Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

[Daeron]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Barry Margolin wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
>>around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
>>with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
>>system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> 30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
> they could be considered prior art.[/color]

The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
keyboard and screen. Nothing new here.

[Barry Margolin]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

In article <2g2eonF3rca0U1 @uni-berlin.de>, Daeron <daeron@demon.n et>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
> >>around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
> >>with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
> >>system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > 30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
> > they could be considered prior art.[/color]
>
> The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
> context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
> access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
> keyboard and screen. Nothing new here.[/color]

I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA

[Rahul Dhesi]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> writes:
[color=blue]
>As an analogy, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
>patenting other ways of fastening papers together.[/color]

And also, the existence of staplers would not prevent someone from
patenting the use of staplers for stapling Microsoft stuff together.
--
Rahul

[John]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Daeron wrote:
[color=blue]
> Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>[color=green]
>> But implementing this in a Microsoft operating system is a "new use",
>> don't you think?[/color]
>
> Unix and Vaxes have been around for about twenty years and multi
> tasking. Context switching I believe they called it. Yet this method
> Micros~1 has suddenly decided they own.
>
> Notice how he refers to 'most operating system' not being able to
> multitask. Most Windows systems not being able to multitask that is.
> It's as if the last twenty years of computing did not happen.
>
> "The present invention provides improved methods and arrangements for
> use in multiple user computing environments"
>
> As usual they co-opt a standard methodology and pollute it enough with
> feetures so as to claim ownership. Lying crooked bastards - all of them.
>
> "Certain solutions, such as, for example, the "Identity Manager"
> available in Microsoft Outlook Express .." - *SNORT*
>
> They're obviously relying on the Patent examiner being as dumb as a door
> post. (Gee wizz you can log in to a computer and get your own
> personalized work space)[/color]

Then, perhaps, we should contest this patent. Maybe if a few of us stand up
to this kind of abuse, Microsoft will think twice about patenting
everything they allegedly "invented" that was, in fact, prior art.

[pltrgyst]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

On 07 May 2004 18:35:44 +0200, LEE Sau Dan <danlee@informa tik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> .... that's not stopping Microsoft from
> theodp> seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
> theodp> providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a
> theodp> shared computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed
> theodp> Thursday.
>
>If this paragraph is really disclosed by the USPTO, then that clearly
>indicates that the USPTO is aware that there are plentiful prior art.
>Why are they still entertaining M$?[/color]

The meat of a patent is the claims. They are what may be issued or denied. They
are what is contestable in court.

To evaluate the scope of this application, you need to analyze the claims very
carefully, with particular emphasis on the term "concurrent ."

All the discussion here thus far is pointless, politically-correct hot air.

-- Larry

[Daniel R. Tobias]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in message news:<barmar-D88617.18415607 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>...[color=blue]
> I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
> interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
> but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.[/color]

Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?

--
Dan

[Dan Ganek]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Barry Margolin wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <2g2eonF3rca0U1 @uni-berlin.de>, Daeron <daeron@demon.n et>
> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>Aren't all the mainframe timesharing systems, some of which were
>>>>around 30 or 40 years ago, which maintain separate user sessions each
>>>>with their own environment, prior art for this? As I recall, the APL
>>>>system actually called saved environments "workspaces ".[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>30 years ago, computers didn't even have "desktops", so I don't see how
>>>they could be considered prior art.[/color]
>>
>>The 'desktop' being a metaphor for processes running in a particular
>>context. The said processes also being restricted as to what they could
>>access. Nowadays three, at least, of those process controll the mouse,
>>keyboard and screen. Nothing new here.[/color]
>
>
> I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
> interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
> but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.
>[/color]

Can you Xerox Parc? By the mid-70's they were well into GUI's.
Bravo, Smalltalk, etc. The first commercial system was the PERQ
circa 1978. Xerox's Star came out soon after. Followed by Apple.

Of course, some of us would say that the PDP-1 had the first GUI.
(circa 1962?) It was the platform for the first computer game -Starwars.
Also the first timesharing system.

