decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Stupid Patent Tricks
Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:59 AM EDT

If you read about Microsoft's patent number 6,727,830, "Time based hardware button for application launch," issued on April 27, 2004, you're probably thinking that now you've heard everything. A patent on double-clicking and on holding down an application button? How can the Patent Office issue such a patent, since you can probably think of several instances of prior art off the top of your head?

Here is the abstract, explaining the patent:

A method and system are provided for extending the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device. Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed. A default function for an application is launched if the button is pressed for a short, i.e., normal, period of time. An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time. Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time, e.g., double click.

Microsoft listed 8 prior art documents, each slightly different from theirs. But then you find a long list of what they asserted was unique to this patent. It drones on a while longer, but although they expend a great many words, what they have patented is simply this:

  • You have a device with a button. If you press the button quickly, you get different behavior than if you hold the button down. Electric typewriters have worked that way for decades, and portable CD players for many years.

  • Press the button twice in a short period, and you get different behavior. This, of course, is the "double click."

Linux systems are full of software which implements the claimed behavior. Double-clicking is found everywhere. The "hold the button for different behavior" can be found in places like the CD player. The patent specifies a "limited resource" computing device, so they are talking about PDA-type systems. The simple fact is that all computing devices are "limited resource," however.

I asked my right-hand man on Groklaw, Dr Stupid, if he could think of any prior art and he had no trouble in about 10 minutes coming up with these possibilities:

The general concept of short press and long press doing different things is not new at all - many embedded devices use it. What the patent is about is a particular use of this concept for launching programs on a device. That is, clicking once on the icon launches the program with one command line parameter, and a double-click a different command line parameter. Or a hold down is yet another.

The very old FVWM window manager for Linux has a 'maximize' button which works like this:

  • Click-and-hold: stretches the window vertically.
  • Single Click: stretches the window but does not cover the taskbar or button bar.
  • Double Click: stretches the window to cover the entire screen.

So you have normal action, hold-it-down action, and double-click action. It's still shipped with SuSE and most distributions to this day, I believe...

To me, it fails the 'not obvious' test. Another one that I wonder if it might be relevant is here:

'If you wish, you can distinguish single, double, and triple clicks. A double click means clicking a mouse button twice in approximately the same place. The first click generates an ordinary click event. The second click, if it comes soon enough, generates a double-click event instead....'

What about some prior art of a hardware button launching an application and doing something different if you hold it down? All right. What about the address book button on the Palm Pilot? A short click launches the application, but a long click starts to beam a specified entry.

I have a manual here for a Palm III, dated 1998-1999, that describes this behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if older models did the same thing. On page 86, for example, it says:

"To Create a New Address Book Entry

"1. Press the Address Book application button on the front of your organizer to display the address list.

"2. Tap New."

There is an icon for the Address Book application button that looks like a telephone receiver. Then on page 139 of the manual, it says:

"Tips on beaming information

"You can press the Address Book application button for about two seconds to beam your business card."

It shows the same icon. Is this not "Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed"? Without analyzing this patent in great depth, certainly we can agree there are patents issued that should not be issued, and the real question is: why does the Patent Office issue them? And why do companies want them?

The answer to the first question is simple: they are understaffed and there is a general policy that you do your best and later the courts can determine if the patent was valid or not.

Why do companies want them? I asked that question of patent attorney Dan Ravicher, head of PubPat, the organization that is dedicated to going after patents that were wrongly issued, and also asked about this specific patent, and here is what he told me:

When I read those claims, I was like, sure, nice try. I doubt Microsoft would ever assert this patent. But, there is still value in building up a portfolio because many valuations are based purely on the objective factor of how many patents or how many claims one has, despite the fact that a wide swath of them are useless. The valuation experts aren't that sophisticated, yet.

A patent, in other words, is an intangible, and you look good to valuation experts if you have a big pile of them.

Does that mean there is no danger? Should something be done? He told me that until Microsoft begins to assert the patent, which so far it seems not to have done, the best thing is just to monitor it. "If Microsoft begins to assert this patent specifically, then we'll review the situation and make a decision about how best to protect the public," he says.

Of course, if anyone wishes, Microsoft might license to you for stone cold cash. A spokesperson for Microsoft says:

"We haven’t had any internal discussions recently about this particular patent. This patent relates to functionality utilized in Microsoft’s Pocket PC. As with most of our patents, we would consider licensing it for others to use on commercially reasonable terms if another company asked for a license. Doing so would be consistent with our December 3, 2003 policy statement. Microsoft receives dozens of patents every week. We don’t speculate on what products may or may not infringe patents."

They are aware, of course, that the FOSS community have no patents, or not enough anyway, to work out cross-licensing deals, so I believe the purpose of accumulating the new patents is to make GNU/Linux cost more, due to royalties they intend to extract for their patents. Or alternatively to price FOSS developers out of the marketplace. Then there are all the patent lawsuit possibilities. I have no doubt that they are building up their patent portfolio for a purpose.


A shorter version of this article appeared originally on LWN.

  


Stupid Patent Tricks | 225 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:22 AM EDT
Surely the ultimate prior art to long and short button pressing is Morse code?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Power On/Off button on my old Handspring Visor...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:28 AM EDT
... is switching the unit off and on when pressed shortly. If you press it any
longer, the backlight will switch on and off as well. One button two hardware
coded functions so what? I hope nobody will be awarded with a wheel patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art Suggestion
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:36 AM EDT
Has anyone heard of morse? Yes, that version of morse. Dots and dashes with a
simple code that translated to letters of the alphabet. The telegraph system
formed the backbone of the US years before even the telephone...

