Apple Sued For Using Tabs In OS X Tiger

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!"

Mozilla?

[Ironix]

So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

Re:Mozilla?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Apple's got money.

Re:Mozilla?

[tibike77]

Why not against IE7/Microsoft ?
They certainly got more cash :)

Re:Mozilla?

[tezbobobo]

They've got too much money (for lawyers).

Re:Mozilla?

[Macthorpe]

I think this response has merit.

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.

Re:Mozilla?

[CrudPuppy]

how about for prior art they drag in a filing cabinet from the 60's and show the tabs on top of each folder that separates things by category *grin*

Re:Opera next?

[bryhhh]

What? Firefox has always had tabs, The very first release (back in the days when it was known as Phoenix) had this feature built in (i.e. not a plugin).

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/07/26/cybernotes -a-look-back-at-firefox-phoenix-01/ [cybernetnews.com]

Re:

[arminw]

.....What? Firefox has always had tabs........

My Father's files in his file cabinet had tabs which he made from cardboard. Tabs are tabs after all, just as a wheel is a wheel. Whether the tabs are on a screen or the wheel is made of titanium, rather paper and wood respectively still doesn't change the basic idea of either one. Besides that, don't patents run out after 20 years?

Sounds like the SCO lawyers are realizing that they'll soon be out of work are scouting around for a new source of income.

Re:

[cgenman]

I think what the grandparent poster meant was that Mozilla didn't have tabs until long after Opera tried them... ironically, Opera was from their beginning a variant of tab-based, using the very old-school MDI interface style.

Cashcows

[tibike77]

IANAL, so let me rephrase that in layman's terms.

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.

Re:Cashcows

[arivanov]

No.

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.

Re:Cashcows

[h2g2bob]

Your suggestion is (paraphrasing):

PatentTroll: Give me $20m
Apple: Why?
PatentTroll: We'll sue MS with it
Apple: OK then.

Wait, does that sound like SCO?

Re:Cashcows

[arivanov]

The porn industry is the favourite target of web interface patent trolls. Nearly every web interface patent troll in the last 5+ years has gone after web porn companies as the first target.

The primary reason is exactly this:Wait.. there are patents in the porn industry? The rest of the web does not take the case seriously and laughs it off until the troll has collected a sufficient war chest to go after bigger guys. At the same time nearly any web business method, antipiracy or ui patent is applicable so you have plenty of targets to chose from.

Re:Cashcows

[walt-sjc]

Oh come now... It can be rephrased much more simply...

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.

Re:

[asninn]

That may indeed be what they're counting on - the equivalent of the RIAA's "a settlement will be cheaper than a drawn-out court case" strategy. And add to that the fact that a precedent (Apple paying for the right to use this "patent") is valuable for them (obviously) *and* Apple (since it will make it more likely that Apple's competitors will be sued and lose money, too), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was settled out of court after a while "for an undisclosed sum" (which, given the mutual bene

Re:

[AndersOSU]

Settling out of court doesn't set a precedence, so there would be no benefit for apple to cave unless they think they are going to lose and can get away paying less.

Re:Cashcows

[kripkenstein]

You've got the right idea. Yes, they can sue any modern desktop or web browser. Their strategy appears to be to get a small settlement (only several million) from Apple, who might prefer that to a lawsuit that might cost just as much (and in which they might lose). Then, given that settlement, they can go after bigger fish, like, say, Microsoft, and demand much larger sums of money, while saying that the industry (i.e. Apple, a prominent member in that industry) has already acknowledged their patent as being valid. Not that they need the industry's seal of approval, but it can be of help.

Re:Cashcows

[wellingj]

Wow, so it's like what MS is trying to do to Linux right now.

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.

