If you read the claims of this patent, you'll see that it is VERY narrow. It is only claiming very specific functions related to the timing of the button press. This is because they couldn't patent anything broader. For example, look at claim 1:
(c) opening an application if the application button is released prior to the expiration of a threshold time limit; and
(d) opening the application and automatically causing the application to display the last known state of the application if the application button is pressed, without being released, for a period equal to or in excess of the threshold time limit.
All this is claiming is what is specifically stated in (d): it will open the application and display the last known state of the app if the button was pressed for a long time. All the other claims are similar to this, they claim only one specific function each.
Remember that in order to infringe on a patent, you must do ALL of the things listed in each claim. So if you don't use the timed button press in any of the specific ways outlined in the patent claims, you won't infringe. In the case of claim 1, if you don't use the timed button to open an application and restore it to it's previous state, you won't infringe. It's also only valid on a "limited resource computing device".
The patent is also a continuation of an application from 1999, which was abondoned. My guess is that they had to keep narrowing the claims to avoid prior art. In this case, the claims are extremely narrow, nothing that can't easily be avoided.
I am a relatively new slashdot reader, and enjoy it very much. But I do get quite annoyed when slashdot posts these patent apocalypse stories. So I'm writing this to teach slashdotters the very basics of patent law so that when a patent is issued, they'll know how to read it in order to determine its scope. This way, other readers of slashdot won't be mislead when reading some of these headlines.
First of all, a patent is completely determined by the claims. (This isn't strictly true: the prosecution history is also important in many cases, but we don't need to worry about that for now). The patent abstract and specification have no legal weight at all without reference to the claims. The specification could say that it is patenting breathing, but this is meaningless without looking at the claims.
If you look at the claims of the patent in this case, you'll see that Microsoft is patenting something very specific. Read the first part of claim 1:
In a computer system that includes one or more scripts that can be selected for execution by a user, a method for facilitating the identification and selection of the one or more scripts for execution, the method comprising the acts of:
This states that Microsoft is patenting a method for a user to select and run a script. Oh noooo! Not that! We'll never be able to code again!
There are further references to packaging this procedure in an XML format, but that has little to do with what they are patenting. There are also other claims, but they all seem to relate to this basic claim.
The fear generated by the headline to this post is unwarranted, as are practically every other patent headline that I have read on slashdot. Whenever I read these stories, I inevitably read the text of the patent, and quickly determine the fears are nil.
Another important thing to know about patents (especially software patents) is how the claims are interpreted and enforced, and hence, how to avoid violating the patent. Again, look at claim 1. There are three elements or limitations to this first claim:
1. incorporating the one or more scripts into a file, wherein the file is formatted in such a manner as to enable the one or more scripts to be associated with different scripting languages;
2. presenting a list of scripts to a user for selection, wherein the list includes an identifier for each of the one or more scripts, the identifier comprising a descriptive name and functional description of each corresponding script; and
3. upon receiving a user selection of a particular identifier that is associated with a script from the list, executing the script that is associated with the particular identifier.
This patent covers these three things, in combination. In other words, if you do one or two of the three things, but not the third, you are not violating this patent.
Does this patent sound a little dubious? On the surface, yes. But my guess is that if you looked at the prosecution history for this patent, the claims would be further restricted in some way so as to make the patent almost worthless.
In my opinion, most, if not all, software patents are quite easy to get around. It's rare for a patent to be constructed in such a way as to completely cover a method of doing something. You can always find a different way of approaching a problem.
The only danger in patents is inadvertently incorporating a patented technique. This is a problem, but spending some time searching the USPTO patent database can be helpful. Is this time consuming? Yes. Is it painful!? Yes. Will you learn lots and lots about patents? Yes.
There's much, much more to say about patents, and how they are really your friend, but that would require something more than a reply to a post.
The basic reference that all slashdotters should read is "Patent Law Essentials" by Alan L. Durham. It's less than 200 pages and explains patent law to the layman very well. Read it and learn - Patents are your Friend!
