If Apple settle with them for $20 million, with a license to use it in the future, and a requirement that the company sue other companies abusing the patent, then Apple could come out of it reasonably cheaply and know that Microsoft will also get hassled.
Yes, despite the claim being overly generic and stifling innovation, and the fact that damages should be based upon how much the patent holder loses because of the infringement (i.e., if you're a patent troll, you have no losses because you have no products) it is probably better for Apple to settle this one.
Unless they have solid proof of prior art - any form of tabbed interface should do. But the US patent office takes WAY TOO LONG to rule on prior art submissions for patents, and the law system doesn't allow for the patent to be reviewed by the patent office before ruling (hence why RIM had to pay NTP last year despite NTP's patents being crap). So a court case would not be to decide on the validity of the patent, but on whether it was violated or not. The system is broken, but the people who could fix it have a vested interest in it remaining broken.
This is a great example of why I hope that Europe never allows software patents.
Don't you have to continually enforce your patent during it's lifetime, or it'll be declared invalid - like trademarks? Tabs have been used in Microsoft products since at least Windows 3.1, and probably in early Macs too... If they're only enforcing it after 20 years, I think they'd find it hard to make it stick.
Is there a "statute of limitations" or comparable thing in patent cases? Don't they have to show that they have used the same patent within a certain period? (What was that stuff about the iPhone?) What does this tiny company do, anyway?
What modern software doesn't use tabs? Are they going to also claim a patent on the tabs in my file drawers (the physical ones)? (Yep, that was a knee-jerk response, but one someone is gonna want to ask.)
Can we get a link to said suit?
Haven't Macs had folders (and thus tab images) since 1983, predating said patent? If so, why the hell didn't Apple patent the idea? I agree with whoever above said that Apple sure could avoid a lot of messes if they would just open teir eyes and look where they are walking.
I would think that this would affect Microsoft also. They are a much bigger target and can get them a whole lot more mula.
A 20 year old patent comes to light now, wow.
Most items being patented are obvious IMHO, the whole idea was that they not be obvious, to be truely original thinking. This kind of stuff is preventing further innovation. Companies have to do to much research when they have an idea to see if anyone patented the idea before they can go ahead and develop the idea. The mass of spagetty that represents the patents today are very vague and hard to find if they apply or not.
Clicking a section of the screen and having some other content painted over the content currently being shown is very basic and obvious. Not that much difference between a button and a tab.
I know, some of you like patents, I dont mind them if they are clear and cheap to research. What is the life of a patent today 50 years?
In the world of computing that is like 500 years. I started in the industry back in 72 and I can tell you that I have seen a hell of a lot of changes and inovation over the last 34 years. IMHO in electronic, software, computing and comunication hardware it makes no sense to grant patents with a life of more than 10-15 years. After that they totaly get in the way.
Is there a "statute of limitations" or comparable thing in patent cases? Don't they have to show that they have used the same patent within a certain period? (What was that stuff about the iPhone?) What does this tiny company do, anyway?
What modern software doesn't use tabs? Are they going to also claim a patent on the tabs in my file drawers (the physical ones)? (Yep, that was a knee-jerk response, but one someone is gonna want to ask.)
Can we get a link to said suit?
Haven't Macs had folders (and thus tab images) since 1983, predating said patent? If so, why the hell didn't Apple patent the idea? I agree with whoever above said that Apple sure could avoid a lot of messes if they would just open teir eyes and look where they are walking.
Unless this patent is much more specific than the article says such that Apple uniquely violating it in some way, then yes, this should have been brought up so many years ago.
And if so, then why not against Microsoft? It's a bigger fish. Perhaps they think MS has too much money, and would fight them, but that Apple would cave easily, giving them at least some money rather than a long court battle? I would not be surprised if we soon see an announcement that Microsoft has taken a license from these people, setting it up for them to go after Apple with the goal being to shut down Tiger shipments for a while. This would also mean they could not ship any computers unless they put Windows on them. Like I said, this one smells fishy.
But maybe Apple can have the last laugh. Seems like they might have some legal traction with whatever agreement they had with Xerox back in 1979, that let them use some of the Xerox PARC innovations to develop a commercial product. Xerox later sued Apple about it and lost.
An Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" treads on an interface patent that affects the operating system's nearly universal use of tabs....
Tabs? What "tabs"??? Would somebody enlighten me how Mac OS X Tiger makes use of tabs? Safari does, but this suit makes it sound like a system-wide thing, and I don't see tabs anywhere except in Safari. What are they talking about?
Apple took an idea that's 20 years old and probably never been used, and innovated on it. Apple didn't win against Microsoft so I don't see LLC winning anything.
Ummm you realize that while MS didn't "lose" they DID settle out of court. The "Look and feel" lawsuit was one reason that MS invested in Apple after the second coming of Steve.
Cliveat5 is the best poster, he needs to shed some knowledge on this topic. Clive, are you listening? Shed some knowledge
Wow, okay, I'm flattered. \
I don't have much to add to this conversation. I will say, however, that Apple's implementation of tabs isn't nearly as widespread as, say, Windows, or worse yet, the preferences for MS Word... three rows of tabs! Yikes! Thus I'd say that a victory for these cheapskates would mean a world of havoc for Microsoft.
In light of this, I almost hope they win... and decide to take on Big-Redmond.
Stacks in Hypercard already presented uses for the tab style interface, though the real large scale use of tabs I believe came from Microsoft. I first remember seeing the use of tabs in Microsoft Windows and then in MS-Office. They were also present in MacOS 9.
which suggests that tabs were introduced by IBM in 1987, though was this before or after the filing of the patent? Either way software patents are too long for the speed at which the IT field is progressing.
I have got to agree with these to quotes even though I am totally Under the In and its 6:40 the next morning and I haven't slept but hey I can't sleep so why not start posting on Apple Insider lol.........................
LOL That was a bit of a rant. and now its like 7:10 so I am going to head on over to facebook.
A patent is good for 20 years from date of filing. The patent in question was filed March 25, 1987.
I thought it was twenty one years from filing, or twenty from approval. Details like that seem to change from time to time, I've forgotten important details, if I haven't, my information is probably old. If it's 20 from filing, then it's already expired.
Comments
Yes, despite the claim being overly generic and stifling innovation, and the fact that damages should be based upon how much the patent holder loses because of the infringement (i.e., if you're a patent troll, you have no losses because you have no products) it is probably better for Apple to settle this one.
Unless they have solid proof of prior art - any form of tabbed interface should do. But the US patent office takes WAY TOO LONG to rule on prior art submissions for patents, and the law system doesn't allow for the patent to be reviewed by the patent office before ruling (hence why RIM had to pay NTP last year despite NTP's patents being crap). So a court case would not be to decide on the validity of the patent, but on whether it was violated or not. The system is broken, but the people who could fix it have a vested interest in it remaining broken.
This is a great example of why I hope that Europe never allows software patents.
In other news, I am getting fingers patented, so that anyone who uses fingers has to pay me to do so :P .
In other news, I am getting fingers patented, so that anyone who uses fingers has to pay me to do so :P .
That is so funny! And original!
Is there a "statute of limitations" or comparable thing in patent cases? Don't they have to show that they have used the same patent within a certain period? (What was that stuff about the iPhone?) What does this tiny company do, anyway?
What modern software doesn't use tabs? Are they going to also claim a patent on the tabs in my file drawers (the physical ones)? (Yep, that was a knee-jerk response, but one someone is gonna want to ask.)
Can we get a link to said suit?
Haven't Macs had folders (and thus tab images) since 1983, predating said patent? If so, why the hell didn't Apple patent the idea? I agree with whoever above said that Apple sure could avoid a lot of messes if they would just open teir eyes and look where they are walking.
A 20 year old patent comes to light now, wow.
Most items being patented are obvious IMHO, the whole idea was that they not be obvious, to be truely original thinking. This kind of stuff is preventing further innovation. Companies have to do to much research when they have an idea to see if anyone patented the idea before they can go ahead and develop the idea. The mass of spagetty that represents the patents today are very vague and hard to find if they apply or not.
Clicking a section of the screen and having some other content painted over the content currently being shown is very basic and obvious. Not that much difference between a button and a tab.