Re:Cashcows

[jj13]

Apparently there is some "prior art" (IANAL) from about 1985, from apple of all places! If anyone has ever used a really old mac, they'll know about the Switcher program that allowed programs to switch in and out of memory, effectively allowing the system to "multitask" (it could switch between already started programs, but only one could use the system at any time). Even better, I'm pretty sure the switcher had a scrolling effect applied to programs as they were switched into and out of memory, giving a "spacial relationship" between the "views" you were navigating. Since they would have internal documentation regarding the development and use of this technology (and maybe even some UI patents of their own), this might be a slap in the face to any kind of settlement.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[avronius]

Cloning from wikipedia:

In 1986, Apple released the Mac Plus which came standard with 1MiB of RAM. This amount of memory was sufficient to support some form of multitasking, which was first implemented by Andy Hertzfeld in his Switcher program released in April 1985. Switcher worked by designating a number of fixed "slots" in memory, into which applications could be loaded. The user could then switch between these applications by clicking a small button on the top of the menu bar. The current application would horizontally slide out of view, and the next one would slide in. Despite its awkwardness, this approach did fit well with the existing system's memory management scheme, and applications needed no special programming to work with Switcher. This early work on Switcher led to the development of MultiFinder by Apple system software engineers Erich Ringewald and Phil Goldman.

Also sounds like prior art, n'est pas?

Re:

[Savage-Rabbit]

So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

Apple's got money.

Apple also has a high profile and a loyal customer following that borders on being a fan-base which ensures that this will be publicized by every Apple centric website and patent abolishment preaching nerd site on the net. This in turn will ensure that the main stream media will eventually pick up on it and bring it to the attention of the target audience which is the rest of the Software industry thus ensuring they get their FUD into the widest possible circulation completely free of charge.

And that concl

Re:

[siriuskase]

Shouldn't they have gone after Apple back in the 80's when Jobs was "inspired" by the work at Xerox Parc? Why haven't they sued Apple for using a mouse? Shouldn't patent suits happen before an innovation becomes the de facto industry standard interface?

or maybe Disney is getting ready to sue everyone over the mouse

Re:Mozilla?

[mrchaotica]

back in the 80's when Jobs was "inspired" by the work at Xerox Parc?

No, Bill Gates was "inspired"... Jobs actually licensed the technology.

Re:

[canuck57]

Apple's got money.

So does Microsoft!

But why pick on a 1000 lb gorilla when you can go for chimp first.

My guess s Xerox is going for Apple to set the precedent, then go after the gorilla. Even at say $3 a copy sold, this is a huge amount of cash.

In the end, these companies will all realize patents are a curse, not a benefit as the only winners are lawyers and judges. A parasitic cost to the product that will break even the biggest of companies.

Re:

[Sigma 7]

Can you lose rights to a patent for not protecting it?

IANAL, but no.

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.

Re:Mozilla?

[empaler]

Can you lose rights to a patent for not protecting it?

IANAL, but no.

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.

Sooo... Yes?

No

[EmbeddedJanitor]

That only applies to trademarks

It works like this

[EmbeddedJanitor]

First you test the waters with one infringing company. Get some cash out of it, then chase the others.

This approach has numerous benefits. It reduces your cash outlay (lawyer' fees) and risk. Secondly, once you have a judgement in your favour then it is easier to pick off the others with less court costs etc. It is probably easier to chase Apple than MS, so wait until you have more strength to chase them. Opera is too hard to chase (Offshore)

Re:Mozilla?

[Professor_UNIX]

That doesn't make the patent system any less broken.

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.

Re:Mozilla?

[FellowConspirator]

The original framers of the Constitution did not imagine patent trolls at all. At that time, one needed to demonstrate a working prototype of the invention. That prototype was also referred to to remove ambiguity as to what was being patented.

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.

Re:Mozilla?

[dorkygeek]

Swooooooosh

Re:Mozilla?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Greetings! You are in flagrant breach of numerous patents, trademarks and copyrights owned by my clients, Nike. [nike.com] To avoid further escalation send 28 million dollars immediately to: Account 10986754, Bank of Nigeria, Zurich CH.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[DrXym]

So... Why did they suddenly decide to go after Apple now when Mozilla has been in, urm, flagrant violation of this supposed patent for much longer than Apple?

Mozilla? Think farther back than that. OS/2 had tabs close to 15 years ago and I'm sure it wasn't the first either.

Re:Patent expired?

[drphil]

This patent issued in 10 Dec 1991. At that time in the US, a patent was in force 17 years after issue - so that patent becomes public domain in Dec 2008 giving it another 20 months. Since then, when the US changed its rules a few years ago to get closer to the practice in the rest of the world, new patents are now in force for 20 years from the date of application.

