The first OS that made wide use of tabs (in my experience, anyway) was IBM's OS/2 Warp back in the early-mid 90s. They started showing up in Windows a few years after that. Has this group gone after Microsoft?? Will they go after IBM (OS/2 is dead, but tabs are used in Lotus Notes)? Mozilla?? When will this patent madness end??
And what's in the water in Marshall, TX that makes the citizens there so amenable to these ridiculous claims?
Clearly Apple has not yet learned how to 'take care of' the judge in these matters.
And what's in the water in Marshall, TX that makes the citizens there so amenable to these ridiculous claims?
Oh, its just the way people are. Lawyers, esp. in anti-trust suits, love to file in Mississippi (I saw a thing on 60 minutes about it years ago) because the jurors think that if they vote in favor of the plaintiffs, then they might get some back, too (like in their own case, not necessarily in kickbacks).
Of course, you could argue that Apple has used the same technique since 1984 and its Control panel, but that's splitting hairs.
Just a little earlier, and many things on a Lisa used the tab meme, I think all the windows used the tab as identification and window control. When you have a lot of minimized windows, it looked like a multi-row tab array that one freaking finds in a file drawer.
Would someone mind sharing with me WHERE there is universal use of tabs in the Tiger operating system?
Look throughout system preferences. There are tabs on most of those preference panels. The look may be slightly different from Safari's tabs in the main browser window, but the behavior is the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun
software patents should at the very least be reformed so that they only last at maximum a year or two. that way, corporations can get their return on investment on months of expensive development, and get their earned early foot in the door, but it wouldn't prevent others from imitating and improving on software innovation.
For something truly innovative enough to deserve a patent, I think five years is reasonable - that's effectively one or two complete product lifecycles. I don't think two years is long enough to turn a profit from an innovation - it may take more than two years from the date of filing until the product actually ships.
Of course, my "innovative enough to deserve a patent" clause is a big deal. 90% of the patents currently issued are obvious and shouldn't have any protection whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
Of course, you could argue that Apple has used the same technique since 1984 and its Control panel, but that's splitting hairs.
Not really. It's the exact same concept. A vertical column of icons or a horizontal row of text labels, both performing the same action (swapping content in and out of a different region of the screen.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macvault
This patent shouldn't even be legal... this is like patenting how I walk... with one foot in front of the other. Or patenting how to power a computer... with electricity. What's wrong with this world?
According to Wikipedia, a Sun/NeWS version of Emacs used tabs in 1988, and is one of the first examples of their use in an application. Mac System 6 (1988) used it for the control panel, but nowhere else (and abandoned it in System 7). OS/2 supported tabs as a standard system control (used in a lot of standard system apps and many third-party apps) in version 2.0 (1992).
Aside from these examples, I don't recall seeing tabs used in applications until Mozilla 0.9.5 introduced them (in 2001), and Mac OS X (also 2001), after which they became very popular and started appearing in a lot of different applications.
Given the fact that the concept was unheard of in commercial products before 1988, and was not commonplace until 2001, I think one could easily claim that the concept was not obvious in 1987 (20 years ago.)
The disputed section referred to the technique of creating a window on a computer screen with controls that switch between views of multiple associated display objects within the window, erasing one view as the user selects another while still giving a spatial frame of reference and the same general interface during the switch.
Almost all GUI elements in computer applications have much older real world analogues. I don't really understand why anyone is allowed to patent a digital version of something we've been doing for decades or even centuries in some cases.
The patent described above sounds exactly like changing a TV channel. Pressing a channel button (back when TVs had such things) erases one view and replaces it with another. The frame with it's control buttons, speakers, etc. remains unchanged.
The whole idea of tabs comes from books. The only difference there is that choosing a tab causes it to flip over and move to the other side of the "display".
This patent shouldn't even be legal... this is like patenting how I walk... with one foot in front of the other. Or patenting how to power a computer... with electricity. What's wrong with this world?
software patents should at the very least be reformed so that they only last at maximum a year or two. that way, corporations can get their return on investment on months of expensive development, and get their earned early foot in the door, but it wouldn't prevent others from imitating and improving on software innovation.
of course, the heart of the problem is the broad patents that are being given. but giving a short lifespan to broad patent would be effective, I think.
either way, the patent system as a whole needs an overhaul desperately.
I disagree with that. Even software patents should be for longer than a year or two.
Five to seven years seems sufficient. The idea of a patent is to allow the invention to spread, and to give other inventors enough knowledge about the item to enable them to try to find a valid way around it. So the inventor is allowed a good time to cash in on it.