/dan





/dan

[Rahul Dhesi]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

dan@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) writes:
[color=blue]
>Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in message news:<barmar-D88617.18415607 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>...[color=green]
>> I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
>> interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
>> but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?[/color]

Maybe, but implementing this on a Microsoft Windows machine was
not obvious to anybody at that time. In fact I believe it wasn't
obvious even to Microsoft until recently. :-)
--
Rahul

[Hamilcar Barca]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

In article <aab17256.04050 71903.421eb0e7@ posting.google. com> (Fri, 07 May
2004 20:03:16 -0700), Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in message news:<barmar-D88617.18415607 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>...[color=green]
>> I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
>> interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
>> but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.[/color]
>
> Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?[/color]

Yes. Smalltalk-72 had a "desktop" but I'm nearly 100% certain it didn't
have the concepts of "user" or "switching" or whatever Microsoft's claims
involve.

[Barry Margolin]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

In article <aab17256.04050 71903.421eb0e7@ posting.google. com>,
dan@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) wrote:
[color=blue]
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in message
> news:<barmar-D88617.18415607 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>...[color=green]
> > I thought "the desktop" referred to features of a graphical user
> > interface. Sure, it's a metaphor for things that existed 30 years ago,
> > but the metaphor itself didn't exist then.[/color]
>
> Didn't Xerox PARC have something along those lines over 30 years ago?[/color]

The Alto came out in 1980. That was one of their first systems with a
desktop metaphor.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA

[Ramon F Herrera]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian .com> wrote in message[color=blue]
> This could be an interesting tactic on the part of various companies
> with too much cash and not enough actual work to do. Swamp the patent
> office with crap. If the reviewers are buried in garbage, maybe they'll
> just start rubber stamping them to clear out their in baskets.[/color]


Another tactic that an indicted illegal monopolist would do
is to grease the wheels of bureaucracy at the Patent Office,
i.e. bribing federal employees to fast track patent applications
that come from Seattle, Washington, in order to process them
without much delay or scrutiny.

That would explain the patent erroneously issued to
Microsoft for an apple:

http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5205574.html

-Ramon

[Peter Köhlmann]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Dan Ganek wrote:

< snip >
[color=blue]
> Of course, some of us would say that the PDP-1 had the first GUI.
> (circa 1962?) It was the platform for the first computer game -Starwars.
> Also the first timesharing system.
>[/color]

No, it was not the first timesharing system. Not by a wide margin
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

>>>>> On Sat, 08 May 2004 03:21:58 GMT, Dan Ganek ("Dan") writes:
Dan> The first commercial system was the PERQ circa 1978.

Are you sure about that date?
I think you might be off by 4 or 5 years.

[Dan Ganek]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>>On Sat, 08 May 2004 03:21:58 GMT, Dan Ganek ("Dan") writes:[/color][/color]
>
> Dan> The first commercial system was the PERQ circa 1978.
>
> Are you sure about that date?
> I think you might be off by 4 or 5 years.[/color]

Hmm I did more googling and you may be right.
(One should always double check their facts :-)

I was doing R&D in GUI's and graphic workstations
at DEC during that time (78-84) and it's all a big
a blur now. It was a very exciting time - Smalltalk,
Star, Perq, Lisa, Apollo, the Mac, etc.

/dan

[Nigel Feltham]

Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

W Randolph Franklin wrote:
[color=blue]
> According to Paul Hovnanian P.E. <Paul@Hovnanian .com>:[color=green]
>>
>> This could be an interesting tactic on the part of various
>> companies with too much cash and not enough actual work to
>> do. Swamp the patent office with crap. If the reviewers are
>> buried in garbage, maybe they'll just start rubber stamping
>> them to clear out their in baskets.[/color]
>
> Australia has an "innovation patent" that is just like this.
> You submit an idea, say for a "circular transportation
> facilitation device", and they automatically register your
> submission.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1418165.stm
>
> A really crappy patent is IBM's US patent 6,329,919:
>
> "System and method for providing reservations for restroom use
>
> "The present invention is an apparatus, system, and method for
> providing reservations for restroom use. In one embodiment, a
> passenger on an airplane may submit a reservation request to
> the system for restroom use. The reservation system determines
> when the request can be accommodated and notifies the
> passenger when a restroom becomes available. The system
> improves airline safety by minimizing the time passengers
> spent standing while an airplane is in flight."
>
> They later dedicated the patent to the public.[/color]

Could it be that IBM dislike the current patent system's trend of allowing
the obvious to be patented as much as many of the open-source community so
wanted to apply for the dumbest idea they could think of to show the system
up for what it was - then chickened out of publicising the facts once their
bogus patent actually passed?