Well, I might be entirely daft with this observation, but would the operator
control for a morse telegraph transmitter, with it's ability to generate a short
"dot" or a long "dash" constitute different functions of the
same button?

How stupid are these people?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: old joe on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:37 AM EDT
When I was a boy, in Dublin (Ireland) in the '60s I would take the bus to
school. To signal the driver to stop the bus I would pull a cord which rang a
bell. The bus would then stop at the next bus stop.

Once everyone was off the bus the bus conductor would jerk the cord twice to
make the bell ding twice and signal the driver to drive off.

Occasionallly the conductor would signal too early - before everyone was off. He
would then ding the bell three times to signal 'stop right now'.

Relevant? I think so. The crucial thing in both cases is that there is only only
signal channel and you want to use it to send different messages.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Tomas on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:48 AM EDT
Ok, I'm a UNIX and Mac user, so I see 'prior art' mostly in those terms.

Just looking at the Apple Mac (and it's forerunner, the Apple Lisa) with their
much maligned single-button-mouse one sees a lot of multiple actions based on
click timing.

From almost the very first of those machines one had click, double-click, triple
click, and click-hold (long click).

For example, in a text editor (or 'finder' or browser, or just about anything
else that uses text on a Mac) typical single-button behavior is as follows:

single-click = position cursor ("focus")
double click = select word
triple click = select line
click-hold = bring up menu of actions

This dates back to maybe 1983 as a public release from Apple ... (For all I know
the old Apple II and Apple III may even have used something similar.)

I believe this probably predates any MS use ...

There are many other multi-function uses of the stock Mac mouse that depend an
click timing to get totally different functions. I've used them for so long that
I can't even think of them - they just happen. ;o)

(My current Mac came with a one-button mouse, but I plugged in my favorite
three-button-plus-scroll-wheel USB mouse and it sorts itself out just fine and
works without extra drivers. Just depends on what one wants to use.)

(Mac since '86, UNIX since '82)


---
Tom
Engineer (ret.)
"Friends don't let friends use Microsoft."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:11 AM EDT

From Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices White and Marshall) in Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, 499 U.S. 365 (1991):

As a preface to a consideration of the "state action" and so-called "Noerr-Pennington" exemptions to the Sherman Act, it is appropriate to remind the Court that one of the classic common law examples of a prohibited contract in restraint of trade involved an agreement between a public official and a private party. The public official - the Queen of England - had granted one of her subjects a monopoly in the making, importation, and sale of playing cards in order to generate revenues for the crown. A competitor challenged the grant in The Case of Monopolies, 11 Co. Rep. 84, 77 Eng.Rep. 1260 (Q.B. 1602), and prevailed. Chief Justice Popham explained on behalf of the bench:

The Queen was . . . deceived in her grant; for the Queen . . . intended it to be for the weal public, and it will be employed for the private gain of the patentee, and for the prejudice of the weal public; moreover the Queen meant that the abuse should be taken away, which shall never be by this patent, but potius the abuse will be increased for the private benefit of the patentee, and therefore . . . this grant is void jure Regio. Id., at 87a; 77 Eng.Rep., at 1264.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Limited resource computing device
Authored by: Jude on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:27 AM EDT
I wonder if there's a little "gotcha" in the stipulation that the
patent applies only to limited resource computing devices.

Computers get more powerful with each passing day. What is state-of-the-art
today will be mediocre tomorrow, and hopelessly inadequate in a few years.
Today's average PDA probably has more compute power than the 386 system I was
using at the beginning of the 1990's.

What happens when progress causes today's state-of-the-art to become tomorrow's
"limited resource computing device"? If I create a product today that
does not infringe the MA patent because it is not a "limited resource
computing device", can MS come back a few years later and sue me when my
device *does* fall into that category?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Time limit?
Authored by: eskild on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:30 AM EDT
I would hve thought that there was some time limit (1 year? 3 years)to when you
could patent somthing you have had on the market already?

I should think that MicroSoft must be minimum 15 years late in applying for
this?

Or is the USPTO limited to search for prior art to their own list of currently
valid patents?


---
Eskild
Denmark

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:32 AM EDT
"Time based hardware button"

About three years ago I released a machine controller design that had an array
of 48 or more neon warning indicators. It also had a "Master Reset"
pushbutton. I provided a function that tested the neon bulbs. It was activated
by holding the Master Reset pushbutton down for two seconds. At that time, all
the bulbs were turned on so they could be visually inspected. The bulbs would go
to their normal state when the button was released.
I thought it was clever, but I didn't think it deserved a patent. This might be
"prior art".
Several of these machines were built and installed in Manhattan and Long
Island.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Fourmyle on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:34 AM EDT
Just a little history. The crank pattent. Back when James Watt improved the
steam engine, some enterprising vulture decided to pattent the crank so that he
could charge Watt for using it. Watt devised a sun and planet gear system to
avoid using a crank. It wasn't a great solution but it did work.
"crank" pattents were disallowed shortly after , too bad we seem to be
entering the same battle again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:37 AM EDT
What about some prior art of a hardware button launching an application and doing something different if you hold it down?

Or how about my ATX PC's power button - a quick press for standby, hold for 4sec to power down. Very definitely predates the July 12 2002 filing date for this patent.

Or the more simple observation that the July 12 2002 filing date means the claims must be extremely restricted, to PDA class devices only because Microsoft 'published' them all for desktop PCs more than 10 years ago in Windows3!

It seems the only novelty in this patent is applying it to pocket class devices. But the PocketPC OS is designed to copy its desktop relatives so how can there be any inventive step? Its just copying!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:44 AM EDT
I wonder if we could patent the reset button 8)

Now that would put a stick in M$ weels!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • TFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:14 AM EDT
    • TFS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:47 PM EDT
/dev/null
Authored by: BJ on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:44 AM EDT
My toilet has that prior art.

