I realize that, I just think it's sketchy for the company to have sat on the the suit for so long and just so happen to file it after Windows 8 and WP8 were released.
Like I said in my previous post if MS violated their patent then some kind of penalty should be applied, but that doesn't make the timing of the suit any less suspect. From an outsider's view it seems like SurfCast sat on the patent and suit until they thought they'd be able to extract the maximum amount of cash.
I would think that a company that actually cared about its patent/product, and isn't just trolling, would file suit or some other sort of defense soon after it discovered the infringing product.
Until Microsoft actually released a product, Surfcast couldn't claim infringement. As long as it is in R&D and not released, it isn't infringement.
Nope, and that's often the strategy of trolls; wait until another company gains traction with "your" "idea" and then bring out the submarine patent and sue for retroactive license payments.
While that is true, it is not the reason. You cannot collect damages for patent infringement until you show the patent was actually infringed upon. The most common way to show that, whether for software patents or other patents is to wait until their is a product shipped that infringes on your patent. To collect damages, you have to show that you were financially harmed and if nobody is releasing a product with your patent, you aren't harmed.
That isn't patent trolling, that is how patent law was designed to work. You might have a patented design for a mouse trap. I am free to design my own mousetrap using your technology. I don't have to seek your permission (or license) to do that. However, I cannot sell (or even give away) my mousetrap without your permission or licensing. R&D occurs all the time that infringes patents, there is no harm to the original patent holder in that. If the R&D looks promising, then patent searches occur and licensing agreements are entered into.
Basically, a patent holder has to wait until an infringing product is released before taking the other guy to court.
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:(
A) Back in 2000 when the patent was applied for, this was a pretty novel idea. You can't use today's understanding to judge 12 years ago, particularly in software. B) It was picked up in a patent search. Microsoft even referenced it in their own patent filing. C) That is a straw man. Are you saying because they didn't first file for infringement in 2010 when WP7 was first released, they cannot enforce their patent now, less than three years later? Maybe they did contact Microsoft and try and settle it. Maybe they didn't but three years is a relatively short time when it comes to defending patents.
Since Microsoft referenced SurfCasts patent in their patent, I suspect Microsoft determined that they were different enough to not require a licensing deal.
Precisely why software patents are a huge hazard. Even if you do a patent search and your lawyers say that you don't infringe on a patent, you can still be sued by the patent holder and be dragged through court to defend it.
I agree with this statement. Usually, though it is Microsoft going after the little guy. Maybe the best thing to come out of this case, assuming it is upheld and Microsoft has to pay big bucks, is that it will force a review of the current patent situation as it relates to software.
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.
Actually, a tile display doing everything that the patent states and details the mechanisms for probably was pretty novel back in 2000 then it was first applied for. As for Surfcast not having any products to sell, that isn't unusual either. Many technical businesses are based on designs - architects, engineers, etc. They don't sell products, either. Then there are businesses that are in the service industry that also don't sell products, but definitely have patents. Selling a product has nothing to do with having a patent. I'm pretty sure there are all types of patents for, say the aerospace industry, that will never actually be manufactured and sold, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid or somebody else can use them in their own design.
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...
Until Microsoft actually released Windows 8, it would be hard to claim damages. It's not infringing until you release a product.
The only products they offer are patents, not practicing, not using, not producing anything. Web page has a fishing rod in the picture. This must be the epitome of patent trolling.
You could apply that to most engineering and architect firms, too. They don't really produce anything either, just designs.
Tiled applications windows date back to at least 1981 with Xerox Star. And there is plenty of prior art for applications that aggregate information.
Surfcast patent includes pulling information from the internet. Kind of hard to do in 1981. Maybe the Xerox Star did that with Compuserve and AOL, but even if it did, it wouldn't have included real time updates as neither of those systems had that capability in 1981.
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.
