Can Apple patent Exposé?
It may sound freaky but the more I think about it the more I see this as the "killer application" for the hardware accelerated window compositer.
So is Apple was able to make this feature "mac-only" it would distance their OS from Windows and Linux in one importent area for years.
So can they?
So is Apple was able to make this feature "mac-only" it would distance their OS from Windows and Linux in one importent area for years.
So can they?
Comments
i am kinda thinking no because its not really a visual GUI program like iTunes (which i don't think could be copied) but who knows...perhaps a lawyer could clear thigns up, i know we have one or two around here
Would it be a reasonable patent...no
Would it give something for leal department to keep busy on... yeah
Does it really make a difference...no, MS still can't get the UI and they have been trying for 10+ years.
Z
Think about it ... all your Word docs in one larger window and all your dunno FileMaker docs in another.
When you hit the WinExposé button what would happen? Either your app's metawindows jump to attention or some ungodly mess too frighening to contemplate.
By choosing a better conception of windowing from the start, the Mac has an advantage with this kind of thing. Even if they rip it it won't work so well if at all.
I seem to remember sites like Slashdot getting pissed, but no one else putting up too much of a fuss...and the patents still stand today.
Originally posted by Harald
Even if they rip it it won't work so well if at all.
Not working as well is meaningless to window users.
I had the same question, can Apple patent Expose? It's time to put a stop to windows ripping off our UI.
Originally posted by Osakans
I almost hate to do this (and I'm really not trying to be a troll), but has anyone looked at the Microsoft Research site recently? I don't think it's fair to accuse them of "ripping off" other people any more. Their focus on fundamental, blue sky, research (including UI research) is quite impressive.
You've GOT to be kidding me. Check this out:
http://research.microsoft.com/graphics/
"Animation programmers have to spend much of their effort bridging the gap between what an animation is and how to present it on a computer. We are developing new languages to assist programmers in this task."
Talk, talk, talk .... Microsoft seems to be lagging quite a bit in the "implementation" of all these wonderful ideas.
Originally posted by mrmister
"Can't you already imagine the ass-raping any company who tries this would get in the press and on the net, or do you not remember Amazon and "One-Click.""
I seem to remember sites like Slashdot getting pissed, but no one else putting up too much of a fuss...and the patents still stand today.
one-click was licensed from amazon.
Originally posted by Harald
The Windows paradigm is app centric and not window centric (although you can still minimse things to the task bar ... go figure).
Think about it ... all your Word docs in one larger window and all your dunno FileMaker docs in another.
When you hit the WinExposé button what would happen? Either your app's metawindows jump to attention or some ungodly mess too frighening to contemplate.
By choosing a better conception of windowing from the start, the Mac has an advantage with this kind of thing. Even if they rip it it won't work so well if at all.
In my eyes, Windows is anything but a App-centric UI. Let me explain.
- When you alt-tab in Windows, the little box that pops up gives you the choice of switching to any open window, even if all the windows you have open are techinaically the same program.
- Each window of the same program has its own menubar instead of all the windows (when clicked on) bringing up a single menubar at the top of the screen.
- There is no way that I am aware of to bring all windows of a program to the front (a la clicking an application icon in the dock),
- and closing all windows of a program closes the program, instead of in OS X, where I can have, say, Photoshop, open in the background.
Sorry if I grievously misunderstood you Herald.Originally posted by Placebo
In my eyes, Windows is anything but a App-centric UI. Let me explain.When you alt-tab in Windows, the little box that pops up gives you the choice of switching to any open window, even if all the windows you have open are techinaically the same program.
Each window of the same program has its own menubar instead of all the windows (when clicked on) bringing up a single menubar at the top of the screen.
There is no way that I am aware of to bring all windows of a program to the front (a la clicking an application icon in the dock),
and closing all windows of a program closes the program, instead of in OS X, where I can have, say, Photoshop, open in the background.
Sorry if I grievously misunderstood you Herald.
i agree with you, this is how i saw it...windows is...well windows centric...expose is EXACTLY what windows needs to help stay organized...especially since you don't have the option to show all the windows of an app any other way
I don't know if I would go so far to say that there is a Windows UI. That's why their programs are so problematic, and window clutter is a problem... they aren't consistent.
Originally posted by bauman
OK, but what about all those programs where all the document windows are contained in the program window, like Harald stated. When you minimize the docs, they don't go to the Task Bar.
That's a workaround because windows is WINDOW CENTRIC.
