Surfcast Sues Microsoft Over Tile Patent

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Surfcast Sues Microsoft Over Tile Patent

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday October 31, 2012 @04:32AM from the smells-like-windows-1.0 dept.

An anonymous reader writes with news of a company suing Microsoft for infringing upon a patent for tiles with live content. From the article: "SurfCast, in a complaint filed yesterday in a U.S. District Court in Maine, said Microsoft infringes one of its four patents — No. 6,724,403 — by 'making, using, selling, and offering to sell devices and software products' covered by SurfCast's patent. That includes mobile devices using the Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8 operating systems as well as PCs using Windows 8/RT."

41 of 255 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-10-31 04:36 · Score: 2

Apple did it in the 90s

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
1. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-10-31 04:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Mothafucka's patented the SQUARE
  Shit. I'm about to get Platonic on that one, and patent me a CUBE.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
2. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by zill · 2012-10-31 04:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Too late. I already patented the hypercube.
  
  All dots, lines, squares, and cubes are lower dimensional derivatives of my hypercube design and thus require a license from me.
3. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by aristotle-dude · 2012-10-31 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And lost :)
  For the look and feel suit but not the one for stolen source code from Quicktime which ended up in Video for Windows. The latter resulted in an out of court settlement where MSFT bought non-voting shares in Apple, made undisclosed payments rumored to be around a billion in the end and a commitment to continue developing MS Office and Internet Explorer for the mac for 5 years. The MS Office commitment was renewed voluntarily by Microsoft a number of times since then.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
4. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by NatasRevol · 2012-10-31 05:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Also, someone else patented the time cube.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
5. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by Githaron · 2012-10-31 05:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And the companion cube probably has trademarks to deal with.
6. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by Dcnjoe60 · 2012-10-31 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  Mothafucka's patented the SQUARE
  Shit. I'm about to get Platonic on that one, and patent me a CUBE.
  Well, that seems appropriate, since Apple sued Samsung because Apple has a patent on a curve.
7. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by narcc · 2012-10-31 10:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But does it have rounded corners?
  That's innovation.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
8. Re:Its not like people havent sued MS b4 by thegarbz · 2012-10-31 12:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That certainly adds an extra dimension to this case.
now a tile with no rounded corners! by mhsobhani · 2012-10-31 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

so both simple rectangle and rounded rectangle are now patented!

--
Trust me, I'm an engineer.
1. Re:now a tile with no rounded corners! by nschubach · 2012-10-31 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not so fast! http://www.google.com/patents/EP1921575A1?cl=en
  Actually, didn't MS try Hexagons for WM6.5?
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Patent Law? by Shadyman · 2012-10-31 04:38 · Score: 2

How long as Windows Phone 7 had tiles? (honest curiosity)

IANAL, but if it's been a while, one might assume that SurfCast has been sitting on the lawsuit, waiting for Microsoft to roll tiles out into more and more products so that they could reach a bigger settlement, though that might have to be weighed against the notion of "not defending one's patents".

Thoughts?
1. Re:Patent Law? by Quanticfx · 2012-10-31 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  That's the way I see this, WP7 has been out for quite a bit and only now they are filing the suit?
  If MS violated the patent than SurfCast should certainly get some money out of them, but if I was the judge I'd have some questions as to why they filed now and not when the tile interface was first released in WP7.
  I know next to nothing about court procedures or trials so I'm not even sure if that's within the judge's purview though.
2. Re:Patent Law? by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2012-10-31 05:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes it does. It's called laches and igt can invalidatre a lawsuit.
3. Re:Patent Law? by Dragonslicer · 2012-10-31 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  If the patent is valid and not expired, it can be enforced. It does not matter when you become aware of the violation, nor how much time has elapsed between awareness and filing of a suit.
  It does matter in one respect. If you know about someone infringing your patent, and you purposely delay notifying them and/or filing suit in order to let damages build up, you generally aren't entitled to any damages for the time after you became aware of the infringement.
That's a new level of ugly by jader3rd · 2012-10-31 04:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I can see why SurfCasts tiles didn't take off. That's beyond ugly. Since Microsoft referenced SurfCasts patent in their patent, I suspect Microsoft determined that they were different enough to not require a licensing deal.
The Microsoft Live Tiles use data that's been curated for the purpose of a tile. SurfCasts is making little windows onto programs that have no idea their being ran in a little window.
Re:Not a troll by JDG1980 · 2012-10-31 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

A tile is just a chromeless application window. What's novel about it?
Seriously?! by oPless · 2012-10-31 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