Even in software, it can take several years until the software is able to use the invention.
Of course, my "innovative enough to deserve a patent" clause is a big deal. 90% of the patents currently issued are obvious and shouldn't have any protection whatsoever.
The Supreme Court has recently made a landmard decision about "obviousnes? It has tightned the ability to get a patent when based upon other past patents, as many patents are.
It will make challenges to patents easier as well.
My feeling it that there mush be something to this. It there wasn't, then Apple would have spent much less going to court.
I don't believe that Apple only paid 5 to 7 million. They were asking for 20 million plus an injunction against Apples' selling theis OS, or any product based on it, which would have stopped all computer sales as well.
If this company could afford to go to court, Apple certainly could.
If Apple won in court, it would make others with dubious claims think twice about suing. But when Apple paid Creative, and is now paying these people, others look at Apple as being an easier mark. I'm pretty sure Apple knows this, and wouldn't end the suit just to get it over with.
The injunction could be successful well before the court case is heard which could take many months. This is a risk Apple would be unwilling to accept. I'm sure this is one of the reasons for settlement.
The injunction could be successful well before the court case is heard which could take many months. This is a risk Apple would be unwilling to accept. I'm sure this is one of the reasons for settlement.
An injunction is only successful if the court thinks that the plaintiff has such a strong case that they will likely win. If there is any doubt, it is not successful.
This patent shouldn't even be legal... this is like patenting how I walk... with one foot in front of the other. Or patenting how to power a computer... with electricity. What's wrong with this world?
I agree, this one seems particularly vague. It could cover quite a lot of things. If people use frames on a website to navigate content, does that violate this? Itunes links at the side that navigate between the library/store/playlists?
Someone else must have been charged over this violation or we're not getting all the facts here.
Comments
The first OS that made wide use of tabs (in my experience, anyway) was IBM's OS/2 Warp back in the early-mid 90s. They started showing up in Windows a few years after that. Has this group gone after Microsoft?? Will they go after IBM (OS/2 is dead, but tabs are used in Lotus Notes)? Mozilla?? When will this patent madness end??
And what's in the water in Marshall, TX that makes the citizens there so amenable to these ridiculous claims?
Clearly Apple has not yet learned how to 'take care of' the judge in these matters.
I wonder how many web pages or applications I've written that have tabbed bars to navigate between the various forms and pages.
This company just chose to go after Apple first... who will be next?
They must be going alphabetical.
Uh-oh, sounds like aegisdesign is next!
Recent tests have shown an inordinate level of graft.
And what's in the water in Marshall, TX that makes the citizens there so amenable to these ridiculous claims?
Oh, its just the way people are. Lawyers, esp. in anti-trust suits, love to file in Mississippi (I saw a thing on 60 minutes about it years ago) because the jurors think that if they vote in favor of the plaintiffs, then they might get some back, too (like in their own case, not necessarily in kickbacks).
And what's in the water in Marshall, TX that makes the citizens there so amenable to these ridiculous claims?
The juries there are well known for delivering some very big numbers - they like a lot of zeros.
Of course, you could argue that Apple has used the same technique since 1984 and its Control panel, but that's splitting hairs.
Just a little earlier, and many things on a Lisa used the tab meme, I think all the windows used the tab as identification and window control. When you have a lot of minimized windows, it looked like a multi-row tab array that one freaking finds in a file drawer.
I'd bet they settled for $5 million...10 million tops. They'd never do better than that in a protracted legal battle with Apple.
its $1,500 for the WWDC tickets right?
and there were 5,000+ attendees according to the jobsnote?
$7.5 million bucks before expenses. What's 5 or 10 mill between friends, right?
Would someone mind sharing with me WHERE there is universal use of tabs in the Tiger operating system?
Look throughout system preferences. There are tabs on most of those preference panels. The look may be slightly different from Safari's tabs in the main browser window, but the behavior is the same.
software patents should at the very least be reformed so that they only last at maximum a year or two. that way, corporations can get their return on investment on months of expensive development, and get their earned early foot in the door, but it wouldn't prevent others from imitating and improving on software innovation.
For something truly innovative enough to deserve a patent, I think five years is reasonable - that's effectively one or two complete product lifecycles. I don't think two years is long enough to turn a profit from an innovation - it may take more than two years from the date of filing until the product actually ships.
Of course, my "innovative enough to deserve a patent" clause is a big deal. 90% of the patents currently issued are obvious and shouldn't have any protection whatsoever.