Surfcast patent includes remote information. I don't think what you were doing in Excel back then pulled information from other sources on the internet and presented it in a tile. Microsoft needs to be careful in how they argue to invalidate the patent claim so as not to invalidate their own patent. The only thing for sure about this case is that some attorneys are going to make a lot of money.
That revenue comes from selling my searches and habits to other vendors.
Google makes most of its money from selling ad space. Yes, they use their vast data mining in their ad business, but they don't sell the data.
At least the local grocery store, which does the same thing, gives me discounts and coupons for the privilege of shopping there so they can sell my information. Why shouldn't Google do the same?
The grocery store does sell data about you and, yes, you get a discount on some items. You want Google to give you a discount? How do you discount free?
One could argue that selling ad space targeted at specific users based on their usage statistics is the same as selling your data. As for Google giving a discount, well, if their entire business model depends on people having high speed internet access, then maybe they could subsidize that high speed internet access. This would be much the same way that Microsoft subsidized the cost of the XBox 360 because the real money was to be made from the selling of games. Google, could help defray the cost of high speed internet in rural areas, for instance and in doing so, would have a whole new crop of people to sell data on.
Google isn't the largest tech company because it can't raise revenue. That revenue comes from selling my searches and habits to other vendors. That revenue far exceeds their costs (or they wouldn't have grown so much). As such, I am not opposed to the notion that if they are profiting from people using the internet, then they can share in the cost of people using the internet.
At least the local grocery store, which does the same thing, gives me discounts and coupons for the privilege of shopping there so they can sell my information. Why shouldn't Google do the same?
I don't know about all of the stuff being proposed, but I kind of like the idea of shifting the costs back to mega corporations like Google and Facebook. Maybe then, they would few the users as customers instead of the product to be sold to others.
The radiation and whether or not they should use scanners and patdowns are two different issues. Commenting on the problems of one does not imply there are not problems with the other and vice versa. The original poster was commenting on the relative safety of the radiation from the scanner, so that is what I commented on.
If you examine the legislation and executive decisions responsible for the civil liberties abuses of the past 12 years, you will find strong bi-partisan consensus for these measures. You mention Romney, but when it comes to the expansion and abuse of executive power, President Obama has been even worse than Bush. Ask Obama about his secret kill list and "disposition matrix". I'm not voting for Romney or Obama.
If he has a secret kill list and "disposition matrix" then how do you know about it? If you know about it, then it must not be secret. You make a lot of statements but no mention of any verifiable facts.
I thought I read that the extra radiation from being at airplane altitudes for an entire flight dwarfs the radiation from the scanner. They also make passive scanners that only use your body's natural radiation.
That may be true, but it is the cumulative effect of radiation that is the problem. So, yes, you may get a larger dose from something else, but that does not mean the dose from the scanner doesn't matter.
I wonder if the Texas AG will prosecute all the people who show up to vote and bring their unauthorized kids along with them, within 100 feet of the polling place? I wonder, if the Texas AG will prosecute the media who get within 100 feet of the polling place? I wonder if the Texas AG, will prosecute the people who violate Chapter 61 of the Texas Election Code by loitering after voting? If the answer to those questions in "No," then what are the reasons to threaten prosecution of the OSCE with prosecution for observing the election? If Uganda did that, the US would be up in arms shouting that the OSCE is to ensure fair elections. Oh, I guess I answered my own question.
Nobody said that users were dumb lemmings. What I said was that Apple had an already in place user base that had/has great loyalty. If engineers and nerd types don't "get" the technology, then the visionaries don't have anything to envision. I would posit that engineers and nerd types do get it, they just aren't overly impressed by it, because it doesn't fit their need.
I do agree that Steve Jobs was a visionary, however, his vision was not what made the iPhone and iPad or even Apple successful. It was the marketing firms that were able to articulate his vision into a product that people would demand. Marketers can help provide a vision for those who don't have it, but they also perform the needed function of articulating the vision of leaders who do have it. That is why I said the marketing of the iphone is the biggest contribution. Having the loyal fan base almost guaranteed its success. But, without Apple's marketing of the iPhone, we would still all be using Blackberry's and Palm devices. Apple's marketing team created the notion in the public's mind that we "need" smartphones, regardless of the manufacture (or the underlying technology).