Originally posted by Osakans
I almost hate to do this (and I'm really not trying to be a troll), but has anyone looked at the Microsoft Research site recently? I don't think it's fair to accuse them of "ripping off" other people any more. Their focus on fundamental, blue sky, research (including UI research) is quite impressive.
Here are a few of my favorites:
http://research.microsoft.com/act/
Xcode?
http://research.microsoft.com/~jplat...m/default.aspx
iPhoto?
http://research.microsoft.com/~jplatt/autoDJ.pdf
iTunes?
http://research.microsoft.com/coet/
http://research.microsoft.com/coet/telep_page.aspx
iChat AV?
http://research.microsoft.com/comapps/
Cocoa?
http://research.microsoft.com/im/
Any number of Apple technologies.
http://research.microsoft.com/reliability/
Hmmm...Apple software development?
http://research.microsoft.com/spo/
"Smart Personal Objects Technology makes everyday objects such as wristwatches, alarm clocks, and key chains, better at what they do."
Do these devices need to be Microsoft-ized?
http://research.microsoft.com/wn/
Airport?
Possibly Microsoft is doing some interesting research. Any large corporation will be doing that. Xerox had a little place...you might have heard of it...called PARC. Xerox did nothing...nada...nyet...nein...not one thing with all of this great research.
Apple seems to putting this stuff in practice, and more importantly making much of it very accessible to "the rest of us".
P.S. Also note that some of the projects listed go to the same page!
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Possibly Microsoft is doing some interesting research. Any large corporation will be doing that. Xerox had a little place...you might have heard of it...called PARC. Xerox did nothing...nada...nyet...nein...not one thing with all of this great research.
Apple seems to putting this stuff in practice, and more importantly making much of it very accessible to "the rest of us".
Just a minor point, but I don't think that's a valid comparison, and it's kind of insulting to the PARC researchers.
PARC itself came up with some fantastic innovations, including the GUI and the modern implementation of the mouse. Problem was that the suits at Xerox just wanted to make copy machines so they didn't do much with the technology.
But other companies, Apple among them, saw what PARC was doing, and a lot of those ideas did go to market, but not through Xerox, much to their loss.
Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't really innovating at all. But they do bring their non-innovations to market and then sell them as though they were the first to do it.
Originally posted by tetzel1517
Just a minor point, but I don't think that's a valid comparison, and it's kind of insulting to the PARC researchers.
PARC itself came up with some fantastic innovations, including the GUI and the modern implementation of the mouse. Problem was that the suits at Xerox just wanted to make copy machines so they didn't do much with the technology.
But other companies, Apple among them, saw what PARC was doing, and a lot of those ideas did go to market, but not through Xerox, much to their loss.
Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't really innovating at all. But they do bring their non-innovations to market and then sell them as though they were the first to do it.
Good point. My point was not so much to compare the innovations of th respective places themselves, as much as to say that many companies are doing research. Research is meaningless in the real world unless it is turned into products. That's my point. Is MS really doing this or are they just "researching"? The quality of the research and innovations (between MS and PARC or MS and Apple or Apple and PARC) could be another discussion though.
P.S. Before anyone starts here. Apple did not STEAL anything from PARC. And MS DID steal from Apple.
Like right now I am listening to Tristessa and based on pairing the different parameters for the different songs in my archive it guess what I want to listen to next.
If I choose three songs to start with it iTunes 5, had it this feature, would see though the meta tags (would need more of those of course) and see what they had in common and would choose songs that more or less matched them.
Even better if it used audio-analysis to find similarities or databases that compares different groups/artists (allmusic and GNOD).
From the readme:
? "AgentMusic Make Playlist Like" - select one or more tracks in your library and select the "AgentMusic Make Playlist Like" script from the iTunes Script menu. A new iTunes playlist will be created containing tracks by artists like the artist of the selected track.
? "AgentMusic Cluster Artists" - select the "AgentMusic Cluster Artists" script from the iTunes Script menu. iTunes will then generate a list of artists, cluster the artists, and create a series of "smart" playlists based on the clustered artists.
I can't guarantee this will work as it calls out to a web service to do the heavy lifting and all mention of the downloads has disappeared from the company website (though the link is on the company founders blog).
Just checked it and it seems okay. It may work better if your mp3s have had their id3 metadata tags cleaned up by the MusicBrainz.org tagger (currently alpha only for Mac).
Originally posted by zaz
Well, if Adobe can patent and sue over the use of tabbed palettes I don't see why not...
They can't - they don't have a patent on tabbed palettes. They have a patent on the feature that allows you to move a tab from one palette to another.