Slashdot Mirror
Google, Apple, Microsoft Sued Over File Preview
ClaraBow writes with this excerpt from MacWorld:
"A small Indiana company has sued tech heavyweights Microsoft, Apple, and Google, claiming that it holds the patent on a common file preview feature used by browsers and operating systems to show users small snapshots of the files before they are opened. ... Cygnus's owner and president Gregory Swartz developed the technology laid out in the patent while working on IT consulting projects, McAndrews said. The company is looking for 'a reasonable royalty' as well as a court injunction preventing further infringement, he said. ... Cygnus applied for its patent (#7346850) in 2001. It covers a 'System and method for iconic software environment management' and was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in March of this year."
Two words: prior art.
And plenty of it. We had live preview icons in an app in 1989.
Economy (not just US economy, but especially US) is in deep f.cking shit. This is a symptom. You see, very little is actually produced in the US at this point, but more regulations, lawsuits, patents, various copyrighted materials like movies/music are still made there (I live in Canada, we are not far away from this problem here also, except that our movies/music sucks even more.)
When there is nothing to produce except for more laws/regulations, meaningless, useless, obvious patents and lawsuits, and also the greenback, at this point you have to ask yourself a question: how is this economy, that borrows so much from the rest of the world and then buys the products from the rest of the world going to pay the freaking debt? What is it, 10 trillion in debt at least?
Anyway, I read TFPatent and thought to myself: holy shit. In 1998 I worked on a system for a purchase basket for a promotions company and I had to display thumbnails on the HTML page too.
In fact various stores and also porn sites would be great at showing prior art to this BS patent.
You can't handle the truth.
While the Slashdot crowd is content to read only the title of a patent and then make wild pronouncements, patent attorneys generally read the whole patent document.
And then immediately lawsuits are pressed against Canonical, Debian, Novell, and anyone else who allows patented material to be added to their distributions.
Free software still has to follow the law.
Evil Walrus >83=
Just another greedy patent troll!
As the judge gleams over his PC and noticed it too uses the preview thumbnails feature and started to realize...holy crap...if I pass judgment then how the hell am I gonna find my pictures?!?!
What bothers me tho as more and more of these silly lawsuits crop up it will stifle innovation. Eventually it will choke open source software as they lack funds to fight this. Apple and Microsoft have deep pockets so they will survive, just we will end up paying for it later.
I just hope I can continue to use Ubuntu without worry.
Quite - Of all the news sites not to make the distinction....
Hi... I'm the asshole who posted the comment about the four horsemen.
Let me give you an example of why I think patents are not necessary for innovation in software:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
When it comes to software, ideas are cheap and abundant. Patents make sense when they represent something that is difficult to come up with (a diesel engine for example) and that may involve years of R&D.
But if you read that list, you'll see that ideas (even good ones) cost almost nothing, and have no value on its own. People is willing to give the ideas for free for many reasons: Because they can benefit by having the idea implemented, because of personal pride, because of a sense of community.
So for example, a patent troll (person A) would patent a good but almost obvious idea like "Autoname screenshots to have date and time for hour, instead of just 'screenshot'". And then if he is successful he would sit on the patent and wait until person B comes up with the same idea in a context were person B can actually implement it. And then sue. That's holding back innovation, not encouraging.
On the other hand, you have that the idea is so simple and cheap that people is willing to give it for free: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/16850/
It would be a big mistake for a company like this to produce any products. These companies exist only to license out IP they buy or otherwise "invent," and to sue non-licensees for patent infringement. If they were to produce a product, they would make themselves vulnerable to a countersuit.
And then immediately lawsuits are pressed against Canonical, Debian, Novell, and anyone else who allows patented material to be added to their distributions.
Which would be immediately laughed out of court. They would only have a case if the distro was offering the software themselves. Anybody can set up a repository anywhere in the world. Just like anybody can offer a Windows based DVD ripper. So why have the MPAA not sued Microsoft? The same reason. They can only control what they offer themselves. If Microsoft included a DVD ripper in Windows 7, then the MPAA might have a case.
Free software still has to follow the law.
Absolutely... So what law are they breaking?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but actually, if they are successful, it works more like this:
1. Idiot sues Apple
2. Apple pays money
1. Idiot sues MS
2. MS pays money
1. Idiot sues Gnome Foundation etc.
2. Gnome, KDE etc. must remove the previews
3. One day later an unofficial patch pops up somewhere
4. One month later it becomes apparent that nobody except a few techies uses that patch, and people start to blame "Linux" for lacking an essential feature