Engineers and nerdtypes do get this, they just don't buy into it.
This has nothing to do with processing the data from the rover (which comes in at rates a dial-up modem could handle). It's about the web hosting system that lets casual visitors look at the pretty pictures.
NASA could just upload the stills to Flickr and the videos to Youtube and save some money.
That is not quite true. The images that are seen are actually a mosaic of many images. The individual images are served up as a composite on demand from the servers. It is unlikely that NASA would have the time and resources to convert all of them so they could be displayed on Flickr and Youtube.
2: Apple decides to reduce orders from Samsung and order from competitors.
3: Apple demands lower prices for components.
4: Samsung decides to reduce the supply available to Apple.
It sounds like all of those have been gradually happening to a greater and greater degree over time. I don't know which particular item happened first, but once the cycle started it just kept on escalating. The smaller the size of the order by Apple (either in terms of number of components or price per component) the less valuable the contract becomes, and the more Samsung is going to focus on finding alternatives to sell to. The smaller the number of units Samsung makes available to Apple and the less they're willing to budge on price, the more Apple is going to focus on finding alternatives to buy from. The less dependent each of them get on each other, the more the gloves come off in the courtroom. The more lawsuits that get filled, the less comfortable both of them are going to feel about depending on the other to sell/buy components to/from.
Or, Samsung realized that it could use its manufacturing capacity in making screens for Apple to make screens for its own product and those have a much higher profit margin than they got from Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that, I just think it's sketchy for the company to have sat on the the suit for so long and just so happen to file it after Windows 8 and WP8 were released.
Like I said in my previous post if MS violated their patent then some kind of penalty should be applied, but that doesn't make the timing of the suit any less suspect. From an outsider's view it seems like SurfCast sat on the patent and suit until they thought they'd be able to extract the maximum amount of cash.
I would think that a company that actually cared about its patent/product, and isn't just trolling, would file suit or some other sort of defense soon after it discovered the infringing product.
Until Microsoft actually released a product, Surfcast couldn't claim infringement. As long as it is in R&D and not released, it isn't infringement.
Once I ran Winamp and Firefox in these things we call windows.
Very good, but that has nothing to do with the patent in question.
Nope, and that's often the strategy of trolls; wait until another company gains traction with "your" "idea" and then bring out the submarine patent and sue for retroactive license payments.
While that is true, it is not the reason. You cannot collect damages for patent infringement until you show the patent was actually infringed upon. The most common way to show that, whether for software patents or other patents is to wait until their is a product shipped that infringes on your patent. To collect damages, you have to show that you were financially harmed and if nobody is releasing a product with your patent, you aren't harmed.
That isn't patent trolling, that is how patent law was designed to work. You might have a patented design for a mouse trap. I am free to design my own mousetrap using your technology. I don't have to seek your permission (or license) to do that. However, I cannot sell (or even give away) my mousetrap without your permission or licensing. R&D occurs all the time that infringes patents, there is no harm to the original patent holder in that. If the R&D looks promising, then patent searches occur and licensing agreements are entered into.
Basically, a patent holder has to wait until an infringing product is released before taking the other guy to court.
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 :(
A) Back in 2000 when the patent was applied for, this was a pretty novel idea. You can't use today's understanding to judge 12 years ago, particularly in software.
B) It was picked up in a patent search. Microsoft even referenced it in their own patent filing.
C) That is a straw man. Are you saying because they didn't first file for infringement in 2010 when WP7 was first released, they cannot enforce their patent now, less than three years later? Maybe they did contact Microsoft and try and settle it. Maybe they didn't but three years is a relatively short time when it comes to defending patents.
