. by papna · · Score: 1

      Where the set amount is exactly one page.

    17. Re:Ok by me. by linhares · · Score: 1

      >That or the porn site is down.

      You're right - porn.slashdot.org is definitely not responding.

      It should be. I keep getting this "more flexible screwing" ad . Just press reload. Any minute now.

    18. Re:Ok by me. by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      What the hell! How are going to get through your computing life without scroll-lock and pause? I think I'd give up computers altogether if I had use computers without scroll-lock and pause. Actually, I do sometimes use pause to pause the BIOS screen.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    19. Re:Ok by me. by inamorty · · Score: 1

      I was surprised to see a 5 1/4 inch floppy in this day and age too..

    20. Re:Ok by me. by Taulin · · Score: 1

      I thought once something was in public domain, it couldn't be patented. The concept and implementation of PgUp and Down has been around for ages, and thus public domain. Am I missing something? They were granted the patent, so I guess I am wrong.

    21. Re:Ok by me. by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

      Sorry but M$ just got a patent on the screwdriver as well...

    22. Re:Ok by me. by syukton · · Score: 1

      Isn't it about time that crap dinosaur companies like IBM were bought up by dynamic young companies going places like Leveno?

      That's already happening, piece by piece...

      (it's spelled Lenovo, btw)

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    23. Re:Ok by me. by syukton · · Score: 1

      You're missing something very subtle.

      The default behavior of the Page Up and Page Down keys is to move the viewport displaying the document one full screen-page up or down. The patent more specifically relates to absolute pages, regardless of zoom level or display size.

      For example, suppose that your display can fit 2 full 8.5x11 inch sheets of paper one after another, vertically. Just suppose. When you press the Page Down key now, you'll move down 2 pages. That is, if you were looking at pages 10 and 11, you'll be looking at pages 12 and 13 after pressing Page Down. If the Page Down key behaved according to the patent, pressing it once while viewing pages 10 and 11 would make it so you're viewing pages 11 and 12, because it only moved you down one absolute-page, instead of moving you down one screen-page (which is a virtual page containing two absolute pages).

      Another example would be if you can only see the top 1/3 of a page on your display, and you press Page Down. With today's behavior of Page Down, you would be taken to the next 1/3 of the page. According to the patent's method, however, you'd be taken to the top 1/3 of the next page.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    24. Re:Ok by me. by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I only noticed the typo when you pointed it out. Weird..

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. No they didn't by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Informative

    sounds more like they patented scrolling up/down the same amount regardless of any zoom factor.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:No they didn't by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Which minus the legal lingo, is equally stupid. Page Up/Down does the same in most document-viewing applications.

    2. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It doesn't in OpenOffice, KOffice, Word, Notepad, VI, emacs or vim. OK, the last few don't have a notion of 'Page.'

    3. Re:No they didn't by wanderingknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right, it's not exactly the same. Still, the difference is ludicrous, and getting a patent for this would make a very sad joke.

    4. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words, someone in QA opened a bug that the Page Up and Page Down didn't do the right thing when the doc was being zoomed. Then there was lots of email back and forth about what "the right thing" was supposed to be, and they settled on one. At the same time, other email chains in the Outlook inbox were reminding developers of the importance of filing for patents early and often, "even if you don't think it is especially original, things could turn out differently", with the implication that one's compensation and prospects for advancement (or not getting laid off) were at stake.

    5. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not even. They patented a method for scrolling up/down the same amount regardless of any zoom factor. Not all methods, and certainly not pgup/pgdn.

      Why is it that every patent story on slashdot always obfuscates the fact that patents cover methods of implementation, and not all encompassing ideas? Is it naive to think that this isn't a purposeful ommission?

    6. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a kdawson post. kdawson is the epitome of stupidity and sensationalism. If a story sounds like it is too ridiculous or belongs in Idle (but is not), it's most likely a kdawson post and you should just disregard it.

    7. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it makes total sense. Microsoft is in the idea business and uses patents to extend its financial viability.

    8. Re:No they didn't by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      obfuscates the fact that patents cover methods of implementation

      Because you're wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is enough that the problem here isn't MS, it's the patent system. But we knew that. We're vilifying the wrong people. Our efforts should be focused on demonstrating the inferiority of this system, and exposing any corruption involved in maintaining it.

    10. Re:No they didn't by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sounds more like they patented scrolling up/down the same amount regardless of any zoom factor.

      To gett arround the patentt, just be sligghtly offf. I ussed a simmilar techniqque to gett arround a speling patentt.

           

    11. Re:No they didn't by Repton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Isn't that what Acrobat Reader does? You hit space, and it scrolls you down to the next screen-sized bit of document. Or, you hit pagedown, and it scrolls you exactly one page worth (which takes you to the same place on the next page).

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    12. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Doctrine of Equivalents still requires something to be done in substantially the same way as a patented method to be considered infringing. It exists to prevent someone from taking apart an invention, changing something trivial, and then trying to pass it off as their own. It does not mean MS or anyone else can patent ideas.

      But go ahead, link to a case where someone has been sucessfully sued for infringing on a software patent where the methods of implementation in question were independently developed. I'd love to see it.

    13. Re:No they didn't by drcln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it that every patent story on slashdot always obfuscates the fact that patents cover methods of implementation, and not all encompassing ideas? Is it naive to think that this isn't a purposeful ommission?

      Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

      The only part of a patent that matters are the claims. So, no this patent does not cover all PgUp / PgDn, but only paging that is carried out according to the formula in the claims. Still, it seems that paging through a document as if it were a book with fixed pages and always showing the same part of the page would have been obvious.

      --
      your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
    14. Re:No they didn't by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But go ahead, link to a case where someone has been sucessfully sued for infringing on a software patent where the methods of implementation in question were independently developed. I'd love to see it.

      There is absolutely no need for someone t have successfully done that for absurd patents to become problematic. Essentially no one can afford to be sued by, say, MS, even if your implementation of Page Down is provably different to theirs.

    15. Re:No they didn't by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      or xdvi, for that matter...

    16. Re:No they didn't by old+and+new+again · · Score: 1

      like every web broswer too(maybe not lynx lol)

    17. Re:No they didn't by archkittens · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have to imagine that redmond feels frivolous patents like this are an EXTREMELY funny joke. Bet you it went down like this:

      SB: come on guys, you've got to think of some way to simultaneously shaft millions and demonstrate, once again, the inadequacy of patent office oversight.
      HG: well, we already patented double clicking, how can we top that?
      TS: we could patent breathing....
      JD: no, that might infringe on Dell's pending (at the time of this conversation) copyrighting of the term "cloud computing"
      BG: let's patent being fat, bald, and sweaty. SB needs to have his name on something for once.
      SB: fuck it, lets just patent these two buttons on my keyboard, pg up and pg dn. no one but *nix users will notice the difference anyways.
      USPTO: allow us to lick your testicles, mr ballmer!

      no, that's not a leaked microsoft email, but you and I both know it may as well be.

    18. Re:No they didn't by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, by that logic, any patent what-so-ever is potentially "problematic". So all you're saying is that if Microsoft wants to sue you then you're in a mess of trouble and frankly, that's not very insightful.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    19. Re:No they didn't by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dell tried to trademark the term "cloud computing."

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    20. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I just clicked through the badsummary tag, and there are now 6 stories that have the word patent in the title.

      Any chance we can drop the FUD and raise the writing standards a bit, gentlemen?

      Thought not.

    21. Re:No they didn't by Harry8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it naive to think that an Anonymous Coward apoligising for an unconscionable microsoft patent is paid for doing so? We know they've paid to push propaganda on wikipedia. Clue: the "method" is to press the Page Up or Page Down key. Or you're arguing that the "method" they've patented is the use of basic arithmetic.

    22. Re:No they didn't by Harry8 · · Score: 1

      Oh FFS. Any webbrowser you posted that from does THE SAME THING.

    23. Re:No they didn't by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem is the patent system, not the specific patents. So your reading is not that far off.

    24. Re:No they didn't by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it is. Not only is it naive, it's hopelessly paranoid. Worse still, it stifles discussion, much in the same way calling someone who disagrees with you a troll does. The poster is most likely a random person posting their honest opinion, who was afraid that the corrupt moderators /. has would abuse their power because they didn't like what he was saying (thankfully, he was wrong... we must have the decent moderators on tonight). Sweet Jesus, some people must have an "omg astroturf!!!" macro, because they're ready with their bullshit cries the instant someone defends a product/company they don't like.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    25. Re:No they didn't by archkittens · · Score: 1

      you're right, of course, but look again at the context of the mistake. though i did not intend that, it may very well fit...

      now I've got to figure out if i should brand you as an intellectual property Nazi, a grammar Nazi, or simply a kind-hearted citizen spreading facts... my bet is on the third, but honestly, doesn't intellectual property Nazi sound more fun to say?

      all together now: "Microsoft corp. is a bunch of intellectual property Nazis!". now tell me that wasn't fun to say!

    26. Re:No they didn't by udippel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that I thought it was a great patent idea (to me it isn't), kdawson got it wrong, again, as many pointed out.
      Just to clarify it, again:

      beginning at a starting point offset from a top of the document and from a top of the first page; calculating a height of at least the first page; calculating a row offset of the starting point of the first page; calculating a vertical offset at the starting point of the first page, wherein the vertical offset is calculated according to a formula of the form {[(p-1)/c]h}+r, where p is equal to the number of pages in the document, c is equal to the number of columns of the document which are simultaneously displayed, h is equal to the height of at least the first page, and r is equal to the row offset of the starting point of the first page

      I can't make out the details, but what they propose seems to be a somewhat more intelligent scrolling. I myself have at times cursed the PgUp/PgDn for straightforwardly scrolling, without considering horizontal scrolling (zoom).
      I for one will be grateful if in future I can read an academic paper of 2 columns by zooming in on the first column, and use PgUp/PgDn to navigate up-down on that same column, with useful steps.

      A patent for this: God beware!

    27. Re:No they didn't by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It makes perfect sense for them, certainly. But could a single keystroke that advances or rewinds the document by 96% of the height of the viewport (fancy for Page Up) NOT be classified as obvious?

      Respect to MS for getting the patent I guess (if you're first then you're first; more power to them), but it just goes to prove how fucked up the patent system is.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    28. Re:No they didn't by DXLster · · Score: 3, Informative

      But go ahead, link to a case where someone has been sucessfully sued for infringing on a software patent where the methods of implementation in question were independently developed. I'd love to see it.

      Okay... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas

    29. Re:No they didn't by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The patent system is to blame yes, but with MS no one can really fight them. With a random patent troll you can give them $40,000 and they will back off, for MS even $4 million is pocket change. Not to mention how a random patent troll will attack all projects just the same, MS only wants to sue F/OSS projects.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    30. Re:No they didn't by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Um, the Turing-Church thesis promises that every way to accomplish a particular computing task will be "substantially the same" as every other.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    31. Re:No they didn't by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Okay, where is the corruption involved in maintaining it? Oh, right.

    32. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is kdawson. I can see who AC posts come from, you were logged on

    33. Re:No they didn't by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure I've used more than one PDF viewer that does just that.

    34. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Apple's "Preview," to name just one.

    35. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if i patent wanking up down and then left right and repeat the same over and over again. will you stop doing that... if you do better pay me a royalty. The problem that you dont understand is the absurdity of such a patent. Someone will patent digging his nose with his little finger on the left hand...at this rate

    36. Re:No they didn't by no-body · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's the patent system

      Really? I thought it was the people (ab)using it.