Re:Patent expired?

[Dausha]

Patent coverage is effective on date of filing; but only actionable after the patent is issued. That is, if you file in 1987, you have to wait until the patent is issued (1991) until you can start enforcing it---even against those who started using the patented idea in 1990. But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.

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]

Re:Patent expired?

[ajakk]

Patent coverage is effective on date of filing; but only actionable after the patent is issued. That is, if you file in 1987, you have to wait until the patent is issued (1991) until you can start enforcing it---even against those who started using the patented idea in 1990. But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.

You are wrong. Because a patentee has no rights prior to the issuance of a patent, patent damages are not generally available prior to issuance. This was recently changed with the availability of patent publication in the United States. Now, a patentee can get damages back to the date the patent was published, if the claim found to be infringing is substantially identical to a published claim.

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.

Re:Patent expired?

[ajakk]

There are multiple dates that matter in patent law:

• 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.

Re:

[hazydave]

As many have pointed out, the patent was applied for in 1987, but only granted in 1991... thus, its in effect for 17 years from the date it was granted... that's the system prior to 1995.

However, it should be painfully obvious this is the illegal sort of submarine patent. Usually, companies used to attempt the legal sort -- they'd apply, they'd try to drag the process along as slowly as possible, counting on the 17 years they'd get once the patent was granted, the extra time before the patent is granted wou

Re:

[CrankyOldBastard]

I'm pretty sure that Alan Kay invented the tabs concept at Xerox PARC when he invented Smalltalk (and the GUI) sometime in the 1970's.

Re:

[mbone]

Patents do expire in 20 years. You can sue for past enfringement after it expires, but not on-going infringement.

My guess is, this is one last attempt to make something from a vanishing asset, before it disappears completely later this year.

Marshall, TX

[sharp-bang]

So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's web [marshall-chamber.com] pages [marshalltexas.net] don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.

One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the judges (especially T John Ward and Leonard Davis) sets quick trial dates and short discovery deadlines. This saves lawyer spendings and results in quicker cases. Also the local jurors in the area seem to rule in favour of plaintiff more often than not in patent cases.

See Texas IP rocket docket [law.com].

Re:Marshall, TX

[Lars T.]

So why is Marshall, Texas such a great venue for patent extortion? The city's web [marshall-chamber.com] pages [marshalltexas.net] don't seem to have an answer, but it does seem to be a nice place.

One wonders if this boils down to a single judge, who might appreciate a free MacBook.

The judge T. John Ward has a reputation for pushing through a speedy trial (which also means less time to find prior art), and to usually side with the patent holder. http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16280 ,300,p1.html [technologyreview.com]

"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]

Re:

[Senjutsu]

In particular, Ward has a reputation as being extremely willing to hand out injunctions on very flimsy grounds. This helps the patent troller put significant pressure on the defending company to settle with them.

Re:Marshall, TX

[bbn]

Maybe you should be entitled to a jury of peers. Even in tech cases. Meaning a jury of engineers and not a jury of joe stupid.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should be entitled to a jury of peers. Even in tech cases. Meaning a jury of engineers and not a jury of joe stupid.

And in murder cases you should have a jury of murderers.

Obviously not.

[porcupine8]

In a murder case, you're trying to prove that you're not a murderer. And they already get juries of not-murderers. Duh.

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?"

Maybe

[gblackwo]

What a joke. Maybe they should go and get the manilla folder people in on this too, because of their ingenious system of tabbed browsing.

Birth of GUI

[fozzmeister]

It's gotta be said that Xerox is responsible for most of the GUI's we see nowadays, and if anyone has a right to tabs or anything else in that area, they do, they did a hell of a lot of innovation. But the terms for patents in IT are far too long, and it is kinda unfair that Apple is singled out as well.

Re:

[grahamlee]

Xerox have had 25 years to go after Apple, and almost as long to go after Microsoft, for half-inching the GUI. They never did...probably because they were never really in a position to exploit any of the stuff which PARC came up with.

Re:

[Senjutsu]

That fact that Apple paid Xerox to use what they saw at PARC probably factored into it too. You can't really sue a company for using what you willingly sold them...

