Slashdot Log In
Apple Sued For Using Tabs In OS X Tiger
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Apr 24, 2007 04:02 AM
from the trolls-on-the-march dept.
from the trolls-on-the-march dept.
rizzo320 writes "AppleInsider is reporting that an Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' infringes an interface patent relating to the OS's nearly universal use of tabs. The suit was filed in the patent troll's and forum shopper's favorite venue: Marshall, TX. The patent in question is 5072412, which was originally issued to Xerox in 1987, but is now owned or licensed to IP Innovation LLC and its parent Technology Licensing Corporation. 'Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches, as well as page tabs in the Safari web browser, bear the closest similarity to the now 20-year-old description' of the patent, according to the article. IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 million and an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Legislation To Overhaul US Patent System 336 comments
FutureDomain sends us to a PC World report on the filing yesterday of legislation to overhaul the US patent system completely. The US has the only system worldwide that tries to ascertain who first invented a thing — everywhere else the criterion is who filed first, and the new legislation would bring the US into line. Identical bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate by, in each case, bipartisan sponsors. The corporate roster of backers includes Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, and nearly everyone else. From the article: "The provisions of the Patent Reform Act would... restrict damages that patent holders can receive for infringement lawsuits, create a new procedure to challenge the validity of a patent after it has been granted, and boost resources for the US Patent and Trademark Office."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Mozilla? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:4, Insightful)
They certainly got more cash
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple have lost several high-profile patent cases in the last year or two. They'll probably hit Apple first and see if it works, then use the decision against anyone else they feel is infringing. It'll be harder for MS to throw money at it if one judge has already decided that tabbing infringes.
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Opera next? (Score:4, Informative)
http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/07/26/cybernote
Parent
Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent basically looks like it covers anthing resembling a modern user interface.
The patent more specifically stresses mechanics like the Opera/IE/Mozilla browser tabs, spreadsheet "workbooks", the Windows taskbar, you name it.
So, in other words, just about any software on the market today.
Well, that's what I seemed to gather from the passing glance I gate the patent text. So I might be wrong. Please correct me if that's the case.
Assuming I'm right, this is a "blanket patent" that can be sicced on anybody they chose to.
One would expect them to go after several small companies at once, with several lesser damage claims, companies that might not afford to pay a lawyer.
Instead, they go after a rather large company (again, correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple is a pretty big company), and claim a relatively unimpressive sum (20+ mil).
I could only suppose again that damage claims must be related to number of users that the product was sold to (or somesuch).
Still, going after Microsoft and claiming damage for... heh... EVERYTHING Windows and Windows-based Microsoft ever made and sold, now that would be a huge sum we're talking about.
Claiming Apple wouldn't have the money to go into court for this is pretty ridiculous... well, unless, maybe they're counting on Apple settling out of court for such a paltry sum ?
I can only hope they get smashed in court, and smashed good.
Parent
Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)
The mechanism which you describe is used in the porn, ad, etc industries where the small guys have positive cash flow and something can be collected out of them. That is not valid for most small guys in the software industry. Further to this, there are not that many small guys that do stuff that do anything new and UI related. Most just reuse what is supplied to them in the latest SDK and do not do anything new.
As far as the claim size, it is aimed to make Apple seriously consider settling.
If they settle there is enough war chest to pay for a couple of legal daisycutters to be dropped on some small guys (if you find any to drop it in the first place, no small commercial UI companies left around). There will also enough money to lob one big bunkerbuster at Redmond and fight a properly sized claim.
Parent
Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Funny)
PatentTroll: Give me $20m
Apple: Why?
PatentTroll: We'll sue MS with it
Apple: OK then.
Wait, does that sound like SCO?
Parent
Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Funny)
It's like a 3-ring binder, but "on the internet!"®©
All rights reserved. "on the internet!" is a registered trademark of Patent Trolls Inc.
Parent
Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Insightful)
1.Set a stupid precedence with some unknowing schmuck(s) of a company who knows nothing of the common good.
2.Apply precedence ad nauseam, creating more FUD than anything real.
3.Profit!
I find the state of business quite sad. There are too many companies who try to get away with dubious deeds just to make a buck.
Parent
Re:Cashcows (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you're missing out on the point of patents. When the framers of the Constitution set up the trademarks, copyrights, and patent law it was specifically for a case like this. They imagined that old man Wilcox would invent an idea and patent it, but without any resources to develop his idea, he'd sit on his patent and wait. Then when rich old Farmer Gray took his new farming device to market 15 years later and proved to be a financial hit at the farmer's markets Wilcox would swoop in unveiling his submarine patent and demand a piece of the action, if not take over the device entirely from Gray! Early capitalism at its finest.
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true any more.
I'd point out that the patent was filed for more than 20 years ago, but not granted until 1991.
