Microsoft Double Click Patent Granted

[Lee]

SAN FRANCISCO - You might not know that Microsoft was recently awarded a patent for "the time-based hardware button for application loss." In plain English, that is the mouse double-click. And some consider it to be one of a number of frivolous patents that might well endanger technological innovation and free expression alike.

Filed in July 2002 and granted in late April, the Microsoft double-click patent is described thus by the U.S. Patent Office: "A method and system are provided for extending the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device."

Even Microsoft isn't really sure what that means or what the patent actually covers, according to TechWorld.com. Citing an unnamed company spokesperson, TechWorld said it was developed by Microsoft Pocket PC group workers – but nobody knows whether it applies to desktop applications, or even how the software giant plans to enforce the patent, if at all.

And that kind of thing is what brings the Electronic Frontier Foundation to a boil. The group recently launched what they call a Patent Busting Project, saying that frivolous patents are already doing far more harm than good.

"I think its kind of just as devious as Amazon's one-click," EFF staff attorney Jason Schultz told AVNOnline.com. "The kind of technology it's trying to own has been around for decades. The patent specifically tries to claim that if you hold the button down or click it in a sequence, Microsoft invented that. And I think the patent's pretty ridiculous."

Interestingly, Schultz said, Microsoft has never actually sued anyone for patent infringement, a stark contrast to other companies holding what the EFF might deem similarly frivolous patents.

And it's the frivolous patents that are now the target of the EFF's Patent Busting Contest, the kind Schultz said become fodder for their holders to use "intimidation and extortion tactics" that concern most people with interests in cyberspace and elsewhere.

Among the patents they consider frivolous: one-click online shopping, online shopping carts, the hyperlink, video streaming, internationalizing domain names, popup windows, targeted banner ads, paying with credit cards online, framed browsing, and affiliate linking.

Schultz said the EFF launched the Patent Busting Contest June 10. "The first phase of it is opening a contest for people to submit bad patents they want us to bust," he said. "We're leaving it up to the public. You can say why you think it's bad, and who's being threatened."

The contest will run for two weeks, and the EFF will post a kind of Top Ten Most Wanted List involving such patents, most likely on June 30. "And," Schultz said, "if they're in the top ten list, we're certainly going to take them on."

That means the EFF will call for help researching prior art for each of the top ten frivolous patents as determined by the contest, and take a challenge right to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a bid to get genuinely bad or frivolous patents off the books.

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=106445

Just think.. every time you double click something you owe Micro$oft some $$$ now

Regards,

Lee

[retrograde]

I really think patents and intellectual property rights go way too far. It's disgusting. :whip:

[Lee]

Originally posted by retrograde
I really think patents and intellectual property rights go way too far. It's disgusting. :whip:

To a point i would agree with you however, thats not to say patents shouldnt be granted to companies who makes a significant part of their income from one type of business model or device but rather that the patent office really needs an overhaul so they can actually understand exactly what the patents they are granting mean on a much wider reach.

Regards,

Lee

[retrograde]

Originally posted by Lee
To a point i would agree with you however, thats not to say patents shouldnt be granted to companies who makes a significant part of their income from one type of business model or device but rather that the patent office really needs an overhaul so they can actually understand exactly what the patents they are granting mean on a much wider reach.

I suppose I should have said they, "sometimes go too far." I agree with patents when they're actually deserved. But with the stupid patents issued, like the ones mentioned in the article, things need to be reformed.

I get more pissed off with how intellectual property rights work against lower income and developing countries, especially with access to medicines.

[Lee]

See now thats something i do feel very strongly about, medicine patents.

As far as *I* am concerned if a company has developed a medicine that will help people there is no reason it should be patented in my eyes, i can understand that these companies want to make oney from it but by patenting the medicines it then limits the effectiveness of any future developments to that medicine unless the company holding the patent decides to try and make it work better.

Regards,

Lee

[retrograde]

Originally posted by Lee
See now thats something i do feel very strongly about, medicine patents.

As far as *I* am concerned if a company has developed a medicine that will help people there is no reason it should be patented in my eyes, i can understand that these companies want to make oney from it but by patenting the medicines it then limits the effectiveness of any future developments to that medicine unless the company holding the patent decides to try and make it work better.

Regards,

Lee

Agreed, especially when much of the initial research for development of new medicines comes from taxpayer money anyway.

These companies spend very little (proportionately) on research and development, and much more on marketing - while they use the research angle as justification for increasing the time a drug can be patented.