If I push the button shortly, it flushes a wee,
if I push it longer, it flushes a heap.

Question is, is my toilet a ``limited resources
computing device''. I can do a number one, I
can do a number two, voila -- math!

BJ




---
__
|Warning:
|Encountered Proprietary Standard and/or Patented Protocol.
|Choose method of payment

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent Office responsability
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:47 AM EDT
Let's imagine I develop something (hardware, software...).

Over the years, somebody else gets a patent that affects my development in spite of the existence of prior art (my product).

Let us suppose that that guy sues me for patent infringement.

Who pays here?

I mean, every developer or engineer takes a risk when he develops something. Which is the risk a patent office takes for granting a stupid patent, taking into consideration the DIRE consequences that it could lead to?

I don't know if that is considered in any legislation. If so, I don't know why I have never heard about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Claims1 and 2 are not even inventive
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:52 AM EDT
I was wondering how long it would be before PJ found this Patent! I got it a few
days ago and was meaning to write critique on it.

Anyway here goes
For all intents and purposes a clickable button is a binary input device, just
like a morse code key or piano key.

As such the degrees of freedom ie number of symbols a particular key can
represent are finite and quantifiable.

M$'s patent claim 1 enumerated 2 of those degrees of freedom and a way to map
those into symbols which are then used as control inputs to an application.
This does not require any inventiveness, it is as easy as counting.
This is the entire freedom set available to a binary input device.

Time domain freedoms:
Time between button starting depression and button ending depression (rate of
keypress)
Time between button release and button ending depression (rate of key release)
Time button is depressed
Time between Depressions

Pressure domain freedoms (analogue):
Pressure applied to button

Applying one of the numerous digital encoding schemes available to this symbol
set is trivial, one reader mentioned morse code, even binary though morse code
reduces to binary after clock extraction.

Mapping a symbol to an action again is trivial, the traffic lights are a good
example red means stop. M$ giving a specific action is irrelevant any sofware
developer knows what functions their software has and mapping functions to
events is trivial.

For example M$ claim about times the buttons are pressed is just a simple binary
mapping.
Lets try this with a 100ms clock single 100 ms button depression 0xb000001
holding button down for 0.5 seconds becomes 0xb011111. Double click could be
0xb000101
anyway applying error correction and mapping it to function in the software
context sensitive or not is again nothing new or difficult.
Devoting an afternoon I could probably enumerate most of the possible encoding
schemes but they are all variations on the same theme.
That covers their entire patent and a lot more, are these people going to now
claim that they own my ideas?


I think the patent office is supposed to test the appliction in that the
invention should not be obvious to someone skilled in the art, this invention
does not pass that test.
Next they will try to patent numbers or maybe anticompetive business methods.

All this stuff is prior art though it would not be written in a way the patent
office would find by simple text searches , information theory covers the
mapping of symbols pretty well and I think CUA91 and 92 might cover some of the
mapping to application functions.
As for their software, it has been done before, how do you think mouse clicks
are interpreted?

I actually think that some of these patent applications might be crafted to
avoid pulling up prior art, that can be done with no knowlege of specific prior
art though it helps.
With M$ funds, it could do many prior art searches and change the wording until
nothing matches.

Globularity (never logged in on Linux)

my A$0.02

Mark

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: jmc on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:17 AM EDT
I think M$ have shot themselves in the foot (yet again) with this one - I spoke
to a European Parliament Election candidate about the issue of software patents
last night and he'd heard of it and was holding it up as an example of the
stupidity of the US Patent system which must not be allowed to be copied in the
EU.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You didn't read the patent very well
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:38 AM EDT
"limited resource computing device"

Good prior art would be games consoles, not PCs. Click and hold in R-Type in
1987, double click (well, double tap) in Golden Axe in 1989. There's probably
more. But let's compare apples with apples.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
I wish that everyone would write to the USPTO and clearly state what boneheads
they are for granting this kind of patents. I did some days ago, adding that
USPTO now have become the laughingstock of the whole world.

/erik

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keyman prior art?
Authored by: eloj on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:29 AM EDT

I'll just continue posting this thread until someone tells me it's irrelevant. HP48/Keyman prior art discussion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Golf Games
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:44 AM EDT
Almost any golf game that uses a mouse press, hold and release to strike the
ball would invalidate this patent. I played an EA Sports game PGA Golf,
somewhere around 1996 that exhibited these traits. I still have a copy of it
somewhere I am sure as do others.....

From our FWIW Dept.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look and feel?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:48 AM EDT
This sounds a lot like 'look and feel'. I thought that nonsense was disposed
of. Can anyone enlighten me?

[ Reply to This | # ]

An encouraging word
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 08:51 AM EDT
can be found here. Hopefully the FTC will get its way. Hurrah, are clashing bureaucracies now a blood sport for spectators?

---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:09 AM EDT
There are (were) numerous coin-op video arcade games where the "fire"
button would shoot differently depending on how long it was held down. Pressing
it for a short (normal) duration would issue a quick, weak shot (but would allow
rapid firing), while holding it for an extended period of time (over a second)
would "charge up" the weapon, such that it could then fire a slow,
powerful shot.

The hardware for arcade machines in the 80's was a very limited resource, far
less computing power than the PDA's available today. Clearly MS's "limited
resource" machine is a very relative term, and the prior art is
voluminous.

Even the remote doorlock for my car has all these features. Press
"unlock" once it unlocks just the driver-side door. Press it twice,
it unlocks all doors. Hold the button down for an extended period of time (over
2 seconds) it starts to roll down the automatic windows (even when the care is
off.)