I'd also point out that the patent implies an implementation much different than how such things are implemented today. The idea is not subject to patent, only the implementation -- which is demonstrably different.
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Informative)
Swooooooosh
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Funny)
However, if you don't go after infringements in a timely fashion (e.g. wait for the patent to become an industry standard, or wait for the target company to become successful), then you risk losing rights.
Parent
Re:Mozilla? (Score:5, Informative)
No, Bill Gates was "inspired"... Jobs actually licensed the technology.
Parent
Re:Patent expired? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Patent expired? (Score:5, Informative)
What we appear to have here is a patent troll who waited until the last minute to file, hoping to grab as much infringing money as possible. However, the doctrine of laches prevents this sort of behavior. Laches means that you cannot sit on your rights and constructively encourage infringement only to later sue. Think of it as entrapment or inducement.
More importantly, this idea has been mainstream for years. Visual Basic (et al.) allow for this sort of tabbing behavior. The question is whether M$ is licensed, or whether the troll has been sitting on his rights. Beyond that, we can't know all of the ins and outs of the case at this point.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Patent expired? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, as the previous poster noted, the term of United States patents [wikipedia.org] changed after this patent was granted. For patents in force before 1995, the patent lasts the greater of 20 years after filing or 17 years after grant. Thus, this patent is in force until 2008.
Parent
Re:Patent expired? (Score:4, Informative)
- conception - the day someone came up with the invention
- reduction to pracice - the day someone figured out how to fully make the invention (after functional testing, etc)
- filing date - the actual day the patent application was filed
- publication date - the day the patent application is published (usually about 1 and 1/2 years after filing)
- grant date - the day when the patent comes into effect
Damages are only available back until the publication date at the earliest, and that is only if the patent claims didn't change during the time between publication and grant. Prior art has to be known either more than one year before filing, or before conception.Parent
Maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Birth of GUI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Birth of GUI (Score:5, Insightful)
Xerox came up with an implementation of a new way to interface with computers, that had been talked about since quite a while, Apple made it into a usable system and came up with most of the way we interact with computers nowadays.
Parent
Re:Birth of GUI (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford didn't invent the assembly line. The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane. Wanamaker didn't invent the department store. Edison didn't invent the light bulb.
All these people derived inspiration from their contemporaries. All they did was "steal" ideas from others and make them better.
Steve Jobs' saying, that "real artists ship," is right on the money. Production, after all, has a more lasting impact than theory and prototype.
Parent
The Apple Lisa had tabs! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs! (Score:5, Interesting)
Fine, if you have only one window. In any case, if you do just use one window, you don't have to have the window border there.
Unfortunately, I use many windows, and when I use an Apple computer, I can have only one window visible, and still the menu is for the wrong application - not such a problem if I'm using a mouse and realise, but if I use keyboard accelerators, then I can get into all sorts of trouble before I realise it's not the correct application.
When it *is* the correct menu for the window I want, and I'm, say, using a window on the second monitor, I have to move the mouse all the way to the other monitor just to use the menu.
I used to use a computer with, IIRC, 18 monitors. I can't imagine what a pain in the rear end that would have been if it were running OSX.
It's oft claimed that it's easier to get to a menu when it's at the edge of the screen. That's true, though it is almost always further away (unless you only use one full screen window), and strangely enough, everything else on the screen requires precision mouse movements and because of that, I've become quite good at it - I don't need that kind of help, thanks!
It's brain dead, plain and simple.
(YMMV)
Parent
Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs! (Score:4, Insightful)
If they designed OS X around having 18 monitors available, the experience for the majority of users, who have onlye 1 monitor, would be a lot worse. Quite a few people do use 2 or even 3 though, so it's a valid criticism in those cases. IIRC, there are keyboard shortcuts to access the menu, so you could try those.
Parent
what a mess (Score:4, Funny)
maybe even closed source software should be outlawed and make ALL software mandatory opensource...
this is getting ridiculous...
Why so late?? (Score:4, Funny)
To heck with patent reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Reap what you sow.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly. (Score:5, Interesting)
a) Big companies are hurt badly by ludicrous patent claims.
b) They buy, I mean, lobby politicians to kill software patents in the US
that we will have something resembling sanity.
Companies can use copyright to protect what is theirs and shoulder the fact that other people will copy their good ideas, that would benefit everybody.
SwPat reform? No! We need SwPat Retirement! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a nice glass broken in two halves, you can consider glueing it together again.
If it's broken in thousands of miniscule pieces... you simple throw it away.
Software Patents are like glass broken in thousands of dangerous miniscule shards that if ingested only hurt the industry by the inside.
Retire it. Now!