[EmporerEJ]

Lee, I'm afraid that's not exactly accurate.
A patent does NOT do that...indeed, the purpose of a patent is exactly the opposite. To lay out what a patent covers. You can certainly add to that item in a novel way and get a patent based on the very product you are building from.
The purpose of the patent is to clearly show how you can duplicate the item so you CAN build on it. In fact, if a patent ISN'T clear, it won't "make it" as a patent.

Back on topic.....I wonder how Microsoft got around the 1 year clock on this? Windows 3.1 used "Double-click" and that was eons ago.

[raymor]

I dislike Microsoft intensely and use only
Linux on all of my systems except for the
singuylar task of writing Windows applications,
and I am a victim of the ridiculous Acacia
patents where they patented an idea that they
claimed they had thought of a year after
I actually put into into production. The Acacia
patent and others really disgust me.
Therefore I'd say I'm biased against Microsoft
and their patent in this case.

However, maybe it wouldbe good to go read the
patent before declaring that the sky is falling.
The patent does
not in fact cover double click at all.
What they patented was a few particular
options regarding how a program might behave
if the button is held down for a while instead
of just tapped. They specifically list
the patented options in the patent.
For example, they have patented the use
of such a button such that tapping it
opens the application (program) in the default
view, while holding down the button opens
the application with the last viewed
document open.

So their patent covers something not yet
seen, that I know of a single program doing
one of two things when it opens depending on
whether the button was tapped or held.
Ie., tapping the "email" button on your PDA would
open Pocket Outlook, while holding down
the same button would go directly to the
"compose new message" screen in Pocket Outlook.

Then also they have patented using "double
click" for that same purpose of having an
application open in a different view depending
on whether the button was single clicked or double clicked.

[Lee]

Originally posted by EmporerEJ
The purpose of the patent is to clearly show how you can duplicate the item so you CAN build on it. In fact, if a patent ISN'T clear, it won't "make it" as a patent.

Wasnt that what i just said above?

Specifically 'so you can build on it' meaning no one else can.

Regards,

Lee

[EmporerEJ]

Originally posted by Lee
Wasnt that what i just said above?

Specifically 'so you can build on it' meaning no one else can.

Regards,

Lee

No, it's not. Exactly the opposite. The purpose of the patent is so OTHERS can build improvements to the design. What YOU said was so the original patent holder can be the only one to "build on it." (Did I mis-understand what you wrote?)

Now, I understand this would be more difficult to do in medicine, but not impossible. There are several examples that come to mind; acetaminophen, Tylenol 3 and any other combination drug coupled with acetaminophen. I'm sure a search would turn up hundreds, if not thousands of others just in that field.

[Lee]

Originally posted by EmporerEJ
No, it's not. Exactly the opposite. The purpose of the patent is so OTHERS can build improvements to the design. What YOU said was so the original patent holder can be the only one to "build on it." (Did I mis-understand what you wrote?)

Now, I understand this would be more difficult to do in medicine, but not impossible. There are several examples that come to mind; acetaminophen, Tylenol 3 and any other combination drug coupled with acetaminophen. I'm sure a search would turn up hundreds, if not thousands of others just in that field.

The purpose of a patent is to 'protect' your (or my) invention.

Meaning that unless a license has been granted nobody else can patent anything like the original idea or anything that contains components of the original idea

Regards,

Lee

[EmporerEJ]

Originally posted by Lee
The purpose of a patent is to 'protect' your (or my) invention.

Meaning that unless a license has been granted nobody else can patent anything like the original idea or anything that contains components of the original idea

Regards,

Lee

Well, yes...and no.

It is indeed designed to protect your unique idea. But, more importantly to my point, it's designed to DEFINE your invention. So that me, solid citizen, can see your design, and think of a new lever, or rod that could be added to your invention to make a new and novel item. While it depends on your design, it's an improvement on your design. I can then sell my lever or rod and I own the rights to that improvement. In MY case, your invention then becomes "prior art".
For example...you invent a knife to cut paper. I see your knife with it's clean sharp edge and think, Hmmmm...if I use 2 knives, in opposing directions, attached on a fulcrum, I could make a better and more controllable paper cutter. I have invented a pair of scissors. While it certainly references your sharp cutting blade idea, it's better and is a unique and novel design.
I don't need a license from you to use the "sharp blade paper cutter" idea in this case. While it completely contains the components of the original design, it is a new and novel design that even you can't make without MY permission.

So, try to contain your "." You should use your "sharp cutter" to scratch slightly below the surface of the definition of a patent that was in every schoolbook.