A computerized method of presenting information from a variety of sources on a display device. Specifically the present invention describes a graphical user interface for organizing the simultaneous display of information from a multitude of information sources. In particular, the present invention comprises a graphical user interface which organizes content from a variety of information sources into a grid of tiles, each of which can refresh its content independently of the others. The grid functionality manages the refresh rates of the multiple information sources. The present invention is intended to operate in a platform independent manner.
Seriously?
A) How was this even granted a patent in 2000? It's really obvious, to anyone with a computing degree.
B) How it wasn't picked up on a patent search.
C) Why didn't they sue two years ago when WP7 was released?
Software patents are fundamentally wrong :(
1. Re:Seriously?! by aliquis · 2012-10-31 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  Once I ran Winamp and Firefox in these things we call windows.
Re:Not a troll by godrik · 2012-10-31 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I went through the patent. I will not claim there is anything of value in there. But they actually describe a full architecture of a system with asynchronous event, bandwidth limitations, dynamic refresh rates, multi device displays. They actually did something, they are not trolling. This is one of the most reasonnable patent I read in a long time.
Re:Patent trolls suck but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 04:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Scheudenfreude is not an admirable trait... hopefully you're not passing that on to children.
Oh, but wouldn't it be just great if he did?
Re:Not a troll by RaceProUK · 2012-10-31 04:50 · Score: 2

From TFA, the SurfCast design looks more like Windows 1.0 than WP7. Plus, the existence of '403 is mentioned on page 2 of '632. Therefore '403 must have been considered (don't laugh) when '632 was being assessed.
Without reading the full patents (I have only one life on Earth), I'm not going to say if SurfCast is a troll. However, their website doesn't inspire confidence.

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Andriod Widgets next? Or iOS notification nums? by timeOday · 2012-10-31 04:55 · Score: 2

Actually I think the basic prior art here is "windowing." And I don't even mean Microsoft Windows; the basic idea of having multiple programs on the screen, all running concurrently but each using only part of the screen, was novel in the late 1960s. "Overlapping" windows, like MS Windows and everything since then, is actually a refinement of that concept. Emacs, for example, just partitions the screen into nested rectangles. Just like "tiles."
Active Desktop by Jason+Levine · 2012-10-31 04:57 · Score: 3, Informative

So the patent is for blocks of active information in boxes? Filed in 2000? Microsoft was doing this with Active Desktop back in 1997 and I'm sure they weren't the first.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Not a troll by ilguido · 2012-10-31 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dunno, I used dockapps on windowmaker well before they granted the patent to Microsoft.
Re:Not a troll by Baloroth · 2012-10-31 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

After reading the article, I really think that SurfCast is right in suing Microsoft. It seems to be the same thing and it's a novel way of doing things.
It doesn't even matter how valid the patent is, really (although given it is software and... well, a tile display is not novel no matter how you dress it up), what really makes a troll a troll is that they have no products. Surfcast has none, and from what I understand, never did. Therefore, they are patent trolls.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Tile All? by malakai · 2012-10-31 05:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Not sure what version of windows had this last, but I remember being bale to tile all open windows, and they would take up all available screen real-estate. It wasn't a horizontal tile, wasn't a vertical tile, and wasn't a cascade. It may have been arrange, but I remember doing it once with 10 excel windows open on like 640x480, and they each took up so little space you could only see the control bars.
I don't think MS is going to have a problem with this: http://asset0.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/10/31/SurfCast_patent_application_610x587.png

--
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Re:Not a troll by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-10-31 05:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems to be the same thing and it's a novel way of doing things.
Exactly, it's not like it is similar to an airplane dashboard, right? And did anyone notice the timing? Coinciding a lawsuit with an OS release, that's not suspicious at all, tsk tsk tsk...

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Another point against software patents by mfwitten · 2012-10-31 05:05 · Score: 2

"Software" patents aren't magical; it's just that a piece of software is a phenomenon in the Universe that can be constructed with little capital.
In the not so distant future, when everyone has access to cheap custom-fabrication machines and labor (for CPUs, metal parts, whole devices, whatever your mind can come up with), people like you will be saying: "Another point against <insert some type> patents!"
Hmmm... One purpose of the patent system is to protect the little guy from having his hard work stolen by those who already have the massive capital that is required to produce the idea as a product; perhaps the solution is to define a phenomenon as patentable based on the capital requirements for producing that phenomenon.
Re:How much is this prior art? by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-10-31 05:22 · Score: 2

The language is dense, nearly impenetrable and horrible repetitive.
This is on purpose. Patent lawyers are like any other lawyer in that they want their little priesthood to remain protected. If anyone can draft and interpret a patent application, what need for their expensive services?