Re:Birth of GUI

[bursch-X]

This is complete bullshit, when Apple visited Xerox and got their inspiration, Xerox merely had a bunch of demos, not even a complete system yet (that came later). Things like doubleclicking, click and drag, pull-down menus, the desktop metaphor, copy and paste are all inventions that happened at Apple not at Xerox.

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.

Re:Birth of GUI

[pomo monster]

Let me reprise a comment of mine from several months previous:

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.

Re:

[Krater76]

The Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Maybe the Wright Brothers didn't come up with the idea of flying or the first airplane but they made the first airplane that actually flew. Therefore they invented flying.

The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[pammon]

Tabbed UI, Apple Lisa, circa 1980. Screenshots [folklore.org], story [folklore.org].

Screenshots

[remmelt]

Gotta love those screenshots!

Re:

[bmo]

Apple ProDOS had tabs, too.

If something has a real-world example, it's obvious if it's implemented in software, indeed the real world example should be considered "prior art".

--
BMO

Re:

[Xyde]

Also of note in the first image, It looks like Apple did briefly toy with the idea of having the menu bar on the window (like how Windows does it), but then scrapped that for the single menu bar at the top of the screen as we have now.

Re:

[dwater]

> ...but then scrapped that for the single menu bar at the top of the screen as we have now.

unfortunately.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Senjutsu]

Fortunately, you mean. Having a useless title bar consume one of the four extremely valuable screen edges and parking the menu under it is one of the most horrendously stupid violations of Fitts' law in the history of user interfaces.

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[dwater]

No, I mean unfortunately.

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)

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[JonathanBoyd]

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.

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.

Re:

[shmlco]

From my perspective Fitts' law worked well when the screen size was 9". In today's world of multiple monitors and 30" screens (and even multiple 30" screens), I'd have to say the premise is outdated, as that menu bar is often a long ways away from the currently active window.

Further, while hitting the menu may be faster when it's on the edge, once you've done so you now need to travel the same distance back to your work area, which ISN'T on an edge.

All in all, I'd say today's interfaces need in-place, conte

Re:

[jez9999]

The GIMP uses several windows to contain an interface what is, semantically, one interface. That makes it totally unintuative and ugly, and I have no idea why they've not redesigned the interface yet. Do you?

Re:

[dwater]

Unfortunately, you don't always know it's for the right application...unless you happen to notice.

I always know where the file menu is on other OSes too - it's at the top left of the window I'm using. I don't have to go to a different monitor or move my mouse right the way across the screen to us it either.

Re:

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Besides that... weren't the tabs actually invented by the person that invented folders for archiving documents [wikipedia.org]. You know, those paper things that computers started to mimic at a certain point.
IANAL but isn't that some sort of prior art? Sure it's not a digital tab, but should that matter?

Re:The Apple Lisa had tabs!

[Catil]

Tabbed UI, Agostino Ramelli, circa 1588. Screenshot [kirchersociety.org], story [kirchersociety.org].

So did System 8

[dysprosia]

Mac OS System 8 (IIRC) had tabs too, for spring-loaded folders.

what a mess

[FudRucker]

i think all software patents should be banned, whos next? Opera or mozilla/firefox web browser? fluxbox?

maybe even closed source software should be outlawed and make ALL software mandatory opensource...

this is getting ridiculous...

Re:

[QuantumG]

Hey, nice job. I like the way you got em nodding then slipped that little gem in there.

Well done.

Why so late??

[Jugalator]

Oh wait, I guess it took them 2 years to learn how to write a letter.

To heck with patent reform

[ricree]

It seems to me that venue shopping is the thing that needs to go here. The idea that it is possible to pick and choose who gets to decide on the lawsuit based upon how easy it will be to win simply boggles the mind.

Lawsuit as a business plan -- the US problem

[Morgaine]

Patents provide the low-hanging fruit in this area, but the actual problem goes much deeper.

As we all know here, software patents are wholly inappropriate in software, as they undermine the very basis of computing. But as long as companies are free to engage lawyers to litigate as a business plan, no amount of patent reform will fix this issue, because lawyers can literally create a case out of nothing. And they do so regularly, as we've seen in hundreds of examples recently.