Precisely why software patents are a huge hazard. Even if you do a patent search and your lawyers say that you don't infringe on a patent, you can still be sued by the patent holder and be dragged through court to defend it.
I agree with this statement. Usually, though it is Microsoft going after the little guy. Maybe the best thing to come out of this case, assuming it is upheld and Microsoft has to pay big bucks, is that it will force a review of the current patent situation as it relates to software.
WP7's release is still well within the statute of limitations on patent notification.
Seems to me they are trying to patent AJAX used with a grid based interface.
Except that AJAX wasn't even conceptualized until 2005. That would be 5 years after the original patent submission and 1 year after it was awarded.
Maybe novel 80s. Pretty sure you could achieve this effect with TWM.
Pretty sure you can't. You need to read the actual patent. It is pretty involved and much more than simply displaying tiles on a screen.
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.
Actually, a tile display doing everything that the patent states and details the mechanisms for probably was pretty novel back in 2000 then it was first applied for. As for Surfcast not having any products to sell, that isn't unusual either. Many technical businesses are based on designs - architects, engineers, etc. They don't sell products, either. Then there are businesses that are in the service industry that also don't sell products, but definitely have patents. Selling a product has nothing to do with having a patent. I'm pretty sure there are all types of patents for, say the aerospace industry, that will never actually be manufactured and sold, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid or somebody else can use them in their own design.
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...
Until Microsoft actually released Windows 8, it would be hard to claim damages. It's not infringing until you release a product.
The only products they offer are patents, not practicing, not using, not producing anything. Web page has a fishing rod in the picture. This must be the epitome of patent trolling.
You could apply that to most engineering and architect firms, too. They don't really produce anything either, just designs.
Tiled applications windows date back to at least 1981 with Xerox Star. And there is plenty of prior art for applications that aggregate information.
Surfcast patent includes pulling information from the internet. Kind of hard to do in 1981. Maybe the Xerox Star did that with Compuserve and AOL, but even if it did, it wouldn't have included real time updates as neither of those systems had that capability in 1981.
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
Surfcast patent includes remote information. I don't think what you were doing in Excel back then pulled information from other sources on the internet and presented it in a tile. Microsoft needs to be careful in how they argue to invalidate the patent claim so as not to invalidate their own patent. The only thing for sure about this case is that some attorneys are going to make a lot of money.
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.
That revenue comes from selling my searches and habits to other vendors.
Google makes most of its money from selling ad space. Yes, they use their vast data mining in their ad business, but they don't sell the data.
At least the local grocery store, which does the same thing, gives me discounts and coupons for the privilege of shopping there so they can sell my information. Why shouldn't Google do the same?
The grocery store does sell data about you and, yes, you get a discount on some items. You want Google to give you a discount? How do you discount free?
One could argue that selling ad space targeted at specific users based on their usage statistics is the same as selling your data. As for Google giving a discount, well, if their entire business model depends on people having high speed internet access, then maybe they could subsidize that high speed internet access. This would be much the same way that Microsoft subsidized the cost of the XBox 360 because the real money was to be made from the selling of games. Google, could help defray the cost of high speed internet in rural areas, for instance and in doing so, would have a whole new crop of people to sell data on.
Google isn't the largest tech company because it can't raise revenue. That revenue comes from selling my searches and habits to other vendors. That revenue far exceeds their costs (or they wouldn't have grown so much). As such, I am not opposed to the notion that if they are profiting from people using the internet, then they can share in the cost of people using the internet.
At least the local grocery store, which does the same thing, gives me discounts and coupons for the privilege of shopping there so they can sell my information. Why shouldn't Google do the same?
I don't know about all of the stuff being proposed, but I kind of like the idea of shifting the costs back to mega corporations like Google and Facebook. Maybe then, they would few the users as customers instead of the product to be sold to others.
The radiation and whether or not they should use scanners and patdowns are two different issues. Commenting on the problems of one does not imply there are not problems with the other and vice versa. The original poster was commenting on the relative safety of the radiation from the scanner, so that is what I commented on.