      "Interprocess communication mechanism for heterogeneous computer process"

      Wouldn't you think it takes somebody with double-blind eyes to file a patent on this? Actually, this seems to be an attempt to highjack the Internet - who would want to try such a thing?

    37. Re:No they didn't by riggah · · Score: 1

      This is a kdawson post. kdawson is the epitome of stupidity and sensationalism. If a story sounds like it is too ridiculous or belongs in Idle (but is not), it's most likely a kdawson post and you should just disregard it.

      Or perhaps you mean "completely and unabashedly anti-Microsoft simply for the fact that the article is about Microsoft."

    38. Re:No they didn't by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Not even. They patented a method for scrolling up/down the same amount regardless of any zoom factor. Not all methods, and certainly not pgup/pgdn.

      Patents are written by and for lawyers, not programmers. The actual method/implementation is copyrighted, but the patent is as broad as their legal budget.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    39. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WinDjView use left and right arrows to accomplish that.

    40. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      with the implication that one's compensation and prospects for advancement (or not getting laid off^H^H^H) were at stake.

    41. Re:No they didn't by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      No, it provides that you can achieve the same results from different methods; essentially, the opposite of what you just said.

    42. Re:No they didn't by spazdor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, yeah. But the tricky word is "substantial", and its moving goalposts.

      If a particular implementation A of a function M is patented, but M is the type of thing that other software developers need to accomplish too, then I will need another implementation B of that same function.

      But since B can differ from A as much or as little as I like, the question is "how much is substantial?" I could just take A, add a NOP at the end, and call it a distinct function. That probably doesn't meet the definition.

      Now what about two NOPs? What if I unroll all the loops, or switch around register names, or swap the operands of all the 'Add' instructions?

      Turing-Church essentially promises that regardless of a little bit of obfuscation, or a lot, or none at all, the underlying computation going on in B is isometric to that in implementation A.

      That there are an infinite number of alternative implementations, will just be used as a slippery slope argument by a good lawyer. "Why, if we allowed the defendant to publish implementation B, because it's a different algorithm, then we'd have to allow every software patent to be violated by anyone who knows how to obfuscate an algorithm! Nazis would once again ride on dinosaurs!"

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    43. Re:No they didn't by slarrg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple's Preview does this when you select "Previous" or "Next" and their keyboard shortcut can be mapped to any key you wish. How is this innovation?

    44. Re:No they didn't by registrar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So all you're saying is that if Microsoft wants to sue you then you're in a mess of trouble and frankly, that's not very insightful.

      That conclusion is important to keep in mind, even if it's not a new discovery. It shows that the patent system is only part of the problem, the legal system is another half. The political system is another half of the problem. If your legal and political systems were less biased towards wealthy clients, then it would be less of a problem that the USPTO is broken-people could get justice despite it. The fact that the courts are broken means that the all patents are potentially problematic.

      In complex societal discussions like this it's easy to focus on one particular group as responsible for all of the problems (here the USPTO). It's important here to identify problems that the USPTO is partlyresponsible for. Both the USPTO and the US courts need to be fixed, but not both at once.

    45. Re:No they didn't by Embedded2004 · · Score: 1

      But go ahead, link to a case where someone has been sucessfully sued for infringing on a software patent where the methods of implementation in question were independently developed. I'd love to see it.

      See NTP vs RIM

    46. Re:No they didn't by mobets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hasn't Acrobat done this as the default for quite a while?

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    47. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who live by that rule must get trolled a lot.

    48. Re:No they didn't by wdr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never in my life have I wish so badly that I had mod points. kdawson is the new timothy.

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    49. Re:No they didn't by bit01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not even. They patented a method for scrolling up/down the same amount regardless of any zoom factor. Not all methods, and certainly not pgup/pgdn.

      Which is obvious to somebody skilled in the art.

      Is it naive to think that this isn't a purposeful ommission?

      Why is it that every patent story on slashdot always obfuscates the fact that patents cover methods of implementation, and not all encompassing ideas?

      Because even the patent office hasn't a clue what is the difference between methods and ideas. The entire patent edifice is based on little more than handwaving, though they try to obscure that fact with lots of terminology and assorted other BS.

      They can't even objectively answer whether two ideas are the same or different. Nobody can, particularly in something as amorphous and ill-defined as software (e.g. they are forever confusing new words with new ideas), and the fact they fraudulently claim they can means everyone suffers.

      ---

      Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.

    50. Re:No they didn't by sgbett · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, Maybe that's what MS is trying to do? God bless them!

      *ducks*

      --
      Invaders must die
    51. Re:No they didn't by TeXMaster · · Score: 1

      PgUp/Down used to scroll by pagefuls (as opposed to screenfuls) in WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. (One of the many reasons WP turned out to be incompatible with the CUA keyboard standard set by MS and IBM.)

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    52. Re:No they didn't by Wolfbone · · Score: 2, Informative

      patents cover methods of implementation, and not all encompassing ideas

      Not true.

      Patent applications are drafted to be as broad as the prior art will allow. Patents claiming "all encompassing ideas" are usually harder to get than narrow ones and at greater risk of later invalidation, but - as Acacia and other trolls are well aware - they are more valuable: http://w2.eff.org/patent/ and software is particularly troubled by them: http://www.researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/dopat9.pdf

    53. Re:No they didn't by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      It's true that "substantial" is the tricky part. However, similarity is inherently a matter of interpretation.

      You can take the "Hero with a Thousand Faces" approach and claim that no story is copyrightable because they are all the same story. But some stories infringe on copyright and some do not. The goalposts are not rigorously defined in a mathematical manner. They can't be.

      You can rename characters, add a chapter, rearrange paragraphs around, or add detail and still infringe. But you can tell the same story in a completely different way and it's not a violation.

      You can rewrite a Mozart piece backwards, or rearrange the bars, and it's plagiarism if not attributed as such. But we don't generally have trouble agreeing that there is such a thing as new music.

      It's fair to be against this in general, if that is your position. But I think you'll find that of necessity, nearly the entirety of law is founded on fuzzy principles that have grey areas.

    54. Re:No they didn't by haruchai · · Score: 1

        You must be REALLY new around here to post a challenge like that on Slashdot.

        Other posters have already provided counterexamples
        all of which are well known to regular readers.
        Try doing a search next time, please

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    55. Re:No they didn't by Sapphon · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Insightful"?

      Hello mods, let me disect this frog for you: the parent implied that s/he had developed an 'almost as good' alternative to a spelling patent. The quality of said alternative is to be seen in the misspellings of 'gett', 'arround', patentt', 'sligghtly', 'offf', 'ussed', 'simmilar', 'techniqque', and 'speling'.

      Sheesh. Amazing who they let loose – I mean, lose – with mod points nowadays.

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    56. Re:No they didn't by Delkster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, some existing software still does something pretty close to this. In Evince, for example, you can always scroll exactly to the next page regardless of how much of a page is being displayed at the current zoom level by pressing Ctrl+PgDn (and similarly for up). Adobe Reader might behave the same way but I'm not sure. I think OpenOffice.org Impress (the powerpointy thingy) also does that.

      I didn't read the patent application, but if TFA has any clue, the only difference between that and the MS 'invention' is that in the latter one the viewer would scroll exactly to the same position in the next/previous page as you were previously viewing on the original page. For example, if you're 1/4 down page n, MS PageDown 2008 (TM) would get you to the position 1/4 down page n+1. The examples I mentioned earlier always give you the beginning of the next/previous page.

      Nevertheless, seems trivial. But then, again, I didn't read the patent application.

    57. Re:No they didn't by Peaker · · Score: 1

      I just tested it in gedit - and it seems to do exactly what the patent suggests.

    58. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or try space in your browser, or shift+space to go back up... :)

      Doesn't work when you're editing a reply though!

    59. Re:No they didn't by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      The difference is enough that the problem here isn't MS, it's the patent system. But we knew that. We're vilifying the wrong people. Our efforts should be focused on demonstrating the inferiority of this system, and exposing any corruption involved in maintaining it.

      I have to agree, and if anything MS is demonstrating the insanity of the US Patent system by proxy.

      MS has been sued over 100s of insane patents, and so they were forced to patent anything even plausibly theirs to protect companies from getting rich off of stupid patent lawsuits.

      (If people look at MS patent history, prior to the mid 90s when they started getting hammered with bogus patent lawsuits, MS had a very limited amount of patents.)

      In case anyone doubts MS's filings as being anything but defensive, Google their position on Patents going back to Win 3.x days.

      Here is a quick link to illustrate:
      http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft,%20Oracle%20call%20for%20patent%20reform/2100-1030_3-5683240.html

    60. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, only 7 page downs till godwin.

    61. Re:No they didn't by mirkob · · Score: 1

      even better,
      prior art example:

      about any software that manage the mouse wheel from the time of his invention had this amazing option that make you decide how much line of text you scroll every activation of the wheel, and all regardless of the magnification of the text!!!!!

    62. Re:No they didn't by noundi · · Score: 1

      The difference is enough that the problem here isn't MS, it's the patent system. But we knew that. We're vilifying the wrong people. Our efforts should be focused on demonstrating the inferiority of this system, and exposing any corruption involved in maintaining it.

      Easy to say, difficult to achieve when you have hundreds of multicorps putting every penny into keeping things the way they are. I think that you must first uncover the dishonesty of the organs encouraging the inferiority of this system before you can make a change. If murder was legal I would still point a finger at the subject, and of course another at the system.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    63. Re:No they didn't by iainl · · Score: 1

      But could a single keystroke that advances or rewinds the document by 96% of the height of the viewport (fancy for Page Up) NOT be classified as obvious?

      But that's not what they have patented. Quite apart from the actual patent being a specific method for doing something more clever, even the summary explains that it's for paging down an exact amount (e.g. a page) of the physical document irrespective of how much of it is visible on the screen itself.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    64. Re:No they didn't by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Sounds like what a lot of page layout programs do.

      I'm pretty sure some PDF viewers do it too.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    65. Re:No they didn't by smallfries · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is a lovely feature. When I was writing up my thesis a few years I found it to be completely invaluable. It meant that I could line up the rendered output of a thesis page on the screen so that the margins were cropped, and the view was zoomed in on the actual text. When I hit forward / backward the viewer would skip the exact same point on the adjacent page. It saved a lot of time, and it's feature that is missing from a lot of document viewers *cough* Adobe Acroread I'm looking at you.

      Of course I'm talking about using ghostview which has supported this feature for decades. But I'm sure Microsoft don't believe it's a real patent either. They're just playing the numbers game.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    66. Re:No they didn't by phillous · · Score: 1

      I love that the most insightful post in the topic is modded -1 Troll.

      If I had points I'd mod you up sir!

    67. Re:No they didn't by sznupi · · Score: 1

      What's "funny" is that many people really wouldn't notice much difference...many (most?) laptops don't have separate pgup/pgdwn keys, and since they're more than 50% of computers sold...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    68. Re:No they didn't by DrDNA · · Score: 1

      This isn't for browsers because browsers don't have "pages" in the sense that WYSIWYG printed documents do. The patented method goes from page 1 to page 2 regardless of the zoom.

      Having said that, when I'm zoomed in on the first half of page one, I expect Page Down to put me on the second half of page one, so the patent is basically protecting their buggy implementation of Page Down.

    69. Re:No they didn't by sarysa · · Score: 1

      Sensational or not, it's still ridiculous and obvious. It's a programmer's choice how PgUp PgDn performs in their app and both are incredibly easy to implement in a program. Either scroll based on the size of the window or scroll based on that, multiplied by the result simple mathematical relative difference equation of zoomed area vs. not zoomed area. I'm sure Ben Franklin humbly pay tribute to these "inventors". Hah.

