Project X/ Hotsauce wasn't at all like Time Machine/Scopeware. Project X really didn't do anything particularly useful - I installed it, tried the demo links and never used it again.
Project X let you look at maps of web sites. No searching, no files, nothing chronological - the three ideas in Scopeware. Certainly no rewinding through time, no searching through time, no cascading of windows through time - all basic ideas in Scopeware. I can't really see much similarity apart from vague 3D concepts.
Organizing chronologically is obvious, the Finder has been able to display lists of files and file icons that way practically from day one. Project X demonstrates viewing web pages (which were just files) in a 3D fashion where you could zoom in or out. A poster above had pointed out that this was one of the unique aspects of this patent. Project X pre-dates the patent application, so they cannot not say the display of the set of files is unique (sure the graphics sucked, but it was over a decade ago!). So I am arguing that there is nothing new or unique in this patent that is not a obvious extension of work that Apple did long before the patent application was submitted.
Plus the fact that the lawsuit was filed in the Tyler District of Texas is further evidence that even the plaintiffs know they don't have a legitimate case!
Again, the article shows the journalist's lack of clue in patents, instead of problem with this particular patent.
The patent does not claim "time-based sorting". Please read. It is about interface design (3D) which uses time-based sorting.
As far as I can think of, there was no prior art. As far as I can think of, it WAS not obvious. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of backup software out there, and no single one of them use this type of interface until Time Machine. That is actually pretty strong arguement that it was not obvious.
No, Project X is not prior art. It is not about sorting by time at all, and it does not show the documents. (BTW, it was one of the very cool stuff from Apple, but crashes left and right) Actually, it is not about sorting at all. If you have run it, you would know. Think about space travel (instead of a train of documents) with stars (which are links) around you.
Unlike some of the other patent lawsuits mentioned by AppleInsider, this one has legs and I bet it will settle.
BTW, I guess the iPod/iPhone issue is the CoverFlow.
I guess they also have to sue all Movie-Studios and TV stations out there: All have their movie-frames sorted based on time. Of course also all manufacturer of DVD-players (there you can even go back and forth in time)...
Clearly my considerable shortage of cash at this time stems from the fact that there was so much stuff I didn't patent..
..basically because it seemed so OBVIOUS to me at the time, I really must dig out my prior art for iTunes, Time machine, Hard disc audio recording, manipulation of audio files within a computer based system and concept for movie storage baised on data compression.
from the 70s and 80s
{I'm sure I have more if I went and dug it out}
move to Texas
sue
and then
rule the world with my obvious evil cat!
you gotta hand it to Tim Berners-lee (inventor of the web browser (on a NEXT machine!)) he could have made gazillions but instead chose NOT to be a complete fukking tool and sue everyone in sight for thinking the obvious
Organizing chronologically is obvious, the Finder has been able to display lists of files and file icons that way practically from day one. Project X demonstrates viewing web pages (which were just files) in a 3D fashion where you could zoom in or out. A poster above had pointed out that this was one of the unique aspects of this patent. Project X pre-dates the patent application, so they cannot not say the display of the set of files is unique (sure the graphics sucked, but it was over a decade ago!). So I am arguing that there is nothing new or unique in this patent that is not a obvious extension of work that Apple did long before the patent application was submitted.
Plus the fact that the lawsuit was filed in the Tyler District of Texas is further evidence that even the plaintiffs know they don't have a legitimate case!
Hell yeah.
If anyone is interested and has a mid-90's Mac capable of running OpenDoc, I actually have an archived copy of the Project X plug-in for Cyberdog.
Actually, I archived ALL the OpenDoc stuff. Even the ClarisWorks beta built from OpenDoc parts. Cool stuff. Maybe Apple will resurrect it for iPhone... hah hah hah.
These people and their old, unused patents in deep cryostasis. Just waiting for someone to copy their idea so that can (hopefully) make a killing. It's sad, but unfortunately since the government takes most of our money with illegal taxes, I suppose people like this have no choice if they want to make money. Perhaps they should vote for Ron Paul and eliminate the IRS altogether. ;-)
...the patents (1, 2, 3, 4) describe a highly visual system that displays a line of documents and other items dating back (or forward) in time along with the option of searching these items to retrieve and edit them.
Awesome! Somebody actually patented chronological ordering. We really need to get our patent system fixed to end these frivolous lawsuits.
If anyone is interested and has a mid-90's Mac capable of running OpenDoc, I actually have an archived copy of the Project X plug-in for Cyberdog.
Actually, I archived ALL the OpenDoc stuff. Even the ClarisWorks beta built from OpenDoc parts. Cool stuff. Maybe Apple will resurrect it for iPhone... hah hah hah.