Chris

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wrong emphasis: should eliminate software patentability
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:31 AM EDT
Software patents only slow down the rate of global innovation. Instead of
attacking these one by one, we need to lobby congress and our fellow americans
to eliminate software patents all together.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Wrong response - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:34 AM EDT
Uneasy about just "monitoring"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT

Well, I'm not a patent attorney, so I guess you should take the word of someone
who is.

But in the legal world, I'm uneasy about just letting something go. Like the
unchallenged lawsuit or abandoned property, could the concept become
self-validating due to inattention?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 10:30 AM EDT

This idea was used at Boeing with certain flight control box maintenance tests.
For example 757 FSEU box(had only one button for maintenance tests) performed
different tests depending on if you pressed the button once fast , once longer,
twice fast , 3 times etc... you get the idea.

As a matter of fact when I looked at this patent , I remembered one of the
names (Jeff something, I don't remember now) being a technician and working on
those boxes way back in 1985(?).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has anybody READ the patent?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT
Upon reading the patent, I think that most comments are incorrect. IANAL,
and I find the verbosity of most patents to be irritating, but...

I believe the patent covers specific functionality upon the various kinds of
clicks. The app can open to its previous state, or open to a new document,
depending on how you click.

They're not claiming a patent on the clicking itself, merely what you do upon
clicking. I don't think that's patentable, but I also haven't seen it done
before.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How sad
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:47 AM EDT
So it has finally come to this. The second greatest company in the second
greatest country. The country that put man on the moon.

First opening a McDonalds in the middle east was an export. Then burger-flipping
became an industrial operation. Now this.

I have not read the full patent application, but from what has been given here,
there seems to be a gap between the part of the patent concerning pressing the
button and the part of the patent concerning the launching of the application.
All the patent seems to cover is the motion of the finger - in fact it does not
even say that you need to use your finger to press the button. Is the button a
mechanical device? Does it operate an electrical contact? How does the signal
get from the button to the computer? How is the time that the button is
depressed measured? How does this value produce differences in the way an
application is launched?

Suppose Henry Ford 1 had decided to patent...

A means of conveying persons from A to B

The persons to be conveyed are each required to occupy an empty space. Said
empty space may hold one or more persons and the means of conveyance may have
one or more such empty spaces which may be separate or contiguous.

A and B are separated by a continuous empty space sufficient in cross-section to
allow the passage of said conveyance.

The speed and direction of the conveyance from A to B is controlled by commands
issued by an automatic device or by a person situate inside or outside the
conveyance or any combination thereof or may be inherent in the construction of
the conveyance and/or of any construction in the space between A and B.

Think, old Henry went to all that trouble to build factories to make cars when
one short patent would have allowed him to collect royalties on every means of
conveyance from the fireman's pole to Apollo!

Sorry about the "seconds", old English joke plus my teacher never gave
anyone 100%.

Who said GROKLAW wasn't fun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • How sad - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT
  • How sad - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 01:12 AM EDT
Star Office prior art
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:49 AM EDT
As long as I can remember, Star Office, prior to v. 6, exhibited the long click
behavior. In SO and now OOo, when "long"clicking" on icons with a
little green tringle, the button will bring about a different behavior than a
short clicking

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:57 AM EDT
Geeze. We had double click on the Xerox Alto computers which were around in the
late 60's. When I developed the optical mouse for Xerox (patent 4,751,505), we
had to be sure the switches didn't have "switch bounce" or we would
get false double-clicks.

Since the Alto was the very first window-mouse-icon based system in the world,
long before the Apple Lisa and Windoze, there is now way that Micro$oft didn't
know this was bogus.

If M$ can patent this, then I think I'll patent water.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT

have a look at

http://www.invair.de

maybe this little linux-PDA already implemented
the functionality since it has very few pushbuttons
prior to the patent filing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why can't the public sue the USPTO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 12:39 PM EDT
Seriously. They are trusted with the power and responsibility to assert
Constitutional rights that are limited and have defined parameters (somewhat
broad, I would agree).

If they hold the public trust and fail it consistently in a "see nothing,
hear nothing, take it to court" kind of way, why can't the public sue the
Patent Office based on those failures?

I mean, here's a public office that doesn't have to pay for its mistakes,
doesn't have to respond to the public, and doesn't have to pay Court fees.

Hey, that's a good idea: The USPTO should pay Court costs for every single
lawsuit that ends up in the invalidation of a patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT
Read the patent more carefullty! It doesn't claim what you think it does.

This pattent does *not* claim the idea of having different behavior for short or
long button presses. It cliams only *particular* different behaviors.

When you read a patent, always start with the first claim:

1. A method for expanding the functionality of an application button on a
limited resource computing device, comprising:

(a) detecting that an application button associated with a limited resource
computing device application has been pressed;

(b) determining the length of time the application button has been pressed;

(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.

See? If you do anything *else* in response to a long press, it isn't coverd by
this claim.

There are dependant claims that are very detailed discriptions of a interface.
The only thing they cover is using *exactly* the same interface.

I'll bet that there are *some* clamed combinations that no one has used before,
so some claims may survive the novelty test. That an invention is obvious (as
this one is) is much harder to prove.

It looks like MS is just trying to keep people from exactly copying their
interface.

I am not a patent lawyer, but I do have a patent. Reading patents is an aquired
skill. My patent lawyer was a bit senile, so I had to learn fast :-).

