the double click
June 2, 2004 6:38 PM Subscribe
Microsoft patents the double-click. Microsoft has been granted a patent on the double-click. The Public Patent Foundation is protesting this as they did Microsoft's patent on the FAT File System.
Double-click today, tomorrow... typing. Bwahaha!
Criminals, because when we outlaw double-clicks....
*ducks*
posted by drezdn at 7:15 PM on June 2, 2004
*ducks*
posted by drezdn at 7:15 PM on June 2, 2004
An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time.
Does my java-enabled Nokia phone count as a "limited resource computing device"? Because, when typing text messages, holding down buttons for different lengths of time enables you to use different functions. Hell, are digital watches "limited resource computing devices"? Because I remember having a watch years ago, where holding down a button for a few seconds had a different result than just pressing it quickly, in regards to the stopwatch, I believe.
I wonder who looks through all the patents Microsoft ges and decides what alarmist headline to put on them?
I wonder who's job it is to research prior technology before granting patents, because they've been doing a shitty job for several years now.
posted by Jimbob at 7:29 PM on June 2, 2004
Does my java-enabled Nokia phone count as a "limited resource computing device"? Because, when typing text messages, holding down buttons for different lengths of time enables you to use different functions. Hell, are digital watches "limited resource computing devices"? Because I remember having a watch years ago, where holding down a button for a few seconds had a different result than just pressing it quickly, in regards to the stopwatch, I believe.
I wonder who looks through all the patents Microsoft ges and decides what alarmist headline to put on them?
I wonder who's job it is to research prior technology before granting patents, because they've been doing a shitty job for several years now.
posted by Jimbob at 7:29 PM on June 2, 2004
limited resource computing device
Funny, that could describe every computer ever made. I mean, can anyone think of a computer that has unlimited resources?
I sure can't, but I'd certainly like to buy one...
posted by aramaic at 7:30 PM on June 2, 2004
Funny, that could describe every computer ever made. I mean, can anyone think of a computer that has unlimited resources?
I sure can't, but I'd certainly like to buy one...
posted by aramaic at 7:30 PM on June 2, 2004
Jimbob, you don't need a Java-enabled phone to do that. My Nokia 8250 has this functionality in several places, most notably the power switch, where pressing it once brings up a menu of options and holding it down turns the phone off.
I don't see how they can patent something that has not only been around for years, but is nothing unique in any way.
posted by dg at 7:46 PM on June 2, 2004
I don't see how they can patent something that has not only been around for years, but is nothing unique in any way.
posted by dg at 7:46 PM on June 2, 2004
Oh, also, many cheaper stopwatches have only two buttons - pressing the stop button once stops the timing and holding it down resets the watch.
posted by dg at 7:47 PM on June 2, 2004
posted by dg at 7:47 PM on June 2, 2004
The ipod also uses the same concept. Hold down the menu button a few seconds and it enables the backlighting. Hold down the play button a few seconds and it turns off. It is handheld, making it a "limited resource computing device".
However, I doubt this argument could hold water in court.
posted by entropy at 8:02 PM on June 2, 2004
However, I doubt this argument could hold water in court.
posted by entropy at 8:02 PM on June 2, 2004
The lawyer part of me is in pain because I want every term used in the patent to be explicitly defined. What the hell is an "application button"?
Note that the patent only refers to "opening applications". It would be hard to argue that is the same as what your stopwatch does.
posted by smackfu at 8:33 PM on June 2, 2004
Note that the patent only refers to "opening applications". It would be hard to argue that is the same as what your stopwatch does.
posted by smackfu at 8:33 PM on June 2, 2004
Those "application buttons" are things like the record button for voice memos, or the little email button on the Pocket PC.
posted by birdherder at 8:37 PM on June 2, 2004
posted by birdherder at 8:37 PM on June 2, 2004
Note that the patent only refers to "opening applications". It would be hard to argue that is the same as what your stopwatch does.
As you said, though, the definitions are lacking (which is frustrating). What, after all, is an "application"? What is "opening" one of them? If an application is regarded as a specific piece of code, stored in some form of memory, that can be executed...how is this different from a "function" or "procedure call"? One would assume that a stopwatch has, in a very basic form, a set of instructions stored in its circuits that are executed depending on how the button is pressed. Similarly, on a phone such as dg's, "turning off the phone" and the options menu would probably exist as isolated functions in memory.
The only hope I can see for this patent is if "application button" refers specifically to a graphical representation of a button on the screen, rather than a physical external button. I still have doubts they're the first to come up with the idea of different functions for a graphical button on a limited resource device depending on how you click on it.
posted by Jimbob at 8:47 PM on June 2, 2004
As you said, though, the definitions are lacking (which is frustrating). What, after all, is an "application"? What is "opening" one of them? If an application is regarded as a specific piece of code, stored in some form of memory, that can be executed...how is this different from a "function" or "procedure call"? One would assume that a stopwatch has, in a very basic form, a set of instructions stored in its circuits that are executed depending on how the button is pressed. Similarly, on a phone such as dg's, "turning off the phone" and the options menu would probably exist as isolated functions in memory.