I would love to get a copy of some of that. I played with OpenDoc a lot at Apple.
Get educated on interface please. The Apple iTune patent is not about "playing media files". It is about the interface to play media files.
Let's look at it from different point of view....if Time Machine interface wasn't patented before, Apple should (and probably did file) patent for it, and all the cheerleaders (including me) on AppleInsider will be behind Apple.
Again, the article shows the journalist's lack of clue in patents, instead of problem with this particular patent.
The patent does not claim "time-based sorting". Please read. It is about interface design (3D) which uses time-based sorting.
As far as I can think of, there was no prior art. As far as I can think of, it WAS not obvious. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of backup software out there, and no single one of them use this type of interface until Time Machine. That is actually pretty strong arguement that it was not obvious.
No, Project X is not prior art. It is not about sorting by time at all, and it does not show the documents. (BTW, it was one of the very cool stuff from Apple, but crashes left and right) Actually, it is not about sorting at all. If you have run it, you would know. Think about space travel (instead of a train of documents) with stars (which are links) around you.
Unlike some of the other patent lawsuits mentioned by AppleInsider, this one has legs and I bet it will settle.
BTW, I guess the iPod/iPhone issue is the CoverFlow.
Actually, one of the Project X demos I recall showed the cursor zooming through documents sorted by time.
Then, of course, there were the hypercard stacks which were often sorted by time.
So even if you are right that it's a UI patent and not a sorting patent, there's plenty of prior art.
Get educated on interface please. The Apple iTune patent is not about "playing media files". It is about the interface to play media files.
Let's look at it from different point of view....if Time Machine interface wasn't patented before, Apple should (and probably did file) patent for it, and all the cheerleaders (including me) on AppleInsider will be behind Apple.
Give it a rest. I wasn't posting on the validity or invalidity of the patent in question. That is an utter waste of time. I was commenting on your botched grammar which self contradicted itself. That was obvious enough I physically winced the first time I read it.
So stop getting so damn uptight about this patent crap, it will never mean a damn thing to a user as Apple has so much damn cash that if needed they can just hostile takeover almost any public company or buy out the creditors of any bankrupt company (with the exception of the gynormous companies who generally leave each other the hell alone in the courtroom). And more likely the case will go away quietly after the lawyers and accountants do their cost benefit analysis on case strategy. Note that that process usually has little or no concern for actual patent validity, just how much the legal fees would be. So why get uptight about it?
Give it a rest. I wasn't posting on the validity or invalidity of the patent in question. That is an utter waste of time. I was commenting on your botched grammar which self contradicted itself. That was obvious enough I physically winced the first time I read it.
Dude, you are the one who is getting upset about it.
I comment on most patent articles because I have filed some patents myself, and I have argue for both sides. Feel free to search and see which ones I think are valid and which one I think are bs. You are the one who is contributing nothing to the discussion. So relax.
Regarding OpenDoc, actually I went to the FIRST OpenDoc code retreat Apple hosted, and I still have the T shirt which I got from the retreat. Unfortunately, OpenDoc never got stable.
jragosta,
"Prior art" does not mean "this component and that component has been done before". It is about the whole - unless you can find another app which does exactly the same thing, it is not prior art. Yes, time based sorting was done before. Yes, even time based stack was done before. However, 3D-based fly-by of time-based stack was not done before so there is no prior art.
In patents, prior art is almost never an issue. The argument has always been "obviousness".
I would love to get a copy of some of that. I played with OpenDoc a lot at Apple.
If you've got an FTP site, I can upload all of it.
There's maybe 40 megs of stuff. I basically, downloaded and archived everything I could find that was OpenDoc at the time. It seems to go up to OpenDoc 1.2 and Cyberdog 2 vintage.
Here's one folder's worth:
Cyberdog 2.0 68k Install.sit
Cyberdog 2.0 PPC Install.sit
Downloader.sea
Install Rapid-I? Button Demo
KantaraPartFinder.sit
KantaraWinMenu1.0.sit
OD Calculator 1.0.sit
ODFLibrary 1.2.2.sit
OpenCyberDogURL.sit
OpenDoc?1.2 Install.sit
Retriever 1.5.1.sea
Thank the Gods for magneto-optical disks (and a touch of obsessive compulsion)! ;^)
Since this company went under in 2004, how can they claim that a product introduced several years later is damaging Mirror Worlds' business? It sure seems that they do need to license the patent (that does look too much like Time Machine), but who do they license it from, and if they have ceased operations who is suing them?
Comments
Project X/ Hotsauce wasn't at all like Time Machine/Scopeware. Project X really didn't do anything particularly useful - I installed it, tried the demo links and never used it again.