It the patent is 20 years old... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks,
Mike
Re:Is there an English version of this patent? (Score:5, Informative)
Or, to put it another way, you have no idea what you're talking about. Software patents are totally different from normal patents because they protect ideas instead of implimentations. This is inevitable since software is almost always translated from a source language, which is often a trade secret. If software patents were the same as normal ones it would be the details of this source code which is protected (as it is by copyright law already). Allowing patents on software extends the protection to any implimentation in any language and often with any algorithm. This is vastly more protection than a normal patent which covers only one, clearly defined, method and effectively allows a software patent to lock up an entire idea or concept.
Additionally, this patent covers something which is as old as the hills. Tabs for organising pages are almost as old as paper itself. Putting that onto a computer simulation of paper is not something that should be patentable at all.
TWW
Parent
Re:Is there an English version of this patent? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it transforms gasoline into motive force, it's in violation of the patent. You could build a gasoline powered steam engine and it'd be infringing. The patent could have been for a 2 stroke, then a company comes along and starts mareting a rotary engine and the patent holder sues.
Tabs have been used to assist in organizing and finding specific parts of paper-based information for ages. Desktops, filing cabinets, trash cans and many other objects have made appearances in GUIs, so why not tabs?
Parent
Re:Is there an English version of this patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying it's not patentable is a false conclusion based on hindsight. If someone put a computer in front of you with a text-based interface, you wouldn't immediately look at it and say "tabs!" That's the answer! Obviously, you wouldn't even immediately create the idea of a GUI. A basic graphical interface was possible long before it was actually implemented. In 1981, I wouldn't have been able to find a single reason to identify a tab patent as obvious. Just because an idea is simple doesn't mean it's not patentable. Adding flush rivets to planes is a very simple idea, but it took a tremendous amount of engineering and trial-and-error in manufacturing processes. The end result is patentable because they figured out how to make it happen. The method itself is a trade secret (just as the source code for implementing a software feature can be). You'll note that most patents say "a method where..." or something similar and the patent describes the results. This is why.
Organizing information to display in tabs is a method. At one time, it was novel and non-obvious. There was no reason to reject a patent for it ("I should have thought of that!" isn't one) in 1981. The problem is that software patents last too long (things which were groundbreaking even just 5 years ago are old news), and infringement suits have become a method for profiteering. In 2007, tabs and scroll bars are old hat. Patent infringement suits should have to be defended from day one. If you wait 15 years to sue (at which time, 99% of the industry has gradually adopted that method), you're profiteering. There is no legitimate excuse. If you have been defended your patent since the beginning, that's an entirely different story.
I don't have a problem with patents being granted for novel innovations. I do feel that the USPTO should insist on a uniform licensing model, though, and that patents should need to be defended as the holder becomes aware of the problem, not several years later when the fruit is ripe, so to speak. I also believe that once your idea has propagated to the point where no one can even pinpoint the source, it's too late to sue. It's the difference between holding a patent on a gasoline engine in 1800 and trying to sue for one in 2007.
Parent
Re:Is there an English version of this patent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Each of these innovations builds from the previous in a new way. But each of them also was non-obvious when it was invented. The wheel seems utterly obvious to all of us alive today, but it obviously wasn't when it was invented (or it would have been invented sooner). Absurdly simple things like four-stroke engines or counter-sinking screws or using a visual desktop metaphor weren't always so.
Parent
Re:Is there an English version of this patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason you are right about that, is because patents are horribly broken in lots of fields - pharmaceuticals, for example.
They often do not work anything like as well as they are supposed to in advancing technology, and they do a lot to impose extra costs and barriers to entry.
People on Slashdot dislike software patents in particular, partly because they are particularly bad, and partly because that is what they know most about. There is also very good evidence that software patents do not work because software only recently became patentable. Technology did not advance any faster after this, therefore software patents do not work. We do not have as solid evidence on other types of patents.
See my past Slashdot comments and my blog for more.
Parent
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Informative)
One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.
"Juries in East Texas, unlike those in Houston, Dallas or Austin, are much less likely to have a member with any technical training or education, which exacerbates the problem from the defense perspective, but makes East Texas federal courts an attractive venue for would-be plaintiffs, who know that the jury will, instead, gravitate toward softer or superficial issues that are difficult to predict." http://www.wsgr.com/news/PDFs/09202004_patentpirat es.pdf [wsgr.com]
Parent
Re:Marshall, TX (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Obviously not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see it now - "Your Honor, I'd like to request a jury made up of my fellow serial killers." "Is that a guilty plea I hear?"
Parent
Re:Useful timing (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You all miss the point (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, if there is a patent system, then I can file a patent for my better mousetrap, and receive legal protection for the exclusive right to market it, for a limited time, and in exchange for disclosing the details of how my better mousetrap works to the general public. So now it's a win-win situation - I as the inventor get rewarded, and the general public gets the benefits of my invention.
There are, of course, many problems w/ our current patent system, and I would definitely like to see major reform; but I don't think patents are ridiculous.
Parent