The only hope I can see for this patent is if "application button" refers specifically to a graphical representation of a button on the screen, rather than a physical external button. I still have doubts they're the first to come up with the idea of different functions for a graphical button on a limited resource device depending on how you click on it.
posted by Jimbob at 8:47 PM on June 2, 2004
I think I'm going to jump ahead of the game and patent quintuple-clicking. You heard it here first.
posted by bingo at 8:57 PM on June 2, 2004
posted by bingo at 8:57 PM on June 2, 2004
I think I'm going to jump ahead of the game and patent quintuple-clicking. You heard it here first.
Problem is, bingo, that might have been done already as well! ;)
posted by Jimbob at 9:14 PM on June 2, 2004
Problem is, bingo, that might have been done already as well! ;)
posted by Jimbob at 9:14 PM on June 2, 2004
So long as they don't go after the "right click...Open Link in New Tab", I should be golden.
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:25 PM on June 2, 2004
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:25 PM on June 2, 2004
RTFA, news-posters.
This is not a patent for double clicking.
It's a un-contested patent for button 3 reactions on a PDA device - specifically button actions that launch applications.
The sky is not falling, the world is not ending.
If MS tries to press patent infringment on anyone - it'll get tossed out with prior art.
and if they don't - they'll lose the patent for not protecting it.
Stop making mountains out of 'idiot patent researcher' molehills.
posted by cinderful at 9:48 PM on June 2, 2004
This is not a patent for double clicking.
It's a un-contested patent for button 3 reactions on a PDA device - specifically button actions that launch applications.
The sky is not falling, the world is not ending.
If MS tries to press patent infringment on anyone - it'll get tossed out with prior art.
and if they don't - they'll lose the patent for not protecting it.
Stop making mountains out of 'idiot patent researcher' molehills.
posted by cinderful at 9:48 PM on June 2, 2004
Sometimes, it's really more fun skip right to the comments...
posted by ejoey at 10:45 PM on June 2, 2004
posted by ejoey at 10:45 PM on June 2, 2004
Dude, what do you expect from a company that designs hinges on doors to trap people inside their offices?
posted by shepd at 11:40 PM on June 2, 2004
posted by shepd at 11:40 PM on June 2, 2004
Okay, that's really worrying. What the hell does Microsoft want with a patent on hinges? Can anyone come up with a good reason to calm my nerves, or a scary doomsday-Microsoft-kills-us-all story to further inflame them?
posted by sycophant at 3:32 AM on June 3, 2004
posted by sycophant at 3:32 AM on June 3, 2004
If MS tries to press patent infringment on anyone - it'll get tossed out with prior art. and if they don't - they'll lose the patent for not protecting it.
Sure, you can win in court, but how much will it cost? Even if you're right and MS is wrong, they'll kill you with the legal fees.
The widespread abuse of the patent system means that small start-ups now need much heavier funding than they did 10 years ago, in order to be able to protect their own technology and make sure that they're not violating anyone else's bogus patents. That creates a huge barrier to entry for small companies, and reinforces big company monopolies. The patent system has become a huge drag on innovation and entrepreneurialism -- exactly the opposite of what it was intended for.
posted by fuzz at 3:48 AM on June 3, 2004
Sure, you can win in court, but how much will it cost? Even if you're right and MS is wrong, they'll kill you with the legal fees.
The widespread abuse of the patent system means that small start-ups now need much heavier funding than they did 10 years ago, in order to be able to protect their own technology and make sure that they're not violating anyone else's bogus patents. That creates a huge barrier to entry for small companies, and reinforces big company monopolies. The patent system has become a huge drag on innovation and entrepreneurialism -- exactly the opposite of what it was intended for.
posted by fuzz at 3:48 AM on June 3, 2004
When I worked at IBM, I was told we had patented "the concept of a computer menu" decades ago. The fact we weren't sueing everyone who used our patent was our gift to humanity.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:16 AM on June 3, 2004
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:16 AM on June 3, 2004
"...and if they don't - they'll lose the patent for not protecting it."
It's my understanding that patents are not like trademarks. You don't have to actively protect them to prevent them from expiring. You can pick and choose who, if anyone, you want to sue for infrigement. This makes it possible to "shake down" smaller companies that might not have the financial/legal resources to challenge a patent in court.
posted by tdismukes at 6:27 AM on June 3, 2004
It's my understanding that patents are not like trademarks. You don't have to actively protect them to prevent them from expiring. You can pick and choose who, if anyone, you want to sue for infrigement. This makes it possible to "shake down" smaller companies that might not have the financial/legal resources to challenge a patent in court.
posted by tdismukes at 6:27 AM on June 3, 2004
Or the Xerox GUI...the basis for windows and Apple GUI. (If I'm remembering correctly...)
posted by dejah420 at 8:26 AM on June 4, 2004
posted by dejah420 at 8:26 AM on June 4, 2004
« Older Pop Goes the Bubble | Bishop Castle Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is clearly only for handhelds. It says "limited resource computing device" about a dozen times in the claims. And honestly, on the handhelds I've used, there really was no added functionality from double clicking or holding the hardware buttons. Sure it might be an obvious idea, but I wonder why Palm never did it?
posted by smackfu at 7:06 PM on June 2, 2004