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    70. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is the US government does listen to billg. They have asked him to speak before congressional committee several times and every time he talks about the need for the government to interfere in the labor market. He always want the government to issue more H1B visas to distort the labor market in his favor.

      So don't tell me billg doesn't enjoy heavy government interference in markets. He loves it as long as it favors him and the other billionaires.

      When government interference doesn't go their way, if it actually helps average people then he calls it communism.

    71. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, by that logic, any patent what-so-ever is potentially "problematic".

      Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cigar!

    72. Re:No they didn't by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Of course, you could argue that such a feature has existed in most text editors (e.g. vi has cont-D and cont-U) that could be key-bound to a single key, and that they exhibit exactly the same behavior (as long as the terminal window is the size of a printed page, which was default size on the old Solaris boxes I used). I used to keybind all the time with those silly Solaris keyboards with the extra 10 function keys on the side that were never bound for anything but framemaker (names were weird - I think Prior and Again were the ones I used).

      MS is arguing that Page Up and Page Down brings you to exactly the same spot in the next page, which is not always typical behavior for that key (as mentioned in Parent, AcroRead goes to the top of the next page). It IS, however, typical behavior for all text editors I've ever used, including some that support the page up and page down keys and existed (long) before 2005 and some that support a "page view" for printing purposes.

    73. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe MS files for these patents not so they can sue people, but to protect themselves from being sued.

    74. Re:No they didn't by Teilo · · Score: 1

      Now that I find funny, is back in the 80's we were using a TRS-80 Model III to do word processing, and outputting to a big ugly noisy Daisy Wheel printer. Beautiful proportionally spaced output - if you don't mind a single font for everything, or changing font wheels constantly.

      Our main typesetter had a fit when we switched to Microsoft Word for DOS.

      His biggest pet peeve with Word, was that there was NO way to page through a document a visual page at a time. I cannot remember the name of the Tandy word processor, but it had exactly the behavior that Microsoft just patented, but Microsoft was missing, up through Word for DOS 5.0.

      --
      Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
    75. Re:No they didn't by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Well, I do not know about you, but I prefer quiter games than Russian roulette.

    76. Re:No they didn't by Tim4444 · · Score: 1

      true. i have the patent on stroking - keys or otherwise, so they only get the scrolling part

    77. Re:No they didn't by spazdor · · Score: 1

      I guess my objection, then, is the application of this subjective standard (which is completely appropriate for things like art, music and literature) to the products of engineering.

      While it's not hard to argue that while two stories may rely on the same underlying plot devices, the difference in their details gives each a distinctive value.

      It is not as clear, however, that two differing implementations of the same function in software, make any difference to the user.

      F'rinstance, the Lion King was different enough from Hamlet that you could not replace one with the other without the viewer noticing. The same is not true of 'equivalent' functions in software.

      That being the case, I think we're forced into a dichotomy. Either a patent must cover only a particular implementation of a function, in which case the patent is so easy to circumvent that it might as well carry no legal force, or the patent must cover the function itself, denying everyone the right to implement their own version of a program which already exists.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    78. Re:No they didn't by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      It doesn't in OpenOffice, KOffice, Word, Notepad, VI, emacs or vim. OK, the last few don't have a notion of 'Page.'

      I don't know about Notepad, vi, or vim, but Emacs certainly has a notion of pages. Naturally the precise definition of "page" is customisable, but by default pages are delimited by lines beginning with form-feed characters. The Emacs equivalents of PgUp and PgDn are C-x [ and C-x ].

    79. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goalposts are not rigorously defined in a mathematical manner. They can't be.

      Then we probably shouldn't allow abstract things like math and algorithms to be patented.

    80. Re:No they didn't by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Joking aside, if one makes the scrolling slightly less than perfect, perhaps erroring on the side of under-scrolling to avoid visual gaps, then they cannot accuse you of copying their algorithm.

    81. Re:No they didn't by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Emacs has a programmable definition of page and several flavors of functions called when the page up/page down keys are hit. They're called `scroll-down' and `scroll-up' so we're probably not infringing on Microsoft's patent even though we were first.

    82. Re:No they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope they don't apply for a patent on wiping their ass, or we will all be in trouble!

    83. Re:No they didn't by lamapper · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link it was insightful.

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
    84. Re:No they didn't by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Microsoft forced to remove Excel-Access linking. Carlos Armando did not have a functional product, and it's ridiculous to think that Microsoft needed his help or inspiration to develop this functionality.

      Is this example number 50?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  3. Next up: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft patents the process of securing a patent.

  4. The real patent they need... by lucm · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... is the three fingers salute. A "standard mechanism allowing end users to terminate faulty operating system processes without having the possibility to save their current work".

    Ok it's an easy one.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:The real patent they need... by PsychoElf · · Score: 5, Funny

      My lawyer will be contacting you for the emotional damage I have suffered as a result of your post. I wasted a mouthful of BEER as a direct result of your post.

    2. Re:The real patent they need... by Foofoobar · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'll let them patent my one finger salute.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    3. Re:The real patent they need... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Fantastic! They could sublicence it to everyone who ever added a power switch to their computers for extra cash, too.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:The real patent they need... by whosaidanythingabout · · Score: 3, Funny

      The real origin of the three fingers is explained buy the inventor (David Bradley) on youtube. So, Microsoft could not have patented it ... well they probably could have anyway in light of the PageUP PageDN patent.

    5. Re:The real patent they need... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fantastic! They could sublicence it to everyone who ever added a power switch to their computers for extra cash, too.

      Yeah, I suggest they try to get a piece of the action for every PC sold by a major vendor.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:The real patent they need... by syousef · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about "A method to horrify employees with the realization that their financial future is tied to your company". The "Dance Monkey Boy" video of Steve Balmer's little motivational "speech" should suffice and heaven knows no one's going to have prior art that covers that. If you can't submit the video, get someone to storyboard it. I think it would make a lovely comic. "Wwwoooooooooooooooooooooooo. Developers, developers, developers. WWWWWWWWWWWOooooooooooooooooooooooooo".

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    7. Re:The real patent they need... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Wow, Gates really can't take a joke. He looked like he was ready to punch Bradley in the face after that comment.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    8. Re:The real patent they need... by Krusso88 · · Score: 1

      In addition to the **blue screen of death** ftw

    9. Re:The real patent they need... by russotto · · Score: 1

      ... is the three fingers salute. A "standard mechanism allowing end users to terminate faulty operating system processes without having the possibility to save their current work". Ok it's an easy one.

      Apple has prior art -- RESET on the Apple ][, CTRL-RESET on the Apple ][+ and later Apple ][s, and CTRL/OPEN-APPLE/RESET on the Apple //e.

    10. Re:The real patent they need... by Nero+Nimbus · · Score: 1

      I thought that's what BSODs were for?

    11. Re:The real patent they need... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not at all, the BSOD is the method used to lose your work WITHOUT pressing any keys.

      The difference here is the BSOD is an automated process for losing your work, where the three-fingered-salute is a manual process for losing your work. Both must exist, because the automated process is sometimes unreliable. When work must be lost NOW and the automated process fails, users have an alternative.

      Same result, different method.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    12. Re:The real patent they need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about it. Lots of people here like to give out free Asin Beer.

    13. Re:The real patent they need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that would be strange! LOL

    14. Re:The real patent they need... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I wasted a mouthful of BEER as a direct result of your post

      That's Alcohol Abuse!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    15. Re:The real patent they need... by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      And my lawyer will be contacting you shortly about the loss of brain cells I experienced upon reading your post as well as the breach of proper computer conduct. Drinking near a PC is bad!

  5. This is getting ridiculous... by monsul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although the point here is not how ludicrous the patent is. Small companies simply can't afford the legal fees necessary to show this on court. Every single software patent out there, no matter how silly, is effectively enforced to everyone who doesn't have the resources to show up in court. The system is broken. I hope someone "up there" notices before it's too late

    --
    Make It Secret Protect your privacy
    1. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, everyone "up there" is making money off it. Welcome to the real world, where injustices do remain. At least until everyone important has made enough money off the rest of us. For more information, google "define: capitalism" I expect this will be modded down for obviousness.

    2. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      i am afraid it is already too late, it is going to take WW3 and the total destruction of the existing corporate & governmental infrastructure to clean up the mess they created...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    3. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by noundi · · Score: 1

      The system is broken. I hope someone "up there" notices before it's too late

      Oh they've noticed it alright. They've noticed it on their paychecks.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    4. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Whoa... wait just a second... "up there", did you just use PgDn?

    5. Re:This is getting ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I bet bush is a geek and reads slashdot as much as I do... how do you get the message "up there"???

  6. What now? by Proud+Virgin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I wonder what those keys will be named on non-MS keyboards from now on!

    1. Re:What now? by TWX · · Score: 1

      If you can afford to manufacture keyboards on a large scale, you can probably afford to get into the lawsuit needed for this...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:What now? by nickswitzer · · Score: 1

      GD1P - go down 1 page and GU1P - go up 1 page.

    3. Re:What now? by PsychoElf · · Score: 1

      MS UP and MS DN?

    4. Re:What now? by westcoast+philly · · Score: 1

      Well, the Lenovo laptop I'm reading this on allowed me to PgDn to the bottom of the page... and I'm conected through a RDP connection to my PC at home. so does that count as 2 seperate instances of copyright violation?

    5. Re:What now? by Proud+Virgin · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I were you, I wouldn't touch those keys again unless your lawyer says it's OK.

    6. Re:What now? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      so does that count as 2 seperate instances of copyright violation?

      No, since it's an article about patents, not copyrights.

    7. Re:What now? by monsul · · Score: 1

      If you can afford to manufacture keyboards on a large scale, you can probably afford to get into the lawsuit needed for this...

      That makes it right then!....oh wait, it doesn't!

      If you can afford to manufacture keyboards on a large scale, I'm sure you didn't get there by paying lawyers to fight nonsense lawsuits

      --
      Make It Secret Protect your privacy
    8. Re:What now? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Expect the MS DN key to be worn out extremely quickly on the keyboards of most Slashdotters.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    9. Re:What now? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Complain when a keyboard manufacturer actually has to file a law suit to include page up and page down.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:What now? by westcoast+philly · · Score: 1

      NOOOO!!!! Logic, my only weakness!

    11. Re:What now? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      UpPg, DnPg?

      But, I don't think it matters, it doesnt seem as though this is about what buttons, where they are placed, or what it says on them, this is software-based, what happens as a result when a certain button (no matter the name, or orientation) is pressed. It could be 'X' and '9', but if the software interprets that as scroll as like

      Scroll(CurrentPosition + (Document.Page.Height / ZoomeValue))

      thats what they are patenting.

    12. Re:What now? by nickswitzer · · Score: 1

      It just seems odd they can do this. It's like patenting a screen resolution or right click of a mouse. What is the point in doing so anyways? Just to piss more people off?

  7. Page + 1 Pixel Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem solved

  8. Other Inventions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft announces today the patenting of P-En-IS

    Gates: "P-En-IS is one of our most stable products yet! in fact at most it'll need a soft reboot now and then"

    Ballmer: "Thats right, Buffer overflows are a FEATURE on this one!"

  9. Didn't read article by narcberry · · Score: 1

    I have said keyboard. How much do I owe M$?

    --
    Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    1. Re:Didn't read article by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      You owe them your soul.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    2. Re:Didn't read article by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least read the summary next time. If you had you'd have noticed it's quite clearly not a patent for the keys themselves, but the practice of scrolling a specific amount regardless of the current view settings (eg. zoom). As such your keyboard is irrelevant, a peice of software that implements those keys in the standard way however is absolutely relevant.