The problem lies in part with

Reap what you sow..

[delire]

Worth mentioning that Adobe has a similar patent [espacenet.com] (ironically presented in a webpage that breaches both the aforementioned patent and this patent):

Abstract of EP0689133 A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis, comprising the steps of: (1) Establishing an area on the computer screen in which the multiple sets of information are to be displayed, the established area having a maximum size which is substantially less than the entire area of the screen. (2) Providing within the established area a plurality of selection indicators, one for each of the multiple sets of information. (3) Selecting one of the multiple sets of information for display within the established area by pointing to one of the selection indicators within the established area, whereby the selected set of information will be substituted within the established area for the set of information previously being displayed therein. A selected set of information may also be moved out of the selected area by pointing to its selection indicator and dragging it away.

Anyway, you reap what you sow. Apple is a member of the Business Software Alliance, one of the heaviest lobbyists [ffii.org] in favour of software patents (and their synchronisation with the cannabilistic US model) here in the EU.

You're right

[remmelt]

There you have it. Apple, the cake, and eating it, etc.

Anyway, I hope that DRM will fall through as horribly as this will. Fucking hypocrites.

Re:

[SenorCitizen]

Apple is a member of the Business Software Alliance, one of the heaviest lobbyists [ffii.org] in favour of software patents (and their synchronisation with the cannabilistic US model) here in the EU.

Now, the best solution to all would be to trash the US model and adopt the cannabinistic Netherlands model.

Ironic

[octal666]

IP Innovation sues for a 20 years old patent they bought from Xerox... good thing those software patents things. It's a pitty the rest of patents don't go the same way, patenting the "four wheeled vehicle with engine" would have been a smart move.

Re:

[mr_matticus]

The thing is that "four wheeled vehicle with engine" at one time would have been truly novel and patentable. As technologies progress, they're supposed to be compressed and the initial patents lapse and society goes on.

The problem with software patents is that software moves a lot more quickly than most kinds of manufacturing and design; it is also more likely with software that good ideas will be emulated across the board as users begin to expect it--to the point that it becomes standardized. The steerin

Re:

[marcosdumay]

The patent of a "four weeled vehicle with engine" would be denied, just because it doesn't explain what sort of verhicle it is. The (very insightfull) gear that transmit power from the engine to a pair of weels while permiting them to have different velocities (and made a 4 weeled vehicle possible) was patented, and rightly so.

See, generic patent that applies to anything at the horizon despite the actual technology used -> denied. Specific patent that applies to well defined piece of technology -> gr

Re:

[mr_matticus]

The patent of a "four weeled vehicle with engine" would be denied, just because it doesn't explain what sort of verhicle it is.

Sure it does. It's a motorized carriage. If you're the first one with the foresight to use an engine to generate rotational force to drive wheels, you've got yourself a patent. Something can only be obvious after someone has thought of it.

Specific patent that applies to well defined piece of technology -> granted. That's the way it was, and that is what doesn't happen with software patents.

I'd say a "personal computer" is a fairly well-defined and sufficiently narrow innovation space. If you're an aeronautics engineer, you would think that patents that apply to aircraft generally are too broad, but that's not the case. There are lots more software tit

I hope Apple losses, adn does it badly.

[jotaeleemeese]

It will not be until

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.

Is there patent insurance?

[aplusjimages]

Like when you buy a house you get title insurance just in case all the lawyers missed some old title to your house somewhere. Is there a patent insurance that protects the company from the person who patented the idea?

Re:

[ajakk]

You can get patent insurance, but these days it tends to be very expensive and have lots of loopholes. One the main reasons it can be expensive is because one of the largest costs companies want to offset is the cost of getting around an injunction. However, that can be very expensive, and very hard to determine.

SwPat reform? No! We need SwPat Retirement!

[Cyclops]

We don't need a Software Patent reform, we need it to have a quite sudden early retirement.

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...

[lord_mike]

Shouldn't have it expired by now?

Thanks,

Mike

Biased Edit?

[ohearn]

I know this will probably kill karma, but here goes.

"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!"

I really have to wonder if the article summary would have just cheered wildly and forgotten about patent reform for a few minutes if it had been MS they were suing, or if all the fans of Apple and MS bashers would have taken a break to still support the bigger issue on this one.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[nagora]

People bitch about software patents, but in reality they are not that different from any other patents.