Project X let you look at maps of web sites. No searching, no files, nothing chronological - the three ideas in Scopeware. Certainly no rewinding through time, no searching through time, no cascading of windows through time - all basic ideas in Scopeware. I can't really see much similarity apart from vague 3D concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...screenshot.jpg
Organizing chronologically is obvious, the Finder has been able to display lists of files and file icons that way practically from day one. Project X demonstrates viewing web pages (which were just files) in a 3D fashion where you could zoom in or out. A poster above had pointed out that this was one of the unique aspects of this patent. Project X pre-dates the patent application, so they cannot not say the display of the set of files is unique (sure the graphics sucked, but it was over a decade ago!). So I am arguing that there is nothing new or unique in this patent that is not a obvious extension of work that Apple did long before the patent application was submitted.
Plus the fact that the lawsuit was filed in the Tyler District of Texas is further evidence that even the plaintiffs know they don't have a legitimate case!
The patent does not claim "time-based sorting". Please read. It is about interface design (3D) which uses time-based sorting.
As far as I can think of, there was no prior art. As far as I can think of, it WAS not obvious. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of backup software out there, and no single one of them use this type of interface until Time Machine. That is actually pretty strong arguement that it was not obvious.
No, Project X is not prior art. It is not about sorting by time at all, and it does not show the documents. (BTW, it was one of the very cool stuff from Apple, but crashes left and right) Actually, it is not about sorting at all. If you have run it, you would know. Think about space travel (instead of a train of documents) with stars (which are links) around you.
Unlike some of the other patent lawsuits mentioned by AppleInsider, this one has legs and I bet it will settle.
BTW, I guess the iPod/iPhone issue is the CoverFlow.
..basically because it seemed so OBVIOUS to me at the time, I really must dig out my prior art for iTunes, Time machine, Hard disc audio recording, manipulation of audio files within a computer based system and concept for movie storage baised on data compression.
from the 70s and 80s
{I'm sure I have more if I went and dug it out}
move to Texas
sue
and then
rule the world with my obvious evil cat!
you gotta hand it to Tim Berners-lee (inventor of the web browser (on a NEXT machine!)) he could have made gazillions but instead chose NOT to be a complete fukking tool and sue everyone in sight for thinking the obvious
"A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...." Look familiar?
Does it for me.
Wasn't the Time Machine interface lifted from the Twilight Zone?
ANd more importantly was the name itself licensed properly from the estate of HG Wells?
As for time based sorting:
ls -ltr
Hello UNIX, 1980.
I was thinking the same thing, but I think UNIX is at least 10 years older than that
Yeah, I even ran it for a while. I think it may have been one of those OpenDoc thingies (like Cyberdog) that was so cool, but which Apple let drop.
The visual part of the patent looks familiar... like flipping through a file drawer.
Organizing chronologically is obvious, the Finder has been able to display lists of files and file icons that way practically from day one. Project X demonstrates viewing web pages (which were just files) in a 3D fashion where you could zoom in or out. A poster above had pointed out that this was one of the unique aspects of this patent. Project X pre-dates the patent application, so they cannot not say the display of the set of files is unique (sure the graphics sucked, but it was over a decade ago!). So I am arguing that there is nothing new or unique in this patent that is not a obvious extension of work that Apple did long before the patent application was submitted.
Plus the fact that the lawsuit was filed in the Tyler District of Texas is further evidence that even the plaintiffs know they don't have a legitimate case!
Hell yeah.
If anyone is interested and has a mid-90's Mac capable of running OpenDoc, I actually have an archived copy of the Project X plug-in for Cyberdog.
Actually, I archived ALL the OpenDoc stuff. Even the ClarisWorks beta built from OpenDoc parts. Cool stuff. Maybe Apple will resurrect it for iPhone... hah hah hah.
...the patents (1, 2, 3, 4) describe a highly visual system that displays a line of documents and other items dating back (or forward) in time along with the option of searching these items to retrieve and edit them.
Awesome! Somebody actually patented chronological ordering. We really need to get our patent system fixed to end these frivolous lawsuits.
The patent does not claim "time-based sorting". Please read. It is about interface design (3D) which uses time-based sorting.
I sense I'm back in 1984 listening to double-speak.
Hell yeah.
If anyone is interested and has a mid-90's Mac capable of running OpenDoc, I actually have an archived copy of the Project X plug-in for Cyberdog.
Actually, I archived ALL the OpenDoc stuff. Even the ClarisWorks beta built from OpenDoc parts. Cool stuff. Maybe Apple will resurrect it for iPhone... hah hah hah.
I would love to get a copy of some of that. I played with OpenDoc a lot at Apple.
I sense I'm back in 1984 listening to double-speak.
Or maybe you need a language lesson.