      To quote the patent text itself (emphasis added):

      Briefly, the present invention provides a method and system for scrolling a substantially exact increment in a document, such as a row height corresponding to a row of one or more pages of a page set, so as to display a next page set from the precise vertical location into the page that the previous page set started, regardless of the current zoom percentage. For example, if the middle of a page set is at the top of the viewing area, after scrolling, the middle of the next page set is at the top of the viewing area. This operation occurs on receiving specific user input, e.g., a Page Up or Page Down key command.

      Notice that the use of the Page Down/Up keys is an example of input that would be used in concert with the patent, so it's crystal clear that they're not trying to patent the keys themselves.

      Not that what they're patenting is any less ridiculous, but let's at least get straight what ridiculous thing we're talking about.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    3. Re:Didn't read article by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      So what they 'invented' is pretty much the same as the Keep functionality (ie, what you get from having "xdvi.keepPosition: True" in your ~/.xdvirc) that's been in xdvi for the last age?

    4. Re:Didn't read article by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Not quite. It sounds more to me like patenting automatic jumping between columns on a page, for example. (Which would be really useful, though completely idiotic if patented.)

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    5. Re:Didn't read article by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep in mind that the scope of what's patented is contained entirely within the claims of the patent, not in the rest of the specification. (Although, anything in the specification, once published, can be considered "prior art" over future applications.)

      In this case, the independent claims get extremely specific, including an indication of the particular formula being used to calculate the amount to scroll. Compare this to the claims as originally filed.*

      (* If that link expires, the application publication number is 20060200764, and you can enter that here.)

    6. Re:Didn't read article by Zwicky · · Score: 1

      I have said keyboard. How much do I owe M$?

      I don't think just saying "keyboard" is a problem. You should be fine ;)

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
  10. Birds of a feather, patent together. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "mpany received its 5,000th patent from the US Patent and Trademark Office in March 2006, and is currently approaching the 10,000 mark.""

    So how many does ,friend of OSS, IBM have?

  11. Better them than a troll by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't say I remember hearing of Microsoft sue a bunch of companies over a broad patent like this before, so I guess it's better that they have it than some stupid IP holidng patent troll company.

    --
    As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    1. Re:Better them than a troll by powerspike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, they'll just use it along with rest to force smaller companies into licencing deals, you got something microsoft wants? well you give it to them, other wise they'll throw a couple thousand invalid patents at you, wouldn't cost that much to strike them down right?

    2. Re:Better them than a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to list some sources?

    3. Re:Better them than a troll by amirulbahr · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. The system forces companies to try to patent trivial, non-novel things.

      Almost makes you wish there were more patent troll companies to annoy the likes of MS to the point where they actively lobby for patent reform. Maybe the EFF should start raising money for patent trolling...

    4. Re:Better them than a troll by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure MS is among quite a few major companies that have lobbied for patent reform.

    5. Re:Better them than a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, until they have some financial troubles and decide to sell of some of their less needed patent "assets" to a patent troll company.

    6. Re:Better them than a troll by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      But they did say that Linux and other open-source projects step on their patents. Around 200 they said, if I remember correctly.

    7. Re:Better them than a troll by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, MS tries to patent things the same way that IBM and Red Hat patent things: to keep them out of the hands of patent trolls. The downside is, we can't trust MS. IBM (in recent years) and Red Hat have both stood to defeat patent trolls along with the MS monopoly, MS on the other hand still uses patent threats to try to stop Linux adoption.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    8. Re:Better them than a troll by Nushio · · Score: 1

      I bet this will be considered as one of the "hundreds of patents" that GNU/Linux users owe, and caused Novell and company to Bend Over(tm)

      --
      Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
  12. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe Wang had PageUp and PageDn keys on their terminals back in the 1970s.

    1. Re:Prior Art by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Well, I was speaking more generally, in terms of the application publication being used as prior art against someone else's application. But yes, you're right, you get one year before your own patent application can be counted against you. Of course, if the original application is still pending, you could file a new application as a continuation or a divisional of the old one, and then you'd get the benefit of the earlier filing date.

  13. What? by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the response my father gave when I read the summary to him nicely sums up what we're all thinking: "Are you fucking kidding me?"

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what else would you expect from Darth Vader

  14. OBPoll: %age of bogus software patents by davidwr · · Score: 0

    Best guess at the percentage of software patents that are bogus:

    * sqrt(-1)
    * e
    * pi
    * 0%
    * 100%
    * 2%
    * 10%
    * Just the ones issued by Examiner C. Neal

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  15. well, as long as they don't have one on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ctrl-v and meta-v.

  16. smash clwefsa fsdah9ih0phph ;nkn;das;d ksan, m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can typej without inmpramint,. SUCKA

    1. Re:smash clwefsa fsdah9ih0phph ;nkn;das;d ksan, m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A persuasive argument elocuted beautifully.

  17. Why corporations should not be "a person" by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have no guilt, no shame and no conscience. If corporations were people, there's a good chance they'd be just a little bit embarrassed in filing for a patent as obvious and pre-existing as this.

    Instead of a corporation being required by law to be beholden to the shareholders interests, let's have that law changed to make corporations beholden to the interests of the people in their community.

    1. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Instead of a corporation being required by law to be beholden to the shareholders interests, let's have that law changed to make corporations beholden to the interests of the people in their community.

      Also, let's make it a law that everyone who asks for one gets a pony!

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In this case it is likely just a simple stupidity by M$ management. They are likely paying bonuses for every patent successfully obtained, M$ lawyers are also gaining payment for every patent gained, ballmer the insurance salesmen that he is, is just to dim to differentiate between useful and useless patents and, establish clear guidelines for patent filing.

      So just a rush to gain as many patents as possible in some hair brained B$ marketing scheme to pump up M$ stock values. When they start boasting about having 10,000 patents which investor is going to review them all to see in they have any meaningful value, so it is a quick and dirty way of pumping of the value of the M$ portfolio, of course in reality they are simply throwing away the shareholders money.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by maxume · · Score: 1

      The broad purpose of all laws is to ensure that members of a community do not act against that community.

      And really, if you give me 2 or 3 minutes, I am confident that I can find you a living, breathing person who has no guilt, no shame and no conscience.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Of that I am certain. But you get to label those people as sociopaths. But when a corporate entity behaves that way, it is by design and by law... they are SUPPOSED to be sociopaths?

    5. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by maxume · · Score: 1

      There isn't any law against being a sociopath.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most large corporations are run by sociopaths. That's why you're seeing this correlation.

      Studies have estimated that sociopaths constitute around 3% of the population. There's two kinds of sociopaths: stupid ones, and smart ones.

      The stupid ones are usually called "criminals", and are frequently found in prison. They have no conscience and don't care about anyone but themselves, so they naturally turn to crime to get ahead, but aren't smart enough to do it for long without getting caught. (Note that this doesn't mean that all common criminals are sociopaths; many are just screwed-up people, or drug addicts, who have become desperate or made very bad choices, but still feel some remorse for their actions like any normal person.)

      Smart sociopaths, however, are the real cancer in our society. Instead of becoming common criminals, they're smart enough to avoid that trap, and instead go to school (probably cheating their way through), and using their uncanny ability to work people, they work their way up into the top echelons of companies like Enron, Worldcom, Microsoft, etc. Others go into politics, and become Senators and Presidents. They're better at getting into these jobs, precisely because they have no conscience holding them back and keeping them from doing unethical things, and that's why so many of these jobs are held by sociopaths.

      Another poster commented that there's no law against being a sociopath, but there probably should be, considering the damage they do to society when they're placed in positions of power over the rest of us (especially in the political or legal fields, where we're trusting these people to do the right thing, and they're using us to their own benefit instead).

    7. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      mod +5 amen-brother

    8. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by tjstork · · Score: 1

      let's have that law changed to make corporations beholden to the interests of the people in their community.

      Why not buy Microsoft stock? Seems a lot simpler.

      --
      This is my sig.
    9. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could this post be insightful?
      The guy is a clearly a democrat and illogical which is about the same thing.

      He makes an accusation (large corporations are run by sociopaths). Then he proves his point by making a cursory description of the term "sociopath" and drives it home by pushing for prison sentences for anyone he does not like.

      Sounds a lot like the democratic platform.
      White people hate black people.
      Black guy wants to get elected.
      People that hate black people wont vote for him.

      yada yada yada

      See how I did the same thing?

      I see this crap so much on /. that I have to laugh. Unfortunately, slashdotters are actually listened to by others sometimes. Enough to make one cry.

    10. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by vittal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oddly enough, there is some research regarding psychopathy and management. While it would certainly be untrue to say "Most large corporations are run by sociopaths", there are examples of CEO's who do tick the boxes for psychopathy.

      http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html is an interesting article covering some of the work by Robert Hare (the bloke who devised the Psychopathy Checklist used by police departments to profile killers).

      Disclaimer - I have worked for a company where the CEO is in jail for being a cheating, lying toe-rag.

    11. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why this is insightful is beyond me, but it is a common understanding that the modern corporation is created and persist solely on the function that it acts like a pathological psychopath.

      It is the only way it can act to ensure the interest of its owners. Any other way would not be with the best interest of its owners.

      There are several substancial and better worded and referenced works that this sniplet in a comment on slashdot.

      However this case has nothing to do with sociopaths, it has more to do with having to cope with a "broken by design" system. If you want to stay in the game, you have to play the game.

      Microsoft don't make the rules. The USPTO does. (i.e. don't hate the player, hate the game).

    12. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is unquestionably the best post I have read in weeks.

    13. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by Boniek · · Score: 1

      The primary reason so many of the high positions are held by sociopath is not because the persons don't have consiousness - it's because the personality maps on to many corporations culture quite well. Corporations, in nature, are created for crude reasons, it's objective is to maximize profit and survive. Unless the society changes to demand more "corporate consiousness" this won't be changing, neither will the mapping of psychopath to high positions in the same.

    14. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "It is the only way..."

      No it isn't. And it fails to ask the question "should abc corporation continue to exist?" It is in the best interests of my cells that I continue to exist, but if I were to go around killing other people, corrupting governments, destroying the environment, and generally being a negative on society, I would be in jail or executed. And it isn't the only way... there was a way before this '80s corporate mentality got started in the first place. There was a time when corporations somehow acted as if they felt compelled to help take care of their employees and communities to some degree.

      "Broken by design"? I wouldn't go that far. I would say that evil businesses have managed to change the rules in their favor and this is especially true of IP rules like patents, copyright and trademarks. They have turned these defensive devices into offensive weapons to wield against anyone and everyone that seems to threaten their income.

      "The USPTO does [make the rules]" Yeah they do. And the rules keep getting changed under whose influence and for whose benefit?

    15. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one test for the sociopathic behavior you desire to outlaw? The very social strategies you have just described would result in the subject's telling the examiner exactly what he wants to hear in order to get out of being labeled a "sociopath."

    16. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How does one test for the sociopathic behavior you desire to outlaw?

      There's several new tests out there which map brain activity and are very good at correlating these maps with specific neurological disorders, such as depression, bipolar disorder, etc. If sociopathy could be detected by an unbiased scientific test like this, then it'd be a good way to screen these people out, and perhaps ban them from holding public office. We already have other restrictions on holding public office, such as age, nationality, criminal record, etc., so I don't see the harm in another requirement, as long as the test is proven scientifically effective (unlike polygraphs, which the government still uses to screen candidates today for top-security jobs even though it's been proven to be mostly useless at detecting liars).

