Apple, Google, Microsoft sued over icon previews

[AppleInsider]

Apple, along with fellow tech heavyweights Google and Microsoft, are accused in a new lawsuit of patent infringement for their use of icons that include a graphical representation of a file's contents.

The 4-page complaint filed this month by Arizon-based Cygnus Systems, Inc charges all three companies with infringing on its March 2008 US patent No. 7,346,850, titled "System and Method for Iconic Software Environment Management."

"The [patent] generally relates to methods of and systems for accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, wherein the graphical icon includes an image of a selected portion or portions of the one or more computer files," the suit says.

In particular, Cygnus takes issue with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard's use of icon previews in traditional Finder windows, as well as more detailed views presented by QuickLook icons that are accessible when viewing Finder windows in Cover Flow mode.

"Apple has further infringed one or more claims of [the patent] at least by making, using, selling, and offering for sale its iPhone and iPhone’s accompanying iconic file preview and access functionality, including but not limit to the iconic file preview and access functionality of iPhone’s main menu and Safari Internet browser applications," the complaint adds.

Similarly, Microsoft is charged for its use of iconic file previews in Vista and Internet Explorer, while Google is accused of treading on the patented concept via iconic file previews present in its relatively new Chrome web browser.



Cygnus, which bills itself as a provider of "unique computing, networking and application needs of small to midsized businesses" in the state of Michigan, is seeking a damages in addition to an injunction prohibiting the three companies from further infringement.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[hmurchison]

We
need
patent
reform
NOW!

[dpackman]

Don't you dare take a breath. That is patented as of last March.

[Roos24]

Here we go again. How much does this all cost and who is paying for it? We all know who will be the winners in the end: the lawyers. Well, I guess that's what you can expect in a country where there are probably more lawyers in every single state alone than there are in all of Japan....

[Cubert]

This sounds like a great business strategy!

I think I'm going to go patent the wheel.

[pmjoe]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

We
need
patent
reform
NOW!

Can we patent that remark?

Seriously, throw out ALL software patents. Throw out all software user interface patents. If it is not patentable in a mechanical, physical form, throw it out.

Ideas are not patentable. Only implementations of ideas are patentable. Software implementations are protected by copyrights, not patents.

[l008com]

I'm going to patent the patent. Then all your patent are belong to us!

[mcarling]

Originally Posted by Cubert

I think I'm going to go patent the wheel.

An Australian patented the wheel about 15 years ago. I think it was reported in Wired magazine at the time.

The Cygnus patent should be thrown out for being obvious. I remember discussing the idea with a colleague who suggested it in 1983 when we first saw the original Mac. I commented that there wasn't enough computing power for that to be worthwhile, but someday it would happen. Neither of us thought it would take as long as did. A few years later, it was one of the features I expected from NeXT but didn't get.

[l008com]

Also, I had icon previews back in system 7, which was at least 15 years ago. I can't imagine this lawsuit has ANYTHING to stand on.

[BHoughton]

I just did this with the word "The", "the", "THE", "tHe", "thE", and "tHE".

I'm going to sue all of you who are using it in any sentence which is publicly displayed in any shape or form.

[l008com]

Originally Posted by BHoughton

I just did this with the word "The", "the", "THE", "tHe", "thE", and "tHE".

I'm going to sue all of you who are using it in any sentence which is publicly displayed in any shape or form.

That is THe dumbest patent ever.

[jbcaro]

Cygnus, which now bills itself as a leech...

[satchmo]

It's great when you get to sue your partners.

From their website:

Our Partners
We partner with only the top line software and hardware suppliers.
We are Microsoft Gold Certified. Providing only the latest microsoft software for businesses.

[Mystigo]

Adobe Photoshop has been putting icon representations on files for at least 10 years. QuickTime has been doing it for at least as long as well. The "Set Poster Frame" in QuickTime Player which lets you pick the icon that represents the file in the Finder goes back so far in time that I lose all recollection of when it first appeared. This is just crazy.

[jimdouglas]

I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, but this seems like a pretty obvious (i.e. unpatentable) feature to me.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...flex070430.pdf

§103 of the Patent Act forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”

[Chris_CA]

Originally Posted by dpackman

Don't you dare take a breath. That is patented as of last March.

The patent was approved in March 2008.
However, it was filed on 8 June 2001 and is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/097,283, filed Jun. 12, 1998 now abandoned.

[ericblr]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

The patent was approved in March 2008.
However, it was filed on 8 June 2001 and is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/097,283, filed Jun. 12, 1998 now abandoned.

OK, if the patent wasn't approved until this past March, then in the meantime how could anyone have infringed upon a patent that didn't exist until now. It is not officially patented until it is approved right?

[ericblr]

Originally Posted by pmjoe

can we patent that remark?

Seriously, throw out all software patents. Throw out all software user interface patents. If it is not patentable in a mechanical, physical form, throw it out.

Ideas are not patentable. Only implementations of ideas are patentable. Software implementations are protected by copyrights, not patents.

a
g
r
e
e
d
!
!
!
:-)

[teapea]

i patented ":-)" last week

im now going to sue you all

where's my lawyer

mwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa, im going to be rich!

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by jimdouglas

I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, but this seems like a pretty obvious (i.e. unpatentable) feature to me.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...flex070430.pdf

§103 of the Patent Act forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”

Exactly. The patent should have never been awarded.

Check it out.

[jimdouglas]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Exactly. The patent should have never been awarded.

Check it out.

Good find; I couldn't remember how far back live icons were available. That would actually invalidate the patent for a second reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

Standard disclaimer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL

[quinney]

Originally Posted by BHoughton

I just did this with the word "The", "the", "THE", "tHe", "thE", and "tHE".

I'm going to sue all of you who are using it in any sentence which is publicly displayed in any shape or form.