Just google "apple interface patent", and see which patents about interface Apple has won (or settled).
For example, this is one Apple settled
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/03/a...rface-lawsuit/
and this is one Apple won
http://www.news.com/2100-1041_3-5210733.html
Get educated on interface please. The Apple iTune patent is not about "playing media files". It is about the interface to play media files.
Let's look at it from different point of view....if Time Machine interface wasn't patented before, Apple should (and probably did file) patent for it, and all the cheerleaders (including me) on AppleInsider will be behind Apple.
Again, the article shows the journalist's lack of clue in patents, instead of problem with this particular patent.
The patent does not claim "time-based sorting". Please read. It is about interface design (3D) which uses time-based sorting.
As far as I can think of, there was no prior art. As far as I can think of, it WAS not obvious. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of backup software out there, and no single one of them use this type of interface until Time Machine. That is actually pretty strong arguement that it was not obvious.
No, Project X is not prior art. It is not about sorting by time at all, and it does not show the documents. (BTW, it was one of the very cool stuff from Apple, but crashes left and right) Actually, it is not about sorting at all. If you have run it, you would know. Think about space travel (instead of a train of documents) with stars (which are links) around you.
Unlike some of the other patent lawsuits mentioned by AppleInsider, this one has legs and I bet it will settle.
BTW, I guess the iPod/iPhone issue is the CoverFlow.
Actually, one of the Project X demos I recall showed the cursor zooming through documents sorted by time.
Then, of course, there were the hypercard stacks which were often sorted by time.
So even if you are right that it's a UI patent and not a sorting patent, there's plenty of prior art.
Or maybe you need a language lesson.
Just google "apple interface patent", and see which patents about interface Apple has won (or settled).
For example, this is one Apple settled
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/03/a...rface-lawsuit/
and this is one Apple won
http://www.news.com/2100-1041_3-5210733.html
Get educated on interface please. The Apple iTune patent is not about "playing media files". It is about the interface to play media files.
Let's look at it from different point of view....if Time Machine interface wasn't patented before, Apple should (and probably did file) patent for it, and all the cheerleaders (including me) on AppleInsider will be behind Apple.
Give it a rest. I wasn't posting on the validity or invalidity of the patent in question. That is an utter waste of time. I was commenting on your botched grammar which self contradicted itself. That was obvious enough I physically winced the first time I read it.
So stop getting so damn uptight about this patent crap, it will never mean a damn thing to a user as Apple has so much damn cash that if needed they can just hostile takeover almost any public company or buy out the creditors of any bankrupt company (with the exception of the gynormous companies who generally leave each other the hell alone in the courtroom). And more likely the case will go away quietly after the lawyers and accountants do their cost benefit analysis on case strategy. Note that that process usually has little or no concern for actual patent validity, just how much the legal fees would be. So why get uptight about it?
Give it a rest. I wasn't posting on the validity or invalidity of the patent in question. That is an utter waste of time. I was commenting on your botched grammar which self contradicted itself. That was obvious enough I physically winced the first time I read it.
Dude, you are the one who is getting upset about it.
I comment on most patent articles because I have filed some patents myself, and I have argue for both sides. Feel free to search and see which ones I think are valid and which one I think are bs. You are the one who is contributing nothing to the discussion. So relax.
Regarding OpenDoc, actually I went to the FIRST OpenDoc code retreat Apple hosted, and I still have the T shirt which I got from the retreat. Unfortunately, OpenDoc never got stable.
jragosta,
"Prior art" does not mean "this component and that component has been done before". It is about the whole - unless you can find another app which does exactly the same thing, it is not prior art. Yes, time based sorting was done before. Yes, even time based stack was done before. However, 3D-based fly-by of time-based stack was not done before so there is no prior art.
In patents, prior art is almost never an issue. The argument has always been "obviousness".
Dude, you are the one who is getting upset about it.
News to me. Have a happy delusion!
I would love to get a copy of some of that. I played with OpenDoc a lot at Apple.
If you've got an FTP site, I can upload all of it.
There's maybe 40 megs of stuff. I basically, downloaded and archived everything I could find that was OpenDoc at the time. It seems to go up to OpenDoc 1.2 and Cyberdog 2 vintage.
Here's one folder's worth:
Cyberdog 2.0 68k Install.sit
Cyberdog 2.0 PPC Install.sit
Downloader.sea
Install Rapid-I? Button Demo
KantaraPartFinder.sit
KantaraWinMenu1.0.sit
OD Calculator 1.0.sit
ODFLibrary 1.2.2.sit
OpenCyberDogURL.sit
OpenDoc?1.2 Install.sit
Retriever 1.5.1.sea
Thank the Gods for magneto-optical disks (and a touch of obsessive compulsion)! ;^)