[ Reply to This | # ]

ACTUNG This isn't a Stupid Patent Trick ...
Authored by: AntiFUD on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT
I am not a lawyer, an electrical engineer, nor a programmer, and I have not read
the Patent, but (unless we are all missing something) THIS IS A SOFTWARE PATENT.
I am basing my reasons for this statement (and yes I did mean to shout) on the
fact that it is not the button per se that elicits the action or one of multiple
actions. All buttons and most switches for that matter only allow a flow of
electricity and in most cases, especially in a "limited resource"
computing device, DC current is used and this means that current (the flow of
electrons) is one-way. DC is inherently binary i.e. on or off. So in order for
MS's patent to work there must be some sort of clock, counter or other timing
device that determines the 'space' between connection (i.e. current flow) and
disconnect and in the case of a double-click, for example, it would measure the
separation of two reasonably sequential connections. It is the software,
whether embedded on a chip, or whether part of the "limited resource"
computing device's OS, that determines the resultant action / reaction.

The Morse Code key doesn't use software, but MS's handheld device does. While I
can think of a button that is mechanically attached to a rheostat, thereby
changing the current flow as the button is pushed deeper, this, as far as I
know, would be exceedingly difficult to miniaturise, and would truly warrant a
Patent had MS actually invented something (which they could demonstrate).

Do I now have to go out and buy a MS handheld to take it apart to find out if
the button is mechanical / electrical rather than activating a piece of software
that determines the devices reaction to my pressing a button. Incidentally, I
didn't know that MS is now manufacturing a PDA - does anybody know what it is
called?

If I am right and this IS a Software Patent, then it is hardly surprising that
none of the companies mentioned heretofor (above) have patented the IDEA. Not
only do I believe that MS didn't INVENT double-click, they don't appear to have
thought of it first and therefore cannot get a copyright on the source code
(since we all know that such code is a derivative of SCO's UNIX - the first OS
with an on/off switch. Said switch changes the meaning of the licence that you
may have negotiated 18 years ago with a completely different company).

Do you know where your family is?
Have you hugged them lately?
Did you get a different response if you hugged them harder or longer?
What happens if you hug - release - hug again (Double-Hug)TM patent pending (but
not in Japan [see / search on Kokai above].

---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT
All right, thats enough of that then. A non-profit organization is needed to
scan for technology patent applications on obvious 'inventions'. This group
would raise red-flags when someone tries to sneak under the radar with daft
patents like this one.
Oh wait... thats supposed to be the function of the PATENT OFFICE. Pretty sad
state of affairs there in the U.S.A., land of the free-to-litigate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT
I think some people here are missing the point of the patent application. It is not simply a double click.

A method and system are provided for extending the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device. Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed. A default function for an application is launched if the button is pressed for a short, i.e., normal, period of time. An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time. Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time, e.g., double click.

In other words, press the button and the application launches. Hold the button, and you are allowed to execute the same application with different parameters, or a completely different application. The button hold would cycle through a list of possible applications or different parameterized alternatives.

For example, assume a desktop icon (such an object being clickable) were to exist to launch OpenOffice.

  • Click the icon, and OO executes
  • Hold the button, and url changes to run 'OpenOffice opening 'My Manuscript', or 'My Thesis'.
  • Hold it longer, and it changes to 'Backup 'My Manuscript'... etc..

This is actually a good idea. Yes, MS actually has good ideas (although I have always maintained that their implementation was less than desirable).

As far as patentable, well, this should surely fall under the 'obvious' rule.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DVD Remote Control
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT
I was using a device that implements this behavior just the other day.

It was a DVD remote control unit. If I pressed the "forward" button
briefly it would advance to the next chapter on the disk. If I held it down for
a longer period it would fast forward. The longer I pressed it, the faster it
would advance. First at double-speed, then quadruple-speed, etc.

Of course it's a hardware device, but something tells me the behavior is
implemented by software embedded in a controller chip.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Car radio
Authored by: tizan on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:37 PM EDT

I use to drive a 1982 Buick Skylark which had a clock radio

You would press and hold a button to store a radio frequency
you would press that button in a shorter time to get that stored station...

you would press 2 buttons for more than 5 seconds to be able to change the time
on the clock

Isn't that before MS windows ever existed...


I get upset when people who have been charging for bad software (anybody
remember the hours of frustration and hanging and reboots that one had with
windows3.1 or windows 95 etc) and charge you for getting you bug fixes now tells
you that they own double click....really the schutzpa !

Who as the patent for crtl-alt-del...dang they should own that one at least !

Why don't we patent picking up trash and putting it in a bin ! I can see lots
of kids saying " mom give me money as i have to pay for the patent to take
out the trash".

---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art from the mid-seventies
Authored by: stutchbury on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT
Do you recall the original LED watches from the mid-seventies? These had exactly
this functionality - pressing the button for varying periods gave you access to
all sorts of applications: stopwatch, calendar, lap counter etc...

How on earth did this get through the patent system?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The REAL target...
Authored by: J.F. on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT

of application buttons on a limited resource computing device

First, remember that recently, Microsoft has been pushing to make Windows Media format audio and video MANDATORY in the next generation of DVD players. Now remember that the description above specifically applies to any set-top box, be it cable, satellite, or DVD.

See the connection? Unable to force the specifications bodies into making companies adopt WMV/WMA, they get a patent which allows them to wield a big club over those companies making the players.

"I'm sorry, those DVD Players violate our patent. BUT, just add WMA/WMV (for a small fee of course) and we'll forget all about it."

Remember that Microsoft has been trying desparately to get into the media business to extend their monopoly for years. Now they have the means to force their way in to all media channels - cable, satellite, DVD, and HDTV.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google: Heinlein waterbed patent
Authored by: edumarest on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT
My favorite author (Robert Anson Heinlein, creator of "to grok") since
I was 10 described a waterbed in one of his books.