    17. Re:Why corporations should not be "a person" by warpuck · · Score: 1

      Go to blockbuster or netflicks and order search for 'corporate citizen'. That documentry explains the social status of a corporation. At the conclusion it concludes that flesh and blood became second class citizens as the result of a supream court decision in the 1800s. Most people have heard the term irresponsible corporate citizen and dont realize that it is the norm, because the owners and executives do things thru thier company that would get them jail time as an individual. If corporations were flesh and blood , most would be convicted felons or ex-cons with multiple convictions.

  18. 3 years by jeepee · · Score: 1

    The tree years waiting was the time needed to save
    approved on an access form on widows Me

  19. DOA by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Can't be tied to a particular machine, it don't result in the physical transformation of an article, so this should apply, and the patent could be invalidated.

    1. Re:DOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the point. Microsoft doesn't have just one or two of these utterly braindead patents. They have over 5000 of them. Soon they will have 10,000. Other corporations are doing the same thing. Patenting everything. The point in this is to make it nearly impossible for you to really comoete with them. You don't have the resources to fight Mirosoft and its 5000+ patents in court. You would very quickly be bankrupt or your lifetime would have expired. Microsoft is a corproation, they don't die the way we do. So fighting you for a hundred years in court is not a problem to a corporation.

      And anyway, if you really were a threat they would either counter-sue you or get the GOP to pass more 'torte reform.'

      The point is you are not likely to even try. The point is for you to feel powerless, and you do, and you are. So they win. You lose.

  20. Last week called... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 0, Troll

    They want their news back. Slashdot really needs to speed up the story approval process.

  21. But I've copyrighted "Pg Up." Bwahahahaha! by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    I've copyrighted "Pg Up," "Pg Dn," and every variation thereof. So, Microsoft can program a couple of keys to perform a Page Up and a Page Down, but they can't call the keys that do it "Pg Up" and "Pg Dn" without paying me a royalty.

    They'll have to use something else, maybe Ctrl-Q E and Ctrl-Q X.

    Bwahahahaha!

    Don't believe me? Why do you suppose the key that copies the screen says "Prnt Scr" instead of "Copy Scr?" Because I hold the rights to the "Copy Scr" legend!

    1. Re:But I've copyrighted "Pg Up." Bwahahahaha! by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      My keyboards will have the words "Pig Up" and "Pig Down." You lose, sir!

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  22. Nonetheless, by vlad_petric · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They still use patent threats and indemnification as a way to scare companies off Linux distributions.

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:Nonetheless, by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't remember too many actual real examples of microsoft trying to scare anyone with thier patents. What I do remember is every linuxite freaking out about the fact that Microsoft COULD try to scare people if they felt like it someday. So far I havent actually seen Microsoft make any moves against big projects like Mono or Samba.

    2. Re:Nonetheless, by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      If memory serves, Microsoft is helping the Mono project. Can anyone corroborate? Or is my brain broken?

    3. Re:Nonetheless, by Raenex · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't remember too many actual real examples of microsoft trying to scare anyone with thier patents. What I do remember is every linuxite freaking out about the fact that Microsoft COULD try to scare people if they felt like it someday.

      You haven't been paying attention then:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=ballmer+novell+linux+patents

    4. Re:Nonetheless, by noundi · · Score: 1

      By that logic we should allow all countries to obtain nuclear weapons, there's need to freak out about the fact that they COULD destroy all mankind with the simple push of a button. So far I haven't seen North Korea or Iran or "any of the above" launch a nuclear missile.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    5. Re:Nonetheless, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see them try to patent ^f and ^b.

    6. Re:Nonetheless, by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      You are comparing a patent to a nuclear weapon? I don't even know how to respond to that....

    7. Re:Nonetheless, by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      It takes a strange kind of mind to take interpret and agreement not to sue over patents, as a threat to sue over patents.

    8. Re:Nonetheless, by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft is not threatening to sue over patents, why would they hand Novell a boatload of money to sign a patent deal with royalties going back to Microsoft for every Novell Linux sold? Microsoft paid Novell a bunch of money to do this deal, and all of this after remarks about patent violations in Linux.

      It's quite obvious Microsoft wants people to pay for Linux with royalties going to Microsoft, under the threat of lawsuit. And in case you need the threat spelled out for you, Ballmer did so, multiple times:

      http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2006/03/22/ballmer-microsoft-linux-cz_df_0322microsoft.html
      "Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy."

      http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Ballmer_repeats_threats_against_Linux/0,130061733,339273726,00.htm
      "I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal, but I do think it clearly establishes that open source is not free, and open source will have to respect the intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will."

      http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2200717/microsoft-sharpens-aims-patent
      "People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us"

    9. Re:Nonetheless, by noundi · · Score: 1

      My comparison is irrelevant, it's just an extreme example to show how your logic turns out in bigger scales. Bottom line is: cover your bases. Don't assume that things won't happen just because they haven't yet.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    10. Re:Nonetheless, by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware that the particular line of logic doesn't scale to nuclear weapons. I'm also aware that patents are nowhere near the scale of nuclear weapons, so it's OK to use that line of logic on them. Pointing out that it doesnt scale proves nothing.

    11. Re:Nonetheless, by noundi · · Score: 1

      Pointing out that it doesnt scale proves nothing.

      You're absolutely right. Then what makes you so sure that exploiting of patents only exist in fairy tales? Here's my argument: why would you want to patent anything if you don't plan to use the patent?

      --
      I am the lawn!
    12. Re:Nonetheless, by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      You assume the only use for a patent is to exploit it, or use it to sue people. There are several reason they could want a patent.
      1. The normal standard intended use of a patent.
      2. Self defense, they want to patent it before someone else does and uses it against them. See the Eolas patent for how MS got burned by this in the recent past.
      3. They may not intent to do anything with it. They may feel they have a truly new method of implementing page up and page down, and the culture of MS is to patent new discoveries.
      4. The number of patents a company holds can increase teh perceived value of the company to it's shareholders.

      My personal guess is that it's a mix of 2,3, and 4.

  23. what's next? by dmrobbin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    what's next? a "do" loop??? if you can read this, thank a teacher if it's in english, thank a soldier

  24. Easily overcome by vikstar · · Score: 1

    Simply make Pg Up and Pg Dn scroll an "inexact" amount of lines, ie, every 4 billion presses make it scroll 1 extra line in a random direction.

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    1. Re:Easily overcome by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      Why bother to overcome it? I bet you can find applications dating back way before the patent was filed to cover almost every use case you could ever want in your app. This ought to be prior-art'd to death.

  25. Finally! by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jeez... why did it take them so long? I've been waiting for 25 years for this! This is a killer feature!

    Oh, wait.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  26. I guess they never used ISPF... by rascher · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember PF7 and PF8?

  27. thank you Microsoft... by acedotcom · · Score: 0

    but i'll think i'll just have a TAB...unless you patent that too

    --
    they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
    1. Re:thank you Microsoft... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      A tab... to go down a page....

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  28. So, does this apply to.... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    If I rotate a book 90 degrees either direction, and turn the pages, I am pretty much doing the same thing.

    It is a very specific amount of movement (one page), regardless of how far I have the book from my face (zoom), and I can go either direction, up, or down.

    So, they basically got a patent for doing what people have been doing with books for most of recorded history.

    They obviously disallow common sense when it comes to patent applications. I guess someone patented it already.

  29. What about the Space Bar? by themoneyish · · Score: 1

    I think they'd be better off patenting the space bar, since its bigger and probably more profitable! =) Plus, if you use a fixed width font, the space bar moves exactly the same amount as each letter! woo hoo!

  30. using Linux ahaaa haaaa by buzzthebattlecat · · Score: 1

    I am using linux and still works. Are they going to sue me like the media giants?

  31. Acrobat by Joebert · · Score: 1

    So, does this apply to what happens when you view a PDF in Adobe Acrobat ?
    How long has that been around ?

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  32. Those Responsible Must Be Sacked by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Primary Examiner: Campbell; Joshua D

  33. This is PATENTLY ridiculous. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the pun, but in fact it is. Patently. Ridiculous.

    WHEN is the PTO going to straighten itself out?

  34. I'd Like To Patent... by DougF · · Score: 0

    Spaces between words, and punctuation, have those been taken yet?

    --
    Impetuous! Homeric!
  35. Thats great by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i just have patented 'excrementation' myself, on my way here from the loo.

  36. Lawsuit time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, my patent on patenting the process of securing a patent pays off!

    1. Re:Lawsuit time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, then we must talk because I own the following patent:

      patent on patenting [n] anything

      Where n >= 1.

    2. Re:Lawsuit time by spazdor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, you're using my patented Intellectual Property Recursive Protection system!

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  37. Here's the finger I use to page up and down by xednieht · · Score: 1

    It salutes the patent trolls.

    Hehe lawyers create great software don't they???

    Exemplifies quite well how desperate MS or rather Ballmer is...

    Let's see when he came in their stock was around $112.00 in January 2000, today $27.29.... Great job Steve.

    Perhaps for your next hat trick you could go run Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, they can only go up... LOL you loser!!!

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  38. The "t" util in Decus C had this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...published, with source code, certainly by 1984 and maybe several years earlier.

    The t utility did not use PgUp/PgDn keys, had some others since it was for most any crt terminal, but it had and used the concept and was certainly published and possible to date publication. There are funny rules about publication, but this is a well documented bit of code, for almost any machine that could compile C code, given away freely.

  39. The number says it: 7,415,666 by udippel · · Score: 1

    "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

    1. Re:The number says it: 7,415,666 by maxume · · Score: 1

      Wild interpretations of magic books shall only be introduced when convenient.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:The number says it: 7,415,666 by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      But that's not patent number 666. It's 7,415,666. The passage you quote would have to say "and his number is Seven million four hundred fifteen thousand six hundred threescore and six" for it to apply.

      Just saying.

  40. Software patents....Who cares by dinther · · Score: 1

    Software patents are rapidly becoming irrelevant anyway, due to the sheer number of them. I suspect most patents are files just to ensure access to the solution rather than protection of it.

    After all, ideas are cheap but turning it into a profitable business is the hard part.

    1. Re:Software patents....Who cares by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Well I know many users who tried Linux and laughed at it when they found out it was so primptive that it didn't support mp3s, clear type fonts, and dvd playing.

      I explained it did and I used to do it and got a strange look back. The fact that its been removed and many users such as myself switched back to windows to not have to deal with the inconvenience does show that patents are relevant.

      My guess is Microsoft is planning to launch the mother of all assaults on the free software foundation, sun Microsystems, and IBM. The CIO's of most companies will enact a ms only plan to prevent potential liabilities and ms can make more money.

    2. Re:Software patents....Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wellif MS begins a war on patents, They should need to cover their ass with a stick thicker than Novell Patents and Copyright have.

  41. That it! by mcbutterbuns · · Score: 1

    This must be the patent that Microsoft claims that GNU/Linux infringes upon!

    The other ones include the power button and the space key.

    Which others ones did I miss?

    1. Re:That it! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      This must be the patent that Microsoft claims that GNU/Linux infringes upon! The other ones include the power button and the space key. Which others ones did I miss?

      The Any key.

  42. priori art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 70s I used a book that had next/previous page, aka page up/down! Damn should have patented it.

  43. Previous Art by downundarob · · Score: 1

    Isn't a page down just an ASCII Char(12) anyway?

  44. yet another Microsoft patent... by FewClues · · Score: 1

    Please stop using our alphabet! We just received a patent on the use of letters to form words and you are violating our patent.