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

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[Firethorn]

To put it another way, this is like being able to patent the gasoline engine.

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?

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

That's not strictly true. Patents protect methods. Whether that method involves a series of gears, a paintbrush's movement on canvas, or some lines of code isn't really relevant, generally.

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.

Re:

[hey!]

Well, if you remember the early days of GUIs, (the 1980s) there were lots of attempts to create highly literal representations of familiar and useful real world objects: trapezoidal desktops that sat on top of file drawers to represent that the surface in question was, indeed a desktop; tabbed notebooks with spiral "bindings" to represent the fact that this was, indeed, a notebook.

Nobody patented these things because it was the obvious way to make a GUI. It was also the wrong way.

Very quickly, the interfac

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[mr_matticus]

That shouldn't be allowed. The orignal meaning of the word patent is open (as in patently obvious).

Actually, "patently obvious" and "patent" come from "letters patent" which itself comes from Latin, but that's neither here nor there. The openness refers to the opening of the design at the expiration of the period, not to the clarity and precision of the filing itself. A patent has never been expected to provide enough information to produce the result--only enough information to describe it sufficiently for identification.

For the reasons I stated above, allowing a partially secret patent is a contradiction in terms

Only from a poor understanding. Trade secret trumps patent in IP poker.

You should not be allowed to patent "a means of producing mechanical energy from gasoline. It's got metal bits in it, and that's all I'm saying." But you should be allowed to patent a specific implementation, e.g. the four stroke internal combustion engine. That would not prevent someone else inventing another means to the same end, e.g. a turbine.

Start from the beginning. "A means of producing mechanical energy from a combustible fuel source" absolutely was patentable (not by 1850, though). The external combustion engine was patentable when created; the internal combustion engine was patentable, too. From there, someone could come up with the idea of the piston engine to drive a rotating shaft attached to a wheel. Another person could come up with the idea of a turbine. Yet another could come up with the rotary engine. Using these engines to drive a fan blade (propeller) instead of a wheel would be novel, and then using a series of fan blades to compress air, or using that propeller to generate direct lift would branch out from there. This process continues, and the original patents lapse as innovation compresses them into a mass of "basic principles."

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.

Re:Is there an English version of this patent?

[the_womble]

People bitch about software patents, but in reality they are not that different from any other patents.

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.

Re:

[mwvdlee]

So if I file some lawsuit about some ancient patent against you, and make sure you are able to pay whatever I ask in damages, you won't feel screwed and just pay me?

Re:Useful timing

[walt-sjc]

A month or so after the one programmer left at apple finishes the iPhone.

Re:

[tehwebguy]

Now I understand what people mean when they say "Software patents fuel innovation"..

They REALLY MEAN "Software patents fuel IP Innovation LLC"

Re:You all miss the point

[Beolach]

Patents in general are ridiculous. They hold back the advancement of humankind at the expense of ensuring financial security.

I wouldn't say they're ridiculous in general. There are good (IMO) reasons [wikipedia.org] to have patents. The thing is, as I understand it, patents were originally intended specifically to promote "the advancement of humanckind." Say I invent the proverbial "better mousetrap" - I build my new invention, and now my house is 100% mouse-free. But without a patent system, I'm not interested or able in selling my better mousetrap to the general public: after all, my design is pretty simple, and the general public could easily build their own just by looking at one of mine. So there's little to no incentive for me to tell anyone how my better mousetrap works - in fact, if I did want to try to market it, there'd be incentive to obfuscate it. So I keep my better mousetrap secret, and eventually I die. Now, since no one else knows how to build my better mousetrap (or even that it ever existed), where's the benefit to humankind?

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.

Re:

[autophile]

Say I invent the proverbial "better mousetrap" - I build my new invention, and now my house is 100% mouse-free. But without a patent system, I'm not interested or able in selling my better mousetrap to the general public: after all, my design is pretty simple, and the general public could easily build their own just by looking at one of mine.

I think there's a fallacy buried in here. You are implicitly assuming that one and only one person is capable of that particular "a-ha!" moment. The reality is that w