OT but along the same vein: when people complained about certain bits in the new EU "constitution", those bits were rewritten in horribly obfuscated language that boils down to more or less the same meaning. Another reason for using legalese.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Not a troll by bondsbw · 2012-10-31 05:23 · Score: 2

Tiled applications windows date back to at least 1981 with Xerox Star. And there is plenty of prior art for applications that aggregate information.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re:Another point against software patents by idontgno · 2012-10-31 05:29 · Score: 2

Interesting. I'm trying to figure out if your idea would incentivize or disincentivize the already huge capital and market barriers to entry to new players in a system. Also, why I'm talking like a brain-damaged MBA when I'm supposed to be an engineer. Sigh. Intellectual property makes everyone stupid.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Wii Channels by Parker+Lewis · 2012-10-31 05:39 · Score: 2

To me, Tiles are more close to Wii Channels than Android Widgets, etc.
Not an untroll, either by AliasMarlowe · 2012-10-31 05:54 · Score: 2

As usual, the Slashdot opinions on patents leave something to be desired. From column 4 of the specification, the "information sources" (as used in claim 1 et seq.) are clearly defined to encompass remote sources of information, including web sites, email messages, audio and video streams and so forth accessed via the internet. A lot of the prior art deals with purely local sources of information.
So the question really boils down to how novel and inventive this step is - the dynamic presentation in tiles of remotely accessed information, which is not necessarily accessed on the same schedule. One can argue that the steps are not non-obvious and are not particularly inventive. A court will decide (possibly requiring several iterations, depending how stupid/opinionated the jury foreman is).
I expect there will be well-paid work for a few lawyers before the question is settled.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1. Re:Not an untroll, either by ilguido · 2012-10-31 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Are you kidding, trolling or are you just misinformed? Windowmaker dockapps could retrieve weather infos from remotely accessed sources ten years ago at the least, there were/are dozens of email dockapp, there are dockapps that notify when a website updates and there are even web radio dockapps. Perhaps the 2004 patent granted to surfcast is invalid, for sure the 2011 patent granted to MS is invalid and I hope that this litigation could invalidate it (at least a 2004 patent expires before a 2011 patent).
2. Re:Not an untroll, either by DocHoncho · 2012-10-31 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  But those are dockapps, we're talking about tiles here man, TILES. Completely different. Besides, MS invented the modern operating system, the Apple lawsuits were plain FUD and we have St. Gates to thank for modernity. And tiles.
  [/troll]
  
  --
  Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
3. Re:Not an untroll, either by SQLGuru · 2012-10-31 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Windows 95. Active Desktop.
  Sure, the implementation was plagued with bugs, but it would update square widgets with data from remote sources. It was in Win95.
4. Re:Not an untroll, either by EdIII · 2012-10-31 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  All of these arguments are moot once the patent system moves to a first-to-file system.
  Sure, all the arguments will go away as far as prior art is concerned, but then it will also become a system where the barrier to entry is so high to enter the markets that small startups and inventors will never get a fair shake anymore.
  I would like to have seen those Apple guys try and get started in a market where IBM only had to file a patent on work to get it granted....
Total TROLLL by PortHaven · 2012-10-31 06:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seriously, go look at these "screenshots" of product. And tell me how their product was anything different than all the horrible 1990's websites built with frames, that continually refreshed.
Seriously, this shouldn't even go to court....
http://web.archive.org/web/20070420033547/http://www.surfcast.com/images/bloom.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20070101195114/http://surfcast.com/images/trading.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20070101163517/http://surfcast.com/images/weather.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20070126130038/http://www.surfcast.com/images/word_doc.jpg
Re:Maybe MS should just add one pixel to the botto by Sponge+Bath · 2012-10-31 07:09 · Score: 2

...and add a border with convenient controls, then place it all on an office furniture based metaphor... maybe a copy machine?
And MS thought Linux was the enemy by tekrat · 2012-10-31 08:17 · Score: 2

And they spent a lot of money through SCO to try and sue Linux and IBM. And got their asses handed to them.
What MS *should* have done with that time and money was to find every patent troll that was going to harm them, and take them out with extreme prejudice.
Now they've been harmed by Eolas, which has opened the door to trolls like this one. MS has been hoisted by their own petard, so to speak. They were *for* software patents, and now they have discovered that you can't swing a dead cat in the tech sector without being sued by someone claiming to own a software method.
Software patents harm innovation and business. They do more harm than good and need to be repealed, for the sake of the economy.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.