    1. Re:yet another Microsoft patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if you would have rtfa you'd have known that's not the case at all but i guess it's just easier to be a little jerkoff big mouth and piss and moan the second microsoft is mentioned. fucking fucktard. go back to your cave.

  45. Wait, there's MORE! Was: DOA by lenski · · Score: 1

    Yes, the idea is to establish a classical Trade Guild, in the European sense: Only those groups who have been granted the right to practice some art/craft are permitted, those practicing said art/craft are ready, willing and able to limit the number of practitioners, and those practicing without Guild permission are subjected to occasionally very harsh treatment.

    In the current situation, it's the corporations large enough to maintain patent portfolios that they use to prevent competition from small providers (your point is correct and well taken), and to prevent their own financial ruination by the other large companies.

    It is very rare for a large organization to come up with genuinely new ideas, approaches or paradigm-breaking inventions. It is very common for large companies to want to control how their industries work, though.

    So these patent portfolios are a way to impose either direct elimination of the threat (in some cases), or a substantial tax on real entrepreneurs (in other cases).

    My favorite recent example of a patent serving as mechanism for unpredictable taxation is the Research In Motion patent fight.

    I read The Mystery of Capital by Hernando DeSoto, in which he explains among other things, how western societies do much better than others in establishing predictable, fungible, legal Property Rights. His examples tend to real estate, but I believe that the proliferation of silly patents exemplifies a failure to allow ordinary people to count on the value of their work.

    When "everybody does it", then the likelihood of selective prosecution becomes a real possibility: If you are a big company, you can negotiate a deal where your "violations" can be balanced against their "violations". If you are too small, then the selective prosecution becomes either a big tax or an actual business-terminating event.

  46. Have considered actually reading the patent? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh. Wait. This is Slashdot.

    (The patent is still crap, but it is not an attempt to patent PageUp and PageDown keys.)

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Have considered actually reading the patent? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Just for anyone comprehension-impaired...

      The summary is wrong. The patent isn't about PgUp/PgDn, but rather about paging through a document a (multi-column) document page at a time rather than a (zoom dependent) screenful at a time. The PgUp/Dn keys being used to do this are only mentioned as one embodiment of this "invention".

      However, no doubt prior art exists for programs that page in terms of the document rather than screen (word processors and desktop publishing apps would be an obvious place to look).

    2. Re:Have considered actually reading the patent? by QuietObserver · · Score: 1

      Just to confirm your suspicions, there is; WordPerfect has had this feature since its inception (it's been around since the eighties).

      In all of the DOS versions, PgUp and PgDn always took you to the top of the previous and next pages respectively (or the top of the document if you were already on the first, or the bottom of the document if you were already on the last).

      In Windows, these features are still there, but you hold Ctrl with PgUp and PgDn to use them.

  47. Microsoft, please patent the CAPSLOCK key ... by MacTO · · Score: 1

    I would really like to be rid of that key for once and for all.

    1. Re:Microsoft, please patent the CAPSLOCK key ... by maxume · · Score: 1

      REMAP IT TO A USEFUL KEY.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Microsoft, please patent the CAPSLOCK key ... by MacTO · · Score: 1

      > REMAP IT TO A USEFUL KEY. And how am I supposed to remap every keyboard on the planet so that *other* people cannot post in all caps?

    3. Re:Microsoft, please patent the CAPSLOCK key ... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Beer is a pretty good general solution to this problem.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Microsoft, please patent the CAPSLOCK key ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a little utility called capsunlock which just disables it. Usual caveats regarding software you can download for free apply. That is under Windows, I dunno if there are equivalents for other systems.

    5. Re:Microsoft, please patent the CAPSLOCK key ... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Then how would you use the siren in San Andreas?

    6. Re:Microsoft, please patent the CAPSLOCK key ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      It's expensive to buy beer for everyone in the whole world...

  48. Oh my god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they can't be serious surely?

    I think you could patent a turd in the US, if you applied to.

    It comes to show you, how badly the Patent system needs overhauling.. this is so dumb!

  49. Who's laughing now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Onion's headline from 10 years ago was "Microsoft patents Ones, Zeroes."

  50. No suggestions of prior art? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    Come on slashdotters: Between us we should be able to list a few hundred thousand examples of prior art, give or take an order of magnitude... I'll start: ... um well.. 90% non-Microsoft text editors since the 70s....

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  51. How long... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    ...until someone patents the default scroll for a mouse wheel?

    This is like someone patenting a steering wheel.

    ...someone already patented the steering wheel, didn't they? |=

    1. Re:How long... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the idea!

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  52. I'm afraid I can't read the patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...without violating it!

  53. Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130

  54. They patented a keystroke? by NumenMaster · · Score: 1

    Okay this is fucking bullshit.

    --
    Where's my sock? There it is...
  55. Oh Give Me a BREAK!! by houbou · · Score: 1

    A patent on Pg Up and Pg Down. What will they think of next? Oh yeah, a patent on rebooting? I mean, after all, only with Windows can one truly experience the excruciating joys of rebooting during critical work tasks and/or intense game play.

    I would expect Microsoft to also patent the words "Critical errors" and "Windows must reboot in order to continue" :)

    Maybe Microsoft should also patent this "Vista sucks" or "NTFS has crashed, again...". I mean son-of-a-beehive, isn't it always your favorite files that get corrupted once you think your system is in perfect working order? Maybe Microsoft should patent their "Psychic Error Inducing Software" DLL, which I'm sure is part of every OS since Windows 95, but which they never advertise!

    I would be all for that. Should we propose it to them?

  56. What an amazing company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ya can't invent your way out of a paper bag... patent whatever is within grasp and then start suing everybody within sight.

  57. Also by Konster · · Score: 1

    They've also patented the color blue.

  58. Commodore should sue Microsoft by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    for stealing the Commodore key and calling it the "Windows" key on the Microsoft keyboards that came decades later than the old 1980 Commodore VIC-20 keyboards that already had a patent for a special logo style key for software shortcuts. outdates the Microsoft keyboard by decades and had programmable function keys that worked as page down and page up before the 1981 IBM PC keyboard. I recall in 1980 some word processing and spreadsheet programs for the VIC-20 displayed the programmable function keys as pg dn and pg up on the VIC-20 information screen for the help for those programs. While the programmable function keys are not labeled as page up and page down on their key tops, they were used for such in business software for the VIC-20 one year before IBM and Microsoft used them for such. Also the VIC-20 is just basically based on the old CBM PET series from 1977 that was based on the KIM-1 which even outdates the Apple 1 and TRS-80 series computers by a few months. Some of the homebrew keyboards made for the Kim-1 had pg up and pg down keys, programmable function keys, etc long before many of the others had them.

    So basically a lot of this stuff had existed before 1981 when IBM made the IBM PC keyboard. But IBM could claim that pg up and pg down keys existed on their Mainframe dumb terminals before 1977 dating back to the 1950's and trump everyone else in patents. :)
    Even Apple has prior art to that on the old Apple Logo keys but the original Apple // did not have Apple logo keys until Steve Jobs stole them from the Commodore VIC-20 to make their Apple //e computer later turning the Commodore key into open Apple and closed Apple keys that do the same thing as the Commodore key.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  59. Remember the typewriter? by purpleraison · · Score: 1

    This is interesting indeed. I am one of the dinosaurs who had the misfortune of having to use a typewriter for school papers, and guess what? It had a page up/down lever.

    Then the 'word processor', which was nothing more than an electronic typewriter, had page up/down buttons.

    This was all before Microsoft existed.

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  60. Tired of this joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    See you in court.

    I'm so tired of this joke, in fact, that I've obtained a patent on "not shutting the hell up." I demand that you cease infringement.

  61. seems like by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They filed for a patent in 2005 for essentially a method that applications were using in 2004 and earlier.

    Take Mozilla Suite and Mozilla Firefox, for instance. You push the 'page down' key... text zoom factor doesn't matter, you're going to scroll a fixed amount of document space.

    Acrobat Reader does something similar also.

    There is and was nothing novel about scrolling a fixed-size page increment regardless of zoom factor.

    It was so trivial and widely done, that it is unlikely anyone bothered to publish anything about it.

    If taking common practices and algorithms, writing them down, and using a fancy formula to express them permits patenting of the general method, then we live in a world where everything's going to be patented, and it's going to be impossible to create anything or express any idea.

    Because to create something, the expression of a novel idea, you always need some simple (self-evidence) ideas involved.

    Microsoft is trying to lay claim to the simple self-evident ideas that noone should be allowed to claim.

    Even though those ideas may have not been formally expressed before, thus there may be no officially recognizable "prior art".

    Not recognizable, because it exists in physical form and not written form suitable for analysis by the patent office, courts, etc.

    ( Other proprietary developers of proprietary SW that existed before are unlikely to disclose enough information about their pagination algorithm to show their prior-published app is a piece of prior art.)

    And no reputable-enough publisher or publication is likely to ever document the behavior of something so absurdly simple as say Acrobat's "page down" action in enough detail to invalidate M$ patent; it would rightly be considered a waste of paper.

    1. Re:seems like by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      Well done. That was the point. Thank you for writing about it for so long. We needed that.

    2. Re:seems like by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      Prior art is only one of many tests the Patent Office is supposed to apply - in this case I believe the 'Obvious' test would fail.

    3. Re:seems like by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt the folks at the patent office are good about searching databases to find published prior art, especially patented prior art. The obviousness of a claimed invention may be harder for them to detect.

      The trouble is the patents are able to describe something obvious so it sounds non-obvious but make vague claims that lead to something obvious being claimed by the patent.

      With the right language, you can describe almost any obvious invention in non-obvious terms.

      The patent office may lack the expertise to sufficiently "decode" the claims and truly determine the obviousness of certain claims.

      The non-tangible nature of software patents makes this exceedingly difficult -- without a working model or an interactive demo of exactly the invented thing, it may be difficult to truly perceive the claimed invention except by the filing company's description; which may be as convoluted and complex as desired, for the simplest thing.

      Even if the patent office does acknowledge the obviousness of some claims, though, it is doubtful that it prevents the filing company from obtaining the vague patent -- "let the courts sort that out"...

      Or the company will simply revise with more complicated language that further disguises the obviousness during filing.

  62. Sheesh..I oughta patent the "Prt Scr" keystroke by Darkk · · Score: 1

    I oughta patent the "Prt Scr" keystroke.

    Stupid tards at the patent office.

    What I find this so ironic the folks at the patent office didn't occur to them they're using the SAME keyboard for 20+ years and it's right in FRONT of them?!?!?!

  63. Who gives a crap whether they patented it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Slashdotters forget that a patent is a 'negative right.' A patent does not give you the right to be the sole producer of a patent, it merely gives you the right to prevent the use, sale, import etc. of the patented material.

    More importantly, the minute that M$ tries to sue someone for infringement of the page up and page down patent, the defending patent litigator is going to have to write maybe 2 briefs and they'll get the patent shot down as invalid.

    Maybe Slashdot should start a slush fund for requesting 3rd party reexaminations. The catch is it's expensive. But you get to shove your prior art in front of the PTO anonymously.

  64. I guess they never heard of Appleworks by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    The word processing portion of the old "Appleworks" program that ran on Apple 2C and 2E computers allowed you to advance through the document in precise increments of one tenth.

    Sounds a lot the same to me. The tenth changes as you add to the document, but so does Page Down, if you add anywhere but the end.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  65. I understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand why USA has a big count of invention in the world! Maybe a lot of them are like this one!