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the claims of this patent, you'll see that it is VERY narrow. It is only claiming very specific functions related to the timing of the button press. This is because they couldn't patent anything broader. For example, look at claim 1:
(c) opening an application if the application button is released prior to the expiration of a threshold time limit; and
(d) opening the application and automatically causing the application to display the last known state of the application if the application button is pressed, without being released, for a period equal to or in excess of the threshold time limit.
All this is claiming is what is specifically stated in (d): it will open the application and display the last known state of the app if the button was pressed for a long time. All the other claims are similar to this, they claim only one specific function each.
Remember that in order to infringe on a patent, you must do ALL of the things listed in each claim. So if you don't use the timed button press in any of the specific ways outlined in the patent claims, you won't infringe. In the case of claim 1, if you don't use the timed button to open an application and restore it to it's previous state, you won't infringe. It's also only valid on a "limited resource computing device".
The patent is also a continuation of an application from 1999, which was abondoned. My guess is that they had to keep narrowing the claims to avoid prior art. In this case, the claims are extremely narrow, nothing that can't easily be avoided.
I am a relatively new slashdot reader, and enjoy it very much. But I do get quite annoyed when slashdot posts these patent apocalypse stories. So I'm writing this to teach slashdotters the very basics of patent law so that when a patent is issued, they'll know how to read it in order to determine its scope. This way, other readers of slashdot won't be mislead when reading some of these headlines.
First of all, a patent is completely determined by the claims. (This isn't strictly true: the prosecution history is also important in many cases, but we don't need to worry about that for now). The patent abstract and specification have no legal weight at all without reference to the claims. The specification could say that it is patenting breathing, but this is meaningless without looking at the claims.
If you look at the claims of the patent in this case, you'll see that Microsoft is patenting something very specific. Read the first part of claim 1:
In a computer system that includes one or more scripts that can be selected for execution by a user, a method for facilitating the identification and selection of the one or more scripts for execution, the method comprising the acts of:
This states that Microsoft is patenting a method for a user to select and run a script. Oh noooo! Not that! We'll never be able to code again!
There are further references to packaging this procedure in an XML format, but that has little to do with what they are patenting. There are also other claims, but they all seem to relate to this basic claim.
The fear generated by the headline to this post is unwarranted, as are practically every other patent headline that I have read on slashdot. Whenever I read these stories, I inevitably read the text of the patent, and quickly determine the fears are nil.
Another important thing to know about patents (especially software patents) is how the claims are interpreted and enforced, and hence, how to avoid violating the patent. Again, look at claim 1. There are three elements or limitations to this first claim:
1. incorporating the one or more scripts into a file, wherein the file is formatted in such a manner as to enable the one or more scripts to be associated with different scripting languages;
2. presenting a list of scripts to a user for selection, wherein the list includes an identifier for each of the one or more scripts, the identifier comprising a descriptive name and functional description of each corresponding script; and
3. upon receiving a user selection of a particular identifier that is associated with a script from the list, executing the script that is associated with the particular identifier.
This patent covers these three things, in combination. In other words, if you do one or two of the three things, but not the third, you are not violating this patent.
Does this patent sound a little dubious? On the surface, yes. But my guess is that if you looked at the prosecution history for this patent, the claims would be further restricted in some way so as to make the patent almost worthless.
In my opinion, most, if not all, software patents are quite easy to get around. It's rare for a patent to be constructed in such a way as to completely cover a method of doing something. You can always find a different way of approaching a problem.
The only danger in patents is inadvertently incorporating a patented technique. This is a problem, but spending some time searching the USPTO patent database can be helpful. Is this time consuming? Yes. Is it painful!? Yes. Will you learn lots and lots about patents? Yes.
There's much, much more to say about patents, and how they are really your friend, but that would require something more than a reply to a post.
The basic reference that all slashdotters should read is "Patent Law Essentials" by Alan L. Durham. It's less than 200 pages and explains patent law to the layman very well. Read it and learn - Patents are your Friend!