Years later someone attempted to patent the waterbed. The patent was disallowed
because of RAH's description perviously in his book, Double Star, where it was
used as an acceleration couch.

Ed Halley has some interesting perceptions about our PTO here:
http://www.halley.cc/ed/microrants/

---
...if you cannot measure it then you cannot troubleshoot it, you can only
guess...
SuSE 9.0 on hp pavilion ze 4560us

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT
Prior Art?
Two words: Morse code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT
My car radio is a limited computing device (it has a microprocessor in it). If I
press a channel button it selects the channel. If I hold the button down it
programs the channel. Same thing to select balance, bass and treble from the
same knob... Nothing new here.

The truth about patents is all they do is give legal standing to defend a
particular piece of IP in court. I am sure this is all Microsoft wants anyway.
The strategy is to delay. Tech moves so fast so a delay is the same as a win.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do those people still shave themselves...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT
or do they need someone to do it because looking inside a mirror reflecting
their face would be too much to bear?

I feel I'm on the wrong planet lately.

Noah, build another arch, I fear we will need one quite soon...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT : doubleclicks, Prior Art
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:07 PM EDT
Today ladies and gentlemen we have with us the Honorable Mr. OG. Mr. Og has
graciously offerred to tell us across a gap of 50,000 years about his inventions
related to the so-called microsoft double-click patent.

If you please. Mr. OG :

OG: First example:
draw line in dirt....it mean number one.
draw two lines in dirt.....it mean number two.

Second example:
hit rabbit one time with stick.... it mean go away.
hit rabbit two times with stick, it mean lunchtime.




[ Reply to This | # ]

mobile phones
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:26 PM EDT
Mobiles are limited resource machines (and some of them are working as a
browser/computer). They have less buttons than letters in the alphabet. You type
in letters by holding a button longer. Dunno if this counts, but i guess it
does.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 04:48 PM EDT
Since MS is claimng to have invented the double-click,
does this give any leverage to take out a class action
suit for RSI in the wrist tendons?

[ Reply to This | # ]

PubPat and EFF..
Authored by: The_Rajah on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:13 PM EDT
Are two organizations that are working on the problem of these run-away patents with some degree of success. I support both of them with donations. You might take a look at them and see if you think they deserve some consideration. Pubpat Electronic Frontier Foundation

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

---
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 05:51 PM EDT
The patents that Microsoft gains do not have to be valid, they just have to
cover "technologies" used in FOSS software. Once a big enough
portfolio of patents is gained, Microsoft will attempt to kill off Linux with a
constant stream of lawsuits. They don't need to win- even the threat of such
lawsuits can put customers off- the swarms of flies round the SCO turd show
that, and Microsofts wallet is big enough to attract a serious plague of flies.
So it's not the validity that will make headlines, but the fact that when they
file their suit in 2006 or whenever, it will be for breach of thousands of
patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ we need to up the ante
Authored by: shareme on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 06:26 PM EDT
We need to up the ante to show how stupid software/hardware patents are..

Possible suggestions..

We patent the middle finger salute windwos users use when encountering a blue
screen.. we could call i the Bill Gates salute..

When this patent gets approved then we can take in a road show to Lawmakers in
Wash DC to demostrate that the patent office strcuture is broken

---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So this is the Microsoft innovation
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:19 PM EDT
That is so important to the future of the computer industry and mankind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Simon G Best on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:42 PM EDT

US software patents just aren't credible anymore.

---
Open and Honest - Open Source

[ Reply to This | # ]

Toss the Bogus Inventors in Jail.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:56 PM EDT
When an inventor files a patent he must certify under oath that he is the true
and only inventor of the invention. This includes the requirement of due
diligence to research and disclose the prior art and the understanding of the
rules pertaining to what is meant by the word "obvious."

One must swear to this under penalty of perjury with the patent application.
Have done it myself.

Some inventors intentionally avoid searching and disclosing the prior art first
in the hope to fool the patent office (easy) and second, to avoid the perjury
charge (smart).

I would bet that the number of individuals who have faced charges for bogus
patents can be counted on one hand.

SOMEBODY needs to got to jail for this nonsense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Action against M$ 's patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 07:57 PM EDT
PJ; As I read this post, and your warning, I wondered if anyone has started a
repository of MS patents. If they are going to use them against us, as it seems
obvious, we should be prepared. A repository where patents are listed and
'prior art' referenced against them - leaving only the valid ones to be
concerned about would be, I think, valuable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do we really need to worry about defending against this?
Authored by: chrism on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:40 PM EDT
I really don't think these silly patents are meant to stand up in court (I mean
I don't think MS thinks they will when they file them).

I think they represent a form of breast beating for the benefit of investors.

I think the real defense linux has against these sort of attacks is how useful
it is to so many people. I don't think any court could make it illegal to use
linux (say, in response to such a patent suit brought by MS). For one thing,
don't many courts already use linux in many capacities, including running their
websites? Doesn't congress?

I can just see the complaint before the court:

MS: please declare linux against the law to use because it infringes roughly
1.0e6 patents of ours.
Judge: I see. You realise this court runs on linux?
MS: So?
Judge: So you are calling me a thief?
MS: Um...

I think what we are witnessing is the self-destruction of the patent system. I
wonder if we shouldn't be applauding these silly patents as each one is granted.
They are just showing how dead the system already is.

Chris Marshall

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: dracoverdi on Saturday, June 05 2004 @ 11:58 PM EDT
Spring-load folders in MacOS is an example.

Because of their stubborn attachment-er-loyalty to the one button mouse
Mac OS has several examples of press and hold in its interface.

Of course many GUI's used double clicks prior to Microsoft having a GUI.