  66. I'm going to patent the control and alt by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    and stop there. let them come to ME with their little delete in hand if^H^Hwhen they need a reboot.

    bwahahaha!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  67. Pg Up? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    My Apple keyboard says "page up". Does that mean they're in the clear?

    1. Re:Pg Up? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Related to, but not exactly the same, would be the reason Windows has a "recycle bin" and not a "trash". Or the reason Windows has a File--Exit command instead of File--Close. Apple had them first (and I think even patented the word "close" for closing a program, but may be urban legend), so Microsoft steered clear of those terms (and got the added benefit of seeming "green" with the recycle bin).

  68. Last three digits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the last three digits of the patent number are?

    1. Re:Last three digits by amnezick · · Score: 0

      it's teh d3v1l. we knew it all along.

      *pfah*

      --
      mov ax,4c00h
      int 21h
  69. Hanlon's Bane Smashes Hanlon's Razor To Bitty Bits by TechnicolourSquirrel · · Score: 1

    Why is it that every patent story on slashdot always obfuscates the fact that patents cover methods of implementation, and not all encompassing ideas? Is it naive to think that this isn't a purposeful ommission?

    Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

    Why is it that people keep naively quoting Hanlon's Razor as if it *isn't* just a codification of the kind of foolish trust that is eminently vulnerable to Hanlon's Bane? "Never *admit* to malice which can be explained as stupidity.' This being the main reason malice 'data points' are harder to come by.

  70. DELNI-AA by DELNI-AA · · Score: 1

    That's funny. The PgDn and PgUp keys where on the original DEC VT100 text terminal keyboard introduced in 1978. Believe the keyboard is older than that, which makes it older than Microsoft itself. Funny.

  71. vilifying the right people by speedtux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is enough that the problem here isn't MS, it's the patent system.

    The problem MS. Most people learn in kindergarten that just because you can get away with doing something wrong doesn't mean you should.

    There is no justification for Microsoft to file these ridiculous patents, and they should be vilified for it.

    Not only is the fact that they are applying for these patents evil, it is just as evil that they are clogging up the patent system and patent examiners with this bullshit.

    1. Re:vilifying the right people by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no justification for Microsoft to file these ridiculous patents, and they should be vilified for it.

      Critical thinking needs to be applied here...

      If you were MS and hit with almost daily 'insane' patent lawsuits, what would you do? Just let every idiot create a patent and sue you out of existence because THEY CAN?

      This is a defensive measure on MS's part, and is EXACTLY why they are doing it.

      Microsoft, even with the Linux threats, has had almost NO offensive patent litigation, and this is with them holding as many as they do that pokes holes all the way into GUI features of OS X and Linux that they could probably win and get the products changed.

      If MS was truly as evil as we would like to believe, they would have used their patent wealth to shut down all other competing software by now.

      (Even inline spell checking, red squiggle lines for spelling, and even dragging and dropping text is a MS design from the Word team, and arguably something they own as the current Patent laws have been upheld. How do you think this would affect any GUI OS or GUI based software product?)

    2. Re:vilifying the right people by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      I'd be quite happy if developers had to remove the red squiggly line from their apps.

    3. Re:vilifying the right people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If MS was truly as evil as we would like to believe, they would have used their patent wealth to shut down all other competing software by now.

      Another interpretation is that they don't dare start a patent war against FOSS such as Linux since:
      a/ It could be seen as an anti-competitive move by the EU which has got its eye very firmly fixed on MS at present.
      b/ IBM is very big on FOSS including Linux. IBM has more and scarier patents than MS and could probably take it apart in a patent war.

    4. Re:vilifying the right people by ildon · · Score: 1

      It's not "getting away with it". If they didn't patent it, someone else would, and would attempt to get royalties from them. They'd probably win the case in the end due to prior art, but it's easier to simply file the patent and not worry about pay the legal fees to begin with.

    5. Re:vilifying the right people by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1

      Most people learn in kindergarten that just because you can get away with doing something wrong doesn't mean you should.

      People, yes, not companies. Corporations are pretty much required to do anything they can to extract profits, so long as it's legal. Filing a patent like this might be stupid and selfish, but it's certainly not illegal.

      Of course that doesn't entirely let MSFT off the hook. They could do as Red Hat do: file patents but at the same time work to fix the broken system.

      Rich.

    6. Re:vilifying the right people by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered why Microsoft doesn't say "fsck the EU", and wait to see how long it takes after being unable* to sell new computers for them to come crawling back to Microsoft.

      *For a value meaning "not many people would buy them with Linux on them", of course.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    7. Re:vilifying the right people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have obviously never worked in a technical corporation or have had anything to do with R&D. First of all, a company is required to look after the interests of the shareholder and thus its own interests. From this, it follows that as long as a legal system is in place that can be leveraged by your competition, you *need* to work within that same system. Like any other technical corporation, MS files on ideas that it doesn't want to risk others filing first and thus blocking their use of the IP.

      Also note that filing isn't free. The legal fees for filing, the time to write up the application (and to respond to the often several patent office actions along the way where the application is bounced back to the filer for response to questions, such as differentiating from prior art that has been discovered)as well as the implied commitment to defending the patent if a infringement is detected means that disclosures typically go through some sort of screening process first.

      I don't work for MS but for another technical company that faces the same challenges of maintaining and protecting a pool of IP as its competitors endeavor to do the same. We all want patent reform as the current system drains resources needlessly. However, until that happens, it's impossible to be competitive without working within the system as it presently exists.

    8. Re:vilifying the right people by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Critical thinking needs to be applied here...

      Yes, and you aren't doing it.

      This is a defensive measure on MS's part, and is EXACTLY why they are doing it.

      Bogus patents like these are useless for defense.

      If MS was truly as evil as we would like to believe, they would have used their patent wealth to shut down all other competing software by now.

      That's total bullshit. What "competing software" are you talking about anyway? Any significant independent competitors are dead already, and the only companies that are still competing with Microsoft at all both have big patent portfolios of their own and are Microsoft business partners. Microsoft doesn't want to shut down competitors, they want to control them.

      Furthermore, Microsoft's bogus patents are useless for shutting down competitors because their patents wouldn't survive a court challenge. What Microsoft is using those patents for is for controlling competitors and get them to do what they want. To do that, they can simply put a stack of a dozen patents on the table and say: "We're going to sue you over this. You'll probably be able to defeat most or all of those patents, but your company and management will be tied up in knots for the next few years. And if you still don't give in, here's another dozen patents that we'll continue suing you over. And so on. Now, are you ready to comply?"

      Microsoft wants control, not total annihilation, and they are getting it through their bogus patents.

      Even inline spell checking, red squiggle lines for spelling, and even dragging and dropping text is a MS design from the Word team, and arguably something they own as the current Patent laws have been upheld. How do you think this would affect any GUI OS or GUI based software product?

      Microsoft is a public corporation. If they really had valid, enforceable patents, not only would they enforce them, they would have an obligation to their stock holders to do so. The fact that they aren't enforcing them tells you that Microsoft knows full well that their patents are bogus.

    9. Re:vilifying the right people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't work for MS but for another technical company that faces the same challenges of maintaining and protecting a pool of IP as its competitors endeavor to do the same. We all want patent reform as the current system drains resources needlessly. However, until that happens, it's impossible to be competitive without working within the system as it presently exists.

      Protecting your own IP doesn't mean filing bogus patents. If you need to file patents on "Page Up", mainly what it means is that your R&D isn't producing enough real innovation.

      You have obviously never worked in a technical corporation or have had anything to do with R&D.

      You're obviously an arrogant prick who's jumping to conclusions.

    10. Re:vilifying the right people by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Corporations are pretty much required to do anything they can to extract profits, so long as it's legal.

      They can. And in order to reduce the amount of profit that companies can make from legal but unethical practices, we point out their unethical practices. Hence, vilification of companies for these kinds of actions serves a real, rational economic purpose.

      Furthermore, patents aren't filed by corporations, they are filed by people, people with a choice in the matter. And we can certainly vilify those people. So, when you hire someone, look up any patents they have filed and find any bogus ones. Then ask yourself: do you want your company to have people who squander precious legal resources and public good will in the way this person did?

    11. Re:vilifying the right people by rachit · · Score: 1

      Most people learn in kindergarten that just because you can get away with doing something wrong doesn't mean you should.

      Most people learn in their adult life, that if everyone else is doing something wrong and using that to stay ahead of you and isn't getting caught, you must do the same to stay competitive.

      Microsoft isn't in kindergarten.

    12. Re:vilifying the right people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, unlike you, they aren't totally stupid.

    13. Re:vilifying the right people by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      So I did not rtfa either, but I am going to comment.

      Microsoft claiming that they invented the PgUp / PgDown Feature may be true, and possibly even the scroll up / scroll down. What bothers me is them waiting some 20 or so years to file the patent. Besides, isn't a patent only good for 18 years? So if they are trying to claim this from 1981, and if they backdated the patent, then it would have expired in 1999. If they try to file from this date, then it would be hard for Microsoft to make a claim as it has become industry standard. I am not sure if this is true in patents or not, but I think in copyrights, your copyright is made invalid if you do not enforce it or apply for it before it becomes public domain / industry standard, whatknot. Can someone clarify?

      Point is, if Microsoft wants to claim they invented this, fine with me, there is a good chance they did, I don't know. But don't wait until 27 years later and then still expect people to pay you royalties or licensing fees.

      Once again, I did not RTFA, just stating an opinion.

    14. Re:vilifying the right people by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Incorrect, clueless, incorrect, false, personal assumption, personal bias, personal assumption, personal bias, false, incorrect...

      Also you seem to be missing any references or even credible arguments supporting your personal assumptions.

      Go for it, list all the lawsuits MS has initiated based on their patents. Oh wait, you later admit they don't because you 'feel' they wouldn't hold up.

      Contradict yourself much?

  72. Eliminate Patents Completely? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    I'm just reading Michael Shermer's book The Mind Of The Market in which he points out that the Dutch system was patentless from 1869 to 1912 and the Swiss system was patentless from 1850 to 1907. Apparently not only were they not hurt by this lack of control, but they also in fact "prospered more than ever before."

    It's an interesting fact, but it does beg the question of why they went to patents if in fact it was successful. I supposed lobbying by potential patent owners could be the answer, but it's interesting that for 43 and 57 years respectively these two countries had no patents whatsoever.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    1. Re:Eliminate Patents Completely? by Narlaquin · · Score: 1

      I'm just reading Michael Shermer's book The Mind Of The Market in which he points out that the Dutch system was patentless from 1869 to 1912 and the Swiss system was patentless from 1850 to 1907.

      2 responses:

      As Harry Lime said :

      Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

      And in 1903, Albert Einstein's job at the Swiss Patent Office was made permanent. This just goes to show how bad Patents are, if someone like Einstein can't even work out whether the country HAS patents.

    2. Re:Eliminate Patents Completely? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      From http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub6401.pdf:

      With such strong public feeling against patent protection it is no wonder that it took Switzerland--a conservative country where national referenda often determine important policy decisions-- almost half a century to enact its first national patent law in 1888. The law was so limited in scope, however, that its usefulness for patent protection was at best dubious. Indeed, successful lobbying by the Swiss chemical industry resulted in the 1888 national patent law protecting only inventions that could be represented by mechanical models. Two decades and some international pressure were necessary for the legislature to rectify this Swiss anomaly. One explanation for this long and laborious legislative history can be found in the Swiss constitutional requirements. Switzerland is a federal state with a strict separation of powers between the confederation and the cantons, and a patent law on a national scale could not be enacted by the federal government in the absence of constitutionally granted authority.