I know, some of you like patents, I dont mind them if they are clear and cheap to research. What is the life of a patent today 50 years?
In the world of computing that is like 500 years. I started in the industry back in 72 and I can tell you that I have seen a hell of a lot of changes and inovation over the last 34 years. IMHO in electronic, software, computing and comunication hardware it makes no sense to grant patents with a life of more than 10-15 years. After that they totaly get in the way.
User interface with multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects
Give it a rest, Wilco.
Is there a "statute of limitations" or comparable thing in patent cases? Don't they have to show that they have used the same patent within a certain period? (What was that stuff about the iPhone?) What does this tiny company do, anyway?
What modern software doesn't use tabs? Are they going to also claim a patent on the tabs in my file drawers (the physical ones)? (Yep, that was a knee-jerk response, but one someone is gonna want to ask.)
Can we get a link to said suit?
Haven't Macs had folders (and thus tab images) since 1983, predating said patent? If so, why the hell didn't Apple patent the idea? I agree with whoever above said that Apple sure could avoid a lot of messes if they would just open teir eyes and look where they are walking.
zzzzzzzzzz
And if so, then why not against Microsoft? It's a bigger fish. Perhaps they think MS has too much money, and would fight them, but that Apple would cave easily, giving them at least some money rather than a long court battle? I would not be surprised if we soon see an announcement that Microsoft has taken a license from these people, setting it up for them to go after Apple with the goal being to shut down Tiger shipments for a while. This would also mean they could not ship any computers unless they put Windows on them. Like I said, this one smells fishy.
But maybe Apple can have the last laugh. Seems like they might have some legal traction with whatever agreement they had with Xerox back in 1979, that let them use some of the Xerox PARC innovations to develop a commercial product. Xerox later sued Apple about it and lost.
zzzzzzzzzz
Are you actually attempting humor for a change? It's never too late...
---
Are other sites picking up on the lawsuit, yet?
No link to said patent?
Added.
-K
That is so funny! And original!
zzzzzzzzzz
Urmm, who crapped in your cornflakes this morning? Cheer up will ya.
An Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" treads on an interface patent that affects the operating system's nearly universal use of tabs....
Tabs? What "tabs"??? Would somebody enlighten me how Mac OS X Tiger makes use of tabs? Safari does, but this suit makes it sound like a system-wide thing, and I don't see tabs anywhere except in Safari. What are they talking about?
Apple took an idea that's 20 years old and probably never been used, and innovated on it. Apple didn't win against Microsoft so I don't see LLC winning anything.
Ummm you realize that while MS didn't "lose" they DID settle out of court. The "Look and feel" lawsuit was one reason that MS invested in Apple after the second coming of Steve.
Cliveat5 is the best poster, he needs to shed some knowledge on this topic. Clive, are you listening? Shed some knowledge
Wow, okay, I'm flattered.
I don't have much to add to this conversation. I will say, however, that Apple's implementation of tabs isn't nearly as widespread as, say, Windows, or worse yet, the preferences for MS Word... three rows of tabs! Yikes! Thus I'd say that a victory for these cheapskates would mean a world of havoc for Microsoft.
In light of this, I almost hope they win... and decide to take on Big-Redmond.
-Clive
There is this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_%28GUI%29
which suggests that tabs were introduced by IBM in 1987, though was this before or after the filing of the patent? Either way software patents are too long for the speed at which the IT field is progressing.
I know, some of you like patents, I dont mind them if they are clear and cheap to research. What is the life of a patent today 50 years?
A patent is good for 20 years from date of filing. The patent in question was filed March 25, 1987.
I have got to agree with these to quotes even though I am totally Under the In and its 6:40 the next morning and I haven't slept but hey I can't sleep so why not start posting on Apple Insider lol.........................
LOL That was a bit of a rant. and now its like 7:10 so I am going to head on over to facebook.
bbye!
sounds like you celebrated properly. keep it up.
A patent is good for 20 years from date of filing. The patent in question was filed March 25, 1987.
I thought it was twenty one years from filing, or twenty from approval. Details like that seem to change from time to time, I've forgotten important details, if I haven't, my information is probably old. If it's 20 from filing, then it's already expired.