Of course, you could argue that Apple has used the same technique since 1984 and its Control panel, but that's splitting hairs.
Not really. It's the exact same concept. A vertical column of icons or a horizontal row of text labels, both performing the same action (swapping content in and out of a different region of the screen.)
This patent shouldn't even be legal... this is like patenting how I walk... with one foot in front of the other. Or patenting how to power a computer... with electricity. What's wrong with this world?
According to Wikipedia, a Sun/NeWS version of Emacs used tabs in 1988, and is one of the first examples of their use in an application. Mac System 6 (1988) used it for the control panel, but nowhere else (and abandoned it in System 7). OS/2 supported tabs as a standard system control (used in a lot of standard system apps and many third-party apps) in version 2.0 (1992).
Aside from these examples, I don't recall seeing tabs used in applications until Mozilla 0.9.5 introduced them (in 2001), and Mac OS X (also 2001), after which they became very popular and started appearing in a lot of different applications.
Given the fact that the concept was unheard of in commercial products before 1988, and was not commonplace until 2001, I think one could easily claim that the concept was not obvious in 1987 (20 years ago.)
You'll soon be able to patent a fart technique.
The disputed section referred to the technique of creating a window on a computer screen with controls that switch between views of multiple associated display objects within the window, erasing one view as the user selects another while still giving a spatial frame of reference and the same general interface during the switch.
Almost all GUI elements in computer applications have much older real world analogues. I don't really understand why anyone is allowed to patent a digital version of something we've been doing for decades or even centuries in some cases.
The patent described above sounds exactly like changing a TV channel. Pressing a channel button (back when TVs had such things) erases one view and replaces it with another. The frame with it's control buttons, speakers, etc. remains unchanged.
The whole idea of tabs comes from books. The only difference there is that choosing a tab causes it to flip over and move to the other side of the "display".
This patent shouldn't even be legal... this is like patenting how I walk... with one foot in front of the other. Or patenting how to power a computer... with electricity. What's wrong with this world?
Great analogy!
For example, here's geoDex on a Commodore 64 from 1986 but how else would you design an interface for a rolodex without using tabs... ?
"And what's in the water in Marshall, TX that makes the citizens there so amenable to these ridiculous claims?"
Recent tests have shown an inordinate level of graft.
software patents should at the very least be reformed so that they only last at maximum a year or two. that way, corporations can get their return on investment on months of expensive development, and get their earned early foot in the door, but it wouldn't prevent others from imitating and improving on software innovation.
of course, the heart of the problem is the broad patents that are being given. but giving a short lifespan to broad patent would be effective, I think.
either way, the patent system as a whole needs an overhaul desperately.
I disagree with that. Even software patents should be for longer than a year or two.
Five to seven years seems sufficient. The idea of a patent is to allow the invention to spread, and to give other inventors enough knowledge about the item to enable them to try to find a valid way around it. So the inventor is allowed a good time to cash in on it.
Even in software, it can take several years until the software is able to use the invention.
Of course, my "innovative enough to deserve a patent" clause is a big deal. 90% of the patents currently issued are obvious and shouldn't have any protection whatsoever.
The Supreme Court has recently made a landmard decision about "obviousnes? It has tightned the ability to get a patent when based upon other past patents, as many patents are.
It will make challenges to patents easier as well.
My feeling it that there mush be something to this. It there wasn't, then Apple would have spent much less going to court.
I don't believe that Apple only paid 5 to 7 million. They were asking for 20 million plus an injunction against Apples' selling theis OS, or any product based on it, which would have stopped all computer sales as well.
If this company could afford to go to court, Apple certainly could.
If Apple won in court, it would make others with dubious claims think twice about suing. But when Apple paid Creative, and is now paying these people, others look at Apple as being an easier mark. I'm pretty sure Apple knows this, and wouldn't end the suit just to get it over with.
The injunction could be successful well before the court case is heard which could take many months. This is a risk Apple would be unwilling to accept. I'm sure this is one of the reasons for settlement.
An injunction is only successful if the court thinks that the plaintiff has such a strong case that they will likely win. If there is any doubt, it is not successful.
This patent shouldn't even be legal... this is like patenting how I walk... with one foot in front of the other. Or patenting how to power a computer... with electricity. What's wrong with this world?
I agree, this one seems particularly vague. It could cover quite a lot of things. If people use frames on a website to navigate content, does that violate this? Itunes links at the side that navigate between the library/store/playlists?
Someone else must have been charged over this violation or we're not getting all the facts here.