      A footnote to the above states "that in 1907 the Swiss legislature enacted a law that eliminated the "mechanical model" requirement and extended protection to chemical processes after pressure from Germany, the biggest market for Swiss chemical products."

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  73. And, in other patent news by haruchai · · Score: 3, Funny

    Turtle Wax has been granted a patent for "Wax on, Wax off". A federal judge has ruled that "The Karate Kid" cannot be used as prior art in a US court and Ralph Macchio's character was under a "foreign influence" at the time.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:And, in other patent news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as nobody patents 'whacks off', we'll be safe.

  74. Patent this you bastids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is it with the US Patent Office - this is just seriously f**ked up - I mean come Microsoft didn't invent pg up pg dn - hell they didn't invest the keyboard - will they patent the mouse next? oh sorry the "human interaction device formerly known as a mouse" ;-)

  75. Next up for M$: by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Patenting Control-Alt-Delete to reboot your computer.

    1. Re:Next up for M$: by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      afaik, MS invented Ctrl+Alt+Del, and it was (at the time) innovative.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:Next up for M$: by kwikrick · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I thought that Ctrl-Alt-Del to reboot was implemented in the default keyboard handlers loaded from the BIOS on startup, even before MS DOS was loaded. So, more likely, it was an IBM invention, assuming that they programmed the first PC BIOS.

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
    3. Re:Next up for M$: by Simon+Rowe · · Score: 1

      It was invented by David Bradley whilst working at IBM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bradley_(engineer)

    4. Re:Next up for M$: by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1
      *sigh*

      While you're looking things up on Wikipedia, look up this.

  76. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "(Although, anything in the specification, once published, can be considered "prior art" over future applications.)"

    Unless you can get a patent within a year.

    Then it doesn't count as prior art.

    Since software patents don't have real-life gotchas, this is easy.

  77. 5000 reasons proving Microsoft is the Anti-Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they had a chance, they would patent your posterior and would have you pay an update fee for everytime you wanted to sit down since they thought of it first.

    It didn't mention the other body parts they are intending on patenting, but given the chance and the time, I'm sure they would.

  78. The $, euro, yen keys are mine. by langenaam · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've just applied for patents for currency keys as a means of representing currencies. So please don't use the $, euro, yen, etc. keys before contacting me about licensing fees ... (Since the pound is dropping so much these days, I decided to leave it to the Brits)

  79. My To-Do list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm, let's see...
    Tomorrow:
        Wash the cat
        Visit Emergency Room
        Fill gastank (maybe I should do that first)
        File Patent for both labeling special funtions to keys and for linking special function actions to previously mentioned keys.
        (i.e. backspace, num-lock, and printscreen among others)
        Start audit to insure Patent Office continues recieving sufficient crack or LSD as necessary.

  80. Is it actually their's to patent? by mike_diack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After all the PC keyboard and hardware are IBMs design. How can Microsoft possibly thus patent that?

    Mike

    --
    Linux fan and Win32 developer
  81. unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It amuzes me how rich companies apply for patents of things like that and.. they succeed!

    Bizarre civilization, no doubt.

  82. funny... by W33B · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Personnally, I thought they would have gone for ctrl, alt and del....seems more relevant somehow!

  83. Yup - the blue screen was a later invention by cheros · · Score: 1

    Anyone any idea when they invented the concept of a system blue screening? They must have patented that because no other OS crashes quite at such a frequency and with such a profound impact on productivity.. :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  84. Is there any list of silly MS patents? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    There is this, also emoticons (sic?), what else?

  85. Ministry of Silly Keystrokes by retroworks · · Score: 1

    "Pg Dn... It's not a particularly silly keystroke, now is it?"

    --
    Gently reply
  86. Sucks by taff^2 · · Score: 1

    That website sucks. The entire bottom half of the website is missing on my screen

    --
    Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
  87. vi has had ctrl+f, ctrl+d by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

    and their inverse motion commands since 1976.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  88. Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if this cannot hold in court, MS still is right to patent that. This will force others to go to court, the very turf MS feels good standing on.

  89. Patent madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only in the U.S. as usual.
    So who cares?

  90. Time for a moratorium on patents by kadehje · · Score: 1

    Each time I hear stories like this, it makes me think it's time for a patent moratorium in this country. Look at the the number of patents awarded each year in the U.S. From 1962-77, there were about 1 million patents granted; from 1977-92 there were just over 1 million. Since then, patents have grown seemingly exponentially; it took only 8 years (1992-2000) to get to 6 million and less than 7 to get to 7 million. Extrapolating for the number given for Jan. 1, 2008, the next million will be granted by the end of 2011. Something tells me the number of reviewers at the patent office isn't growing nearly as fast as the number of applications.

    I don't think we've gotten that more inventive in the past decade. We're now seeing applications to patent business models, genes, and devices that seem to have ample prior art to deny a patent. I think we're seeing lawyers with too much time on their hands trying to patent anything under the sun. Patents have their purpose in inspiring innovation, but when they are abused as arms in an IP race they become counterproductive. Up-and-coming businesses shouldn't need to worry about hiring a world-class legal team before ramping up their engineering and sales forces just to make sure some minor detail of their generally revolutionary new widget doesn't fall into the purview of XYZ Corp's giant IP repertoire.

    I say it's high time to suspend the issue of new patents for a couple of years to let everything that's in the pipeline now get a decent review. And after that make the application more transparent to allow those who see prior art relative to an application to make their beliefs known to the patent office. The way we're going, it won't be long before we see patents awarded for "brand new" materials like oxygen, carbon, and iron.

    If the amount of BS in the patent system continues to grow, eventually patents will become useless in terms of truly fostering innovation. Already, some people don't see any moral objection to infringing copyright since they feel the copyright holders aren't living up to their side of the bargain by allowing their IP to become public domain. People will start infringing patents on moral grounds if they're viewed as simply an artificial barrier to entry in a market rather than a means to allow limited-term profit from a truly groundbreaking invention.

  91. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago, when Wordperfect was the Top Dog word processor, PgUp and PgDn meant simply that (not only for WP but for other editors as well) - go up or down one (paper) page in the document.
    Moving up/down a screen was an "innovation" from Microsoft recognizing that what happened on screen was more important than what happened on paper.

    I cannot not blame them for patenting this, since the chances that some troll *will* sue them somewhere in the future over this are 100% - we all now that in the patent system as it exists, "obvious" and "prior art" are meaningless words.

    So as long as they don't sue anyone else over it, they've actually done the world a favor.

  92. Re:Hanlon's Bane Smashes Hanlon's Razor To Bitty B by drcln · · Score: 1

    Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

    Why is it that people keep naively quoting Hanlon's Razor as if it *isn't* just a codification of the kind of foolish trust that is eminently vulnerable to Hanlon's Bane?

    "Never *admit* to malice which can be explained as stupidity.'

    This being the main reason malice 'data points' are harder to come by.

    You make an excellent point. One must also remember that malice and stupidity are not mutually exclusive. See, e.g., Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. But I think that here on Slashdot, we have an established record of simple ignorance.

    --
    your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
  93. This getting fsckin rediculous... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know they recieve a patent for turning on your computer and we're fscked...

    --
    Here be signatures
  94. PgUp/PgDn in KPDF by dastrike · · Score: 1

    Is this patent the reason why the PgUp/PgDn in KPDF works with so substantially inexact increment? ;)

    As you don't have to go through all that many pages with PgUp/PgDn in KPDF to start noticing that it isn't longer aligned with the page tops and bottoms.

    --
    while true; do eject; eject -t; done
  95. System and Method for a Desktop Cube by linhares · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is in the idea business and uses patents to extend its financial viability.

    If they are in the idea business why won't they have any real idea then? For example, I just applied for a patent for "System and method for a Desktop Cube". Patent provides a system and method for a desktop cube which can hold different user spaces with different windows. The 3d cube can be rotated, and windows may be moved from one facet to another, smoothly rotating the cube blah blah etc etc.

    Microsoft in the idea business? Please ....

  96. I am updating their wikipedia page by linhares · · Score: 1
    On the section Criticism of Microsoft with the following:

    Finally, Microsoft customarily patents obvious or pre-existing technologies: a recent case includes the United States Patent 7,415,666 granted on August 19, 2008, which concerns the ability to progress in page-up or page-down increments with a single keystroke{{cite news |url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1%3Cbr%20%3E%3C/a%3E%20&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,415,666.PN.&OS=PN/7,415%3Cbr%20/%3E%20,666&RS=PN/7,415,666|title=United States Patent concerning "page-up/page-down technology" |publisher=United States Patent Office |date=[[2008-08-19]] |accessdate=2008-09-01}}--a method that has been pervasive for decades, hence the criticism{{cite news |url=http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-218626.html|title=Microsoft has been granted a patent on 'Page Up' and 'Page Down' keystrokes. |publisher=ZDNet.co.uk |date=[[2008-08-29]] |accessdate=2008-09-01}}.

  97. what about the wheel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How sad!! :(

  98. I wonder... by dvh.tosomja · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the now remove Pg Up and Pg Dn functionality from recently released gNewSense

  99. Books closed !!! by Netino · · Score: 0

    > "scrolling a substantially exact increment in a document, such as one page" So, you cannot turn the pages of books anymore. Keep them closed.

  100. New patent by db0ne · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna patent being an abrasive post-hippie modern day neanderthal. Should be enough to send Ballmer up shits creek. Or at least threaten him with it.

  101. Liar! by kdawson+(3715) · · Score: 0

    Listen taco, I may be stupid, but I'm not THAT stupid!

  102. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the real kdawson!

  103. Wish I had a mod point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much truth in that post.

  104. How? by douglaid · · Score: 1

    I thought that inventions could not be patented after they came into general use. If so, it won't survive the first challenge. I see also the point that the keyboard wasn't theirs. When the words "getting things done can be registered as a trademark, perhaps I should study a second language. I don't want to be sued for opening my mouth. Everything in the US seems to have a price tag.

  105. Patent this! by lefin1 · · Score: 1

    I'll just design a new keyboard that has [Fu] and [Fd] buttons on it. Wait. I can do that with white out and a sharpie.

  106. No right clicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I 've just patented the right clicking.

  107. Innovation leader by bizbuzz · · Score: 1

    So much for microsoft and innovation.

  108. Prior or prehistoric art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is the xvid feature to move text by one page independently of the zoom size in case when c=1 and h=const, and r=0. It is exceptional case but still it fits the formula of patented method.

    One of keys to make xvid work like this is some magical "LineFeed" key. I would be happy to hear if any Slashdot reader still have such a key? I am afraid that those who still could have one, do not have CRT monitor yet. So they probably will not read my entry, pity...

  109. tomatoe/tomatoe by Steven+Firth · · Score: 1

    Viewport up/down ... problem solved, and patent it so MS cant use it too :)

  110. China is not the problem. by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

    The US, based on our Patent Office alone, deserves the world's scorn for classifying such trivia as "novel and non-obvious." It's like a 3-year-old on a playground, using the word "mine" to describe every toy, with no understanding of what the word means. I am ashamed to be an American!

    --
    "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  111. So, how can they patent something I used in 1980 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I just don't get how they can patent something I used in 1980 on my old Apple II+ ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  112. The Onion by concolor22 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure someone here was thinking this:

  113. pg ^ PG\/ by warpuck · · Score: 1

    Ensign Chekov quit the star trek mission and got a new job as a patent attorney for microsoft

  114. Click by Zwicky · · Score: 1

    I was surprised to hear that this was covered on the BBC program Click today.

    --
    "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo