Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patents a Slider, Earning EFF's "Stupid Patent of the Month" Award (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes with news that the EFF has given Microsoft a dubious award this month for their slider patent. According to Ars: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation's 'Stupid Patent of the Month' for December isn't owned by a sketchy shell company, but rather the Microsoft Corporation. The selection, published yesterday, is the first time the EFF has picked a design patent as the SPOTM. The blog post seeks to highlight some of the problems with those lesser-known cousins to standard 'utility' patents, especially the damages that can result. The chosen patent (PDF), numbered D554,140, would seem to be one of those things that's so simple it raises some basic philosophical questions about the patent system. That's because it's just a slider, in the bottom-right corner of a window, with a plus sign at one end and a minus sign at the other. That's it.
I am ashamed to be american sometimes, but proud not to use microsoft for anything.
This isn't like utility patents. This doesn't cover all sliders with + and - at the ends. It covers us elements that subjectively look like this.
Coca Cola is the famous example of a design pattern for a glass bottle with a twist. It's not a real problem. It's not utility patents.
A design patent covers the look ONLY - the ornamental design. For the MS patent, change the center pointer to a diamond, or to a rounded (rather than pointy) design and you're in the clear. They are EXTREMELY easy to get around, and interpreted VERY narrowly. Basically any change to the look and you're in the clear.
Design patents tend to be sops to engineers/designers as a way to "pad their resumes", or as ways to simply increase the number-patents-issued list of companies. It's so much more impressive to say you got 138 patents versus saying you got 1 - but if the 1 is a utility patent, and the 138 are design patents, the actual IP-use (restriction of competiton) value is most likely in favor of the singular utility patent.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Suppose Ford patented the steering wheel?
Then he would have had to deal with prior art claims. The steering wheel was pioneered by Panhard et Levassor.
There should not be any patentable user interface designs. Suppose Ford patented the steering wheel? Then everyone other than Ford who makes cars would be trying to reinvent the control scheme, and then the drivers would be stumped when they sit in that car.
Design patents don't work that way. You might want to go read up on them.
The OP apparently does not understand the difference between a design patent and a utility patent. He/She should learn this before calling this design patent stupid or whatever other inappropriate language was used. Utility patents describe a function; design patents describe only the appearance.
--cover the ornamental, nonfunctional aspects of a design. Think fins on a car, or the flare of the fenders -- again, ornamental and nonfunctional. There's a set of early design patents on the patterns produced by one manufacturer's water fountains.
Design patents on icons and UI elements go back twenty years or more. Early on they were sort of an arms-race among companies with GUIs (disclosure: I'm a patent attorney and filed quite a few design patents for icons over a period of a few years).
Seeing how they cover, once again, ornamental and nonfunctional aspects of a design, getting sued on a UI design patent practically means someone has done something really stupid, like copying the elements of someone's UI design.
Come on, draw your own slider! Use squares instead of circles at the ends! Do something original! Or be ready to argue that the aspects of the element you copied are functional, and not ornamental.
I"m not a fan of patent litigation, but to get nailed on design patents usually means it's pretty close copying.
I do believe White Castle has prior art on that one.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You do realize he is not using your Windows machine to display his message on your flat screen, right?
goto "The hell you say"
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
This is what a design patent is like:
"Be it known that I, AUGUESTE BARTHOLDI, of Paris, in the Republic of France, have originated and produced a Design of a Monumental Statue, representing 'Liberty enlightening the world....'
The statue is that of a female figure standing erect upon a pedestal or block, the body being thrown slightly over to the left, so as to gravitate upon the left leg, the whole figure being thus in equilibrium, and symmetrically arranged with respect to a perpendicular line or axis passing through the ead and left foot... The right arm is thrown up and stretched out, with a flamboyant torch grasped in the hand.... The head, with its classical, yet severe and calm. features, is surmounted by a crown or diadem, from which radiate divergingly seven rays, tapering from'the crown, and representing a halo."
That protected Bartholdi against anyone making copies of the Statue of Liberty for fourteen years.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Copyright does last a very long time, so I don't think most people -want- objects to be copyright protected rather than patent.
The four classes are:
Utility patent: the functional implementation of a functional thing, a machine. Does not cover artistic / decorative elements.
Design patent: Cosmetic design elements of a functional thing. Covers only non-functional decorative / artistic choices.
Copyright: Artistic works which have no functional purpose, things which are only viewed/heard, not used (other than for viewing/reading/hearing).
Trademark: A brand name or symbol indicating who makes or sells the product.
Delorean couldn't get any copyright on the artistic design elements of the Delorean car because a car is a functional thing. They could possibly get a design patent covering unique appearance features, but only to the extent that they aren't required for proper function of the car. So you could probably design patent "a hexagon steering wheel with blah blah blah...", because a round one works as well. But the patent would cover only a _hexagon_steering_wheel_ with those other features, not "steering wheel" (functional) or "hexagon".
On what basis are trademarks more acceptable than design patents?
If you look at the full complaint, it's not just about the slider, it's a comprehensive look-and-feel lawsuit where it's clearly been copied: https://www.eff.org/files/2015...
What's more, the lawsuit appears to be in retaliation for a much more dangerous utility patent telling Microsoft they can't include a live preview in their office products:
http://www.fosspatents.com/201...
I would not include software design patents in a blog covering software utility patents. There's just no comparison. By *definition*, a design patent covers things that don't objectively matter, and therefore they just aren't the same sort of problem. You can get stupid shit like suing over rounded edges of a cellphone in Samsung v. Apple, but it's ridiculous with software when it's a matter of moments to change all future copies, and patch any existing copies (that are receiving updates), to slightly alter the design to not infringe without in any way adjusting the functionality or the backing code.
Slider, n. A bowel movement that slides right out and is caused by eating greasy food. Originally, a derogatory term attributed to White Castle hamburgers. Now, the term is unwittingly embraced as mini-hamburgers on menus at White Castle, Chili's, Applebee's, TGI Friday's, Red Robin, etc.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"