If you examine the legislation and executive decisions responsible for the civil liberties abuses of the past 12 years, you will find strong bi-partisan consensus for these measures. You mention Romney, but when it comes to the expansion and abuse of executive power, President Obama has been even worse than Bush. Ask Obama about his secret kill list and "disposition matrix".
I'm not voting for Romney or Obama.
If he has a secret kill list and "disposition matrix" then how do you know about it? If you know about it, then it must not be secret. You make a lot of statements but no mention of any verifiable facts.
I thought I read that the extra radiation from being at airplane altitudes for an entire flight dwarfs the radiation from the scanner. They also make passive scanners that only use your body's natural radiation.
That may be true, but it is the cumulative effect of radiation that is the problem. So, yes, you may get a larger dose from something else, but that does not mean the dose from the scanner doesn't matter.
I wonder if the Texas AG will prosecute all the people who show up to vote and bring their unauthorized kids along with them, within 100 feet of the polling place? I wonder, if the Texas AG will prosecute the media who get within 100 feet of the polling place? I wonder if the Texas AG, will prosecute the people who violate Chapter 61 of the Texas Election Code by loitering after voting? If the answer to those questions in "No," then what are the reasons to threaten prosecution of the OSCE with prosecution for observing the election? If Uganda did that, the US would be up in arms shouting that the OSCE is to ensure fair elections. Oh, I guess I answered my own question.
Nobody said that users were dumb lemmings. What I said was that Apple had an already in place user base that had/has great loyalty. If engineers and nerd types don't "get" the technology, then the visionaries don't have anything to envision. I would posit that engineers and nerd types do get it, they just aren't overly impressed by it, because it doesn't fit their need.
I do agree that Steve Jobs was a visionary, however, his vision was not what made the iPhone and iPad or even Apple successful. It was the marketing firms that were able to articulate his vision into a product that people would demand. Marketers can help provide a vision for those who don't have it, but they also perform the needed function of articulating the vision of leaders who do have it. That is why I said the marketing of the iphone is the biggest contribution. Having the loyal fan base almost guaranteed its success. But, without Apple's marketing of the iPhone, we would still all be using Blackberry's and Palm devices. Apple's marketing team created the notion in the public's mind that we "need" smartphones, regardless of the manufacture (or the underlying technology).
Engineers and nerdtypes do get this, they just don't buy into it.
This has nothing to do with processing the data from the rover (which comes in at rates a dial-up modem could handle). It's about the web hosting system that lets casual visitors look at the pretty pictures.
NASA could just upload the stills to Flickr and the videos to Youtube and save some money.
That is not quite true. The images that are seen are actually a mosaic of many images. The individual images are served up as a composite on demand from the servers. It is unlikely that NASA would have the time and resources to convert all of them so they could be displayed on Flickr and Youtube.
What is even more amazing that the Curiosity Rover is that somehow Microsoft wasn't selected for a government project.
1: Apple and Samsung get involved in lawsuits.
2: Apple decides to reduce orders from Samsung and order from competitors.
3: Apple demands lower prices for components.
4: Samsung decides to reduce the supply available to Apple.
It sounds like all of those have been gradually happening to a greater and greater degree over time. I don't know which particular item happened first, but once the cycle started it just kept on escalating. The smaller the size of the order by Apple (either in terms of number of components or price per component) the less valuable the contract becomes, and the more Samsung is going to focus on finding alternatives to sell to. The smaller the number of units Samsung makes available to Apple and the less they're willing to budge on price, the more Apple is going to focus on finding alternatives to buy from. The less dependent each of them get on each other, the more the gloves come off in the courtroom. The more lawsuits that get filled, the less comfortable both of them are going to feel about depending on the other to sell/buy components to/from.
Or, Samsung realized that it could use its manufacturing capacity in making screens for Apple to make screens for its own product and those have a much higher profit margin than they got from Apple.