Apple's "sticky key" easy access feature is another example.

Most computer keyboards, like typewriters before them change behavior
(repeat the character) if you hold the key down.

The "receiver" on an old (or possibly mature) rotary telephone is
another
example.

Tail light verses turn signal is a similar concept.

One could write an entire book on the subject with resorting to Strunk and
White.

That would be an interesting thing to do, actually, collect prior art examples
for each of these idiot patents that come along.

Is there a website already doing this?

---
The best tasting beer isn't free. It's home brewed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 12:20 AM EDT
1. Doesn't MS-Windows already do something like this? One click to highlight,
two clicks to launch, slow-click to edit the name.

2. Old single-channel radio-control models used the same trick to control
several functions on that one channel. There was generally an escapement on the
model, and the controller held a rotating cam -- or, you just held a button down
the required number of seconds. I first came across the technique in a book back
in the early sixties. I also recall seeing something about using a
shift-register IC for the same purpose.

Rand -- not logged in

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 11:35 AM EDT
Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 12:35 AM EDT
Digital watches use a delay of 1 or 2 second before changing to edit mode.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 03:35 AM EDT
Car radio

Many car radios use button pust to switch channels and holding the button
pressed to store channel setting. The one I have in my car is probably more than
15 years old :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Couple of links to news articles
Authored by: eddsouza on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 04:42 AM EDT
These may interest some; couldn't find these links in this topic:

June 4, 2004 Microsoft Double-click Patent Sows FUD By Susan Kuchinskas, internetnews.com
Most experts agreed that, despite the use of the word "double-click" in the abstract, this is not, in fact, a patent on the double-click.

"You can ascertain that just by reading the patent, which evidently a bunch of folks have not bothered to do," said Jupiter Research analyst Michael Gartenberg. "On most handheld devices, if you want to activate a second function, you have to activate a control or function key. And the Microsoft patent is using time intervals or pressing it several times to change the behavior of the key." (Jupiter Research and internetnews.com are owned by the same corporation.)"


Also may be of interest:
2 June, 2004 - Technology industry hits out at 'patent trolls' - By Maggie Shiels, news.bbc.co.uk
"Mad cap patents ranging from protecting a method of painting by dipping a baby's bottom into paint or a system for keeping track of people queuing for the bathroom may soon be a thing of the past if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has its way."


Eddie
---
"Hi. This is Dan Cassidy's answering machine. Please leave your name and number... and after I've doctored the tape, your message will implicate you in a federal crime and be brought to the attention of the F.B.I... BEEEP"
-- Blue Devil comics

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft patented an Apple Tree??
Authored by: eddsouza on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 05:24 AM EDT
Right, someone correct me - the Assignee of a patent, especially if it's a company, is the owner of the patent, right?
I thought Microsoft was a software development company (what they don't borrow or buy, I mean). What are they doing with a patent for "Apple tree named `Burchinal Red Delicious`"???
A new and distinct variety of apple tree which originated as a sport limb mutation of `Wells and Wade cultivar` Oregon Spur.RTM. of red delicious apple tree (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 2,816), characterized by a more uniform deeper red color, developing much earlier than fruit of other red delicious varieties, and having a thicker stem and longer, deeper red leaf midvein.
Inventors: Burchinal; Robert (East Wenatchee, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.: 313685
Filed: December 6, 2002


Eddie
---
... in three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being ... The machine will begin to educate itself with fantastic speed. In a few months it will be at genius level and a few months after that its powers will be incalculable ...
-- Marvin Minsky, LIFE Magazine, November 20, 1970

[ Reply to This | # ]

Links to a few more M$ patents
Authored by: eddsouza on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 06:13 AM EDT
Before I lose interest and crash out, here are some more patents assigned to MSFT, if anyone here wants a headache ;)
Multiling ual user interface for an operating system

Online service registration system and method

System for application independent programming of controls

Resonant thermal out-of-plane buckle-beam actuator
Can anyone decipher this one?

Method and system for reporting failures of a program module in a corporate environment
So what if it fails on your home machine?<shrug>

Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms
Ever clicked in a textbox?

I'm beginning to understand why lawyers need special training to understand this stuff. <g>

Eddie
---
Cosmotronic Software Unlimited Inc. does not warrant that the functions contained in the program will meet your requirements or that the operation of the program will be uninterrupted or error-free.
However, Cosmotronic Software Unlimited Inc. warrants the diskette(s) on which the program is furnished to be of black color and square shape under normal use for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of purchase.
NOTE: IN NO EVENT WILL COSMOTRONIC SOFTWARE UNLIMITED OR ITS DISTRIBUTORS AND THEIR DEALERS BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFIT, LOST SAVINGS, LOST PATIENCE OR OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
. -- Horstmann Software Design, the "ChiWriter" user manual

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 12:34 PM EDT
Ummm...wouldn't morse code be some prior art? Single click = dot, hold down the
button = dash?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 09:02 PM EDT

I've ATARI STFM with 4096 color and two button mouse with FUnction as m$
describe and I have it since 1985...ohh..ohh what about Amiga 1000/2000/5000
???
m$ DOS was 2 color screen.

This is going to be bad for OFSS if US patent system not changed..


[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: radix2 on Sunday, June 06 2004 @ 09:24 PM EDT
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa001&colID=7&articleID=0004A644
-73F8-10A9-A47783414B7F0000
Scientific American
June 2004 issue

The Silent Revolution
An upcoming book deciphers in plain language what ails the patent system
By Gary Stix


Image: JENNIFER KANE

Ex parte Allen. The doctrine of equivalents. Methods of doing business.
Interferences. The First Inventor Defense Act. Reduction to practice. The mental
steps doctrine. Disclosure under section 102(e). Derivation under section
102(f). The recapture rule. Laches and estoppel. Graver Tank v. Linde Air
Products Co. Jepson claims.

