Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Patents "Pg Up" and "Pg Dn"

Posted by kdawson on from the your-grandfather-had-prior-art dept.

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."

33 of 350 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    4. 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.
  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 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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!

    12. 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?
    13. 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
    14. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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*
  7. 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 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).

  8. 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.
  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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!
  12. 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.
  13. 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.