Your patent is worthless without "teh".

[GregAlexander]

The law was changed a couple of years back, so that it was easier to get a patent (you didn't have to prove no prior art etc anymore) but if it was challenged you THEN had to prove it was a valid patent.

I think McDonalds patented a ham and cheese sandwich at the time, from memory. Seriously.

"An edible item containing slices of bread on the outside and a filling such as ham and cheese within"
... it was actually much more detailed and legal sounding...
Ahh... some more sandwich patent info, not QUITE as bad as I thought:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Exactly. The patent should have never been awarded.

Check it out.

I forgot all about that. I think I did that trick once. Suing Apple, Microsoft and Google really takes some 'nads. I hope they drive this troll company to the poor house.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The 4-page complaint filed this month by Arizon-based Cygnus Systems, Inc charges all three companies with infringing on its March 2008 US patent No. 7,346,850, titled "System and Method for Iconic Software Environment Management."

Cygnus, which bills itself as a provider of "unique computing, networking and application needs of small to midsized businesses" in the state of Michigan, is seeking a damages in addition to an injunction prohibiting the three companies from further infringement.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

I don't get why they're Arizona based and then seeming to do their primary business in Michigan.

[Random Chaos]

"The [patent] generally relates to methods of and systems for accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, wherein the graphical icon includes an image of a selected portion or portions of the one or more computer files," the suit says.

This has been around for decades. Every single icon on every single GUI-based computer going back to the very first icon pulls an "image" from "one or more computer files." Every single GUI interface used icons going back to the original GUIs developed by Xerox PARC done in the early 1970's. That is over 35 years of icons that do exactly what the quote indicates they patented (I have not looked at the actual patent).

From that description, there is absolutely no basis for this patent to stand on.

Stupid, silly in the extreme.

[Murphster]

Originally Posted by ericblr

OK, if the patent wasn't approved until this past March, then in the meantime how could anyone have infringed upon a patent that didn't exist until now. It is not officially patented until it is approved right?

That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.

Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.

If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?

[nikon133]

Originally Posted by teapea

i patented ":-)" last week

im now going to sue you all

where's my lawyer

mwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa, im going to be rich!

Actually a Russian guy has already patented most popular smileys not so long ago - I think news was published a few weeks ago.

You are to slow, and think again next time you want to put smiley in your post

[widowsoft]

I have just patented the infinite loop hahttp://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1cool.gif

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by Murphster

If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?

Unlike a lot of times on this site, I don't think this is just a case of the Apple Defense Force coming in to protect Apple at any cost.

There are two huge issues with this patent:

1) As numerous people have stated, there seems to be a large amount of prior art to invalidate this patent. When I went off to college in 1994, the Macs on campus could generate thumbnail icons of image files. That's 4 years before this patent was applied for.

2) The concept seems completely obvious. What is the point of an icon? To give the user an indication of what is in the file. What better way to let the user know what is in the file than to actually show them what is in the file.

I have to agree that I don't think GUI patents should be allowed. How screwed would the computer industry be if someone had a patent for the text box GUI element?

[m2002brian]

lawyers need money too

[teapea]

Originally Posted by nikon133

Actually a Russian guy has already patented most popular smileys not so long ago - I think news was published a few weeks ago.

You are to slow, and think again next time you want to put smiley in your post

bugger!

[ericblr]

Originally Posted by Murphster

That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.

Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.

If somebody made a ipod rip off and used the same icons for their device I am sure you guys would be the first to jump up and down and cry patent infringement. You cannot have it both ways, patents are there to protect people for their work. If this is legitimate then what on Earth can you have a problem with? Would you not expect the same treatment if your patent was being infringed?

Then why wait so damn long. Microsoft and Apple have done it for years. Hell even Linux does it with both Gnome and KDE. Why not sue the maker of Ubuntu and Fedora. I have serious doubts as to the validity of the case.

[rbanffy]

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

The patent was approved in March 2008.
However, it was filed on 8 June 2001 and is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/097,283, filed Jun. 12, 1998 now abandoned.

The Wang Freestyle had a GUI with icons that depicted file contents back in 1988.

I am not sure, but I think the Xerox Star family had that in 1982.

These are patent trolls and deserve to be countersued into oblivion.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by rbanffy

These are patent trolls and deserve to be countersued into oblivion.

I'm not sure these people can even be classified as patent trolls. I see a patent troll as someone who has a legitmate new idea, but then does nothing with it, they just wait for someone else to make a working viable product before crying foul and wanting lots of money. These people patented something that already existed.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I'm not sure these people can even be classified as patent trolls. I see a patent troll as someone who has a legitmate new idea, but then does nothing with it, they just wait for someone else to make a working viable product before crying foul and wanting lots of money. These people patented something that already existed.

I don't know if there is an easy way to describe that.

What is called patent trolling don't necessarily encompass ideas that are legitimately patentable either.

[lfmorrison]

Originally Posted by Murphster

That is why many patents today are actually "Patent Pending" i.e. we have filed for the patent so be warned. It can take a long time for the patent to be approved and this gives some protection in the mean time. Only a guess but I would assume that Apple have many things that would be "patent pending" themselves.

Seriously, if these guys first filed in 1998 then they may well have a good case.
(...)

However, there is prior art of a published software product that had at least partially implemented this capability, going back at least as far as August 1995 (Windows 95) for certain, possibly 1988 or 1982, see posts above. This prior art predates the patent's filing, which might severely limit the patent's scope or validity.

[AtlasDark]

I think we've established the fact that the infringement claim is outrageous and obviously ungrounded. :P

[flinch13]

BOO PATENTS!!!!! Yeah, it's nonsense. None of this makes any sense in the digital economy.

I mean just because I think about something that's been patented, does that mean I'm violating the patent?

Poo poo patents.