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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
They still use patent threats and indemnification as a way to scare companies off Linux distributions.
The Raven
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
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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
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.
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.