The patent bar is a priesthood with its own secret dialect, intelligible only to
initiates. Two economists--Adam B. Jaffe of Brandeis University and Josh Lerner
of Harvard Business School--have now undertaken to translate for the rest of us
the inner workings of the patent process and then to dissect what plagues it.
Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering
Innovation and Progress and What to Do about It is to be published by Princeton
University Press in October. The book describes how two seemingly well-meaning
changes made by the U.S. Congress have engendered the current crisis. In what
the authors call a "silent revolution," Congress in 1982 took what
appeared to be the relatively mundane decision of assigning all appeals in
patent cases to a single court--the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC). Intended to eliminate "forum shopping" (the attempt by
plaintiffs to find the most patent-friendly jurisdiction), the congressional
move ultimately resulted in a court whose specialized nature tended to turn it
into an advocate of patent holders' rights. The CAFC has issued ruling after
ruling that sustains lower-court findings of patent infringement and has
fostered the extraction of greater damages from defendants. It has even made it
easier for a patentee to shut down a competitor's business before the patent is
shown to be valid. And its rulings have held that software, business methods and
certain biotechnologies--considered by many to be unpatentable--are eligible to
receive patents.


The other major action by Congress came in the early 1990s, when, during the
annual budgetary process, it converted the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from
a primarily taxpayer-funded agency to one that survives on the fees it collects.
The revamped structure, intended to serve patent applicants in a businesslike
manner, created incentives to process patent applications as fast as possible,
with little heed to the complexity of a particular application. The two actions,
Jaffe and Lerner assert, led to a decline in rigor in the standards by which
patents are assessed. The impact of the changes resulted in an explosion in
patents granted: annual increases in patenting had nudged along at a rate of
less than 1 percent from 1930 to 1982; in contrast, that rate skyrocketed to
about 5.7 percent from 1983 to 2002.

Rather than marking a blossoming of innovation, the patent boom has signified a
rise in the number of questionable patents, such as, infamously, a Smucker's
patent on crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. A broadening of patent
coverage has also inhibited research. For instance, some medical investigators,
the authors note, have abandoned their programs to study two breast cancer genes
because of what they perceive as onerous licensing terms imposed by Myriad
Genetics, the holder of the patents on these genes. A concurrent growth in
infringement lawsuits creates a situation in which established companies, often
with declining market shares but large patent portfolios, file suit against
smaller firms, forcing the defendants to pay royalties that crimp their ability
to conduct their own research and development. The collective effect has
produced what the authors characterize as nothing less than a tax on innovation.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 12:21 AM EDT

US patent system is badly broken and needs to be fix. I just find it awkward that any others country will like to imitate this behavior (like part of Europe seem to be ready to do)

I believe the US patent office should be the place were the checks are done. I means, if Microsoft want to have a patent for something important, the US office should check it until convince that this is a genuine thing.

Then, if somebody want to dispute a “patent”, the US Patent office should be sue and forced to pay damage (maybe with moneys someone put in trust). With such a mechanisms, the cost to obtain a patent will be high (search fee very high). Almost nobody will ask for them unless their is a real good reason for it.

Meanwhile, for many foreigner, the only valid reason explaining that such “stupid” patent can be awarded… is probably because somebody at the US Patent office receive a kickback.

Example of previous arts for this patent: Literally 100 of them exist. I have a phone answering machine that "erase" the last message if I press it once and all of them if I press it twice.

I have a light dimmer that will "switch the light on/off" if I touch it fast. However, it change the intensity upward/downward if I keep touching it.

A car alarm system that do different thing if I press the unlock key once (driver door) or twice (all doors). The lock key press once lock the doors, twice set the alarms system and press continually start the "Panic alarms system".

[ Reply to This | # ]

digital watch 20 years ago
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 02:09 AM EDT
I can remember that my 5$ digital watches 20 years ago (which certaily are
resource constraint devices) could start the stop-watch programm when I pressed
1 of 2 buttons shortly while it started the "time set" programm when I
pressed it for a longer time.

(Even if the Japanese manual wasn't able to say that in plain English :-).)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: muxx on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 09:27 AM EDT
I used to have a Panasonic tape player back 1994 I think (and
it had parent models before with similar controls). it had
only one button on the remote. if you press it short, it will
start/stop playing. if you do double/treple click, it will
ff/rewind. and if you press long, it will start playing from
the other "side" of the cassete.
can anyone explain me, how is it different from launching
applications ?
patents rule, what else can I say !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT
I agree Digital watches have been doing this for a very long time. I hold press
the button and Timex indiglo comes on for a moment. I press and hold it for a
second and idiglo is now activated whenever a any button is pressed -- for 8
hours. Another button I press once to change the mode, or press and hold for
x-seconds to set.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid Patent Tricks
Authored by: k12linux on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:38 PM EDT
It would be nice to see a system where a patent clerk's income was tied to what
percent of the patents they issued are overturned during the following 1-2
years. Of course that would also require some system to prevent senior clerks
from grabbing only the applications where it is clear the request is valid.

---
- k12linux

[ Reply to This | # ]

samsung i300 (sprint pda phone) does this...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT
I've got a button on my samsung palm pilot/sprint phone that, when tapped once,
brings up the phone application to the foreground, and when pressed and held,
turns the device off.
I'm sure my ancient palm pilot doesn't implement this hot new idea any where
else (ha ha...)
Sorry, I'd log in but I'm at work. :)
-jnderose

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )