Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 09:49 PM EDT

This will die rapidly due to Prior Art and Public Domain. Look at the dates -

it's all old Xerox Parq development. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ws on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 09:50 PM EDT

Please help PJ to be perfect.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 09:52 PM EDT

Discuss Groklaw News Picks here. Please mention which News Pick you are commenting on. Thanks. ---

One test is worth 1000 expert opinions. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PJP on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT

Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 09:55 PM EDT

Place Off Topic comments here. Please avoid the use of 'tt' constructs greater than 80 characters across, so we don't have to scroll left-right. Thanks. ---

One test is worth 1000 expert opinions. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:00 PM EDT

Why doesn't someone just trawl through the science fiction books and present the

ideas in court as prior art coz thats what it looks like this one did with its

patent



Like what has an idea in 1984 got to do with current gui front ends



Man you guys need to get to copyright like we have over here [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:02 PM EDT

At our office we got some HP-UX workstations in 1991. They had a GUI with

multiple workspaces. I didn't get the impression that the technology was new.

I don't know what the Sharing Display System Objects language is supposed to

mean. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:10 PM EDT



JAWS III



Here comes the 1st bite.



D [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: david_koontz on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:11 PM EDT

Note that IP Innovation and Apple settled (.pdf) .sometime in June, terms apparently not disclosed. June 15, 2007

....announced today that IP Innovation, a wholly owned subsidiary that is part of Acacia Technologies group, has entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with Apple Inc. covering patents that relate to graphical user interface ("GUI") systems. The Agreement resolves patent litigation that was pending in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas with respect to certain Apple products. The implication being, that it freed them up to pursue bigger targets (ouch!). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: arch_dude on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:14 PM EDT

The patent cites several earlier patents, at least seven of which are more than

twenty years old. (i.e., prior to October 1987.) It is certainly not clear from

the abstract how this patent can possible be non-obvious based on the titles of

the cited patents, much less on any deeper reading.



What is the magic date for prior art now? 17 years? 20 years? I'm almost certain

that this patent's claims were already implemented in Xemacs and probably in

EMACS itself, in addition to a other early GUIs. Time to do some historical

research! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sab39 on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:19 PM EDT

This would be counterproductive to Microsoft's apparent linux/patent strategy.



After all, their whole schtick is that if you buy from Novell you're safe from

patent attacks - in an attempt to coerce the rest of the Linux distributors to

line up for the same "pay MS protection money" deal.



Suing Novell just makes it crystal clear that everyone is in the same boat;

Novell is no safer than any other distro. It demonstrates quite clearly that the

"Novell is safer" emperor has no clothes.



This sounds like an independent patent troll who thinks that SCO's mistake was

just poor execution, and they can get rich quick by getting a cut of every Linux

sale. You'd think they'd learn... But I don't think Microsoft is dumb enough to

be actively working against their own strategy. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mrcreosote on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:20 PM EDT

How does this patent sit with the new SCOTUS obviousness test?



---

----------

mrcreosote [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wethion on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:22 PM EDT

If a patent expires 20 years from the date of filing (May of 1987), and cannot

be renewed, is this not already out of date and hence moot?

http://www.clemson.edu/research/ottsite/ottStart_IntelectPatents.htm

http://www.google.com/patents?id=3tUkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,072,412





---

Jon Postel, you are missed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:27 PM EDT

A couple of questions.



1. What is the impact of the fact that RedHat and Novell are not writing that

code, but only distributing it? Multiple desktops are implemented in particular

programs in specific desktop environments. For example, KDE3 uses kicker to do

it. RedHat and Novell certainly did not create that, but the KDE team (in

Europe where there aren't software patents) did.



2. What are the issues of distros like Ubuntu (South Africa?) and Mandrivia

(France) distributing the same code via the internet?



3. What about Dell distributing Ubuntu on their systems?



I think I remember the Supreme Court taking a case about suing up and down the

line. That may well have an impact here.



4. Is this an opportunity to get software patents thrown out completely?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:29 PM EDT

Is this company and their lawyers not aware of the community's research

capability?



There will be a lot of people watching this case, and I'm pretty sure the

community will be able to come up with some very useful information (as they

have for SCO vs IBM).



PJ: Any chance of following this case and starting a prior art/information of

interest page?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:30 PM EDT

RedHat is based in North Carolina. How the hell can they sue in Texas??? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT

I'd like to point out that it is quite possible to run Linux without any GUI

system or windows at all. Might be a relatively minor point, but this patent

appears to me to cover virtual window managers that implement multiple

desktops.



I confess I don't quite exactly understand what the patent does and does not

cover because the language is so. . . abstract. But it definitely has to do with

graphical display systems. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: allthingscode on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT

You know what they say about wishing for something (if not, well, I can't repeat

it here). In the mean time, looks like everyone will have to pull together and

show just how wrong this patent is. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:34 PM EDT

When you sue someone over patent infringement, can you do it without warning, or

do you go through a process of asking the infringer to

cease-and-desist-and/or-pay-up first?



RedHat has been fairly pro-active about excluding patented stuff (e.g., MP3), so

one suspects that if they already knew about this patent, they've already

researched it fairly thoroughly and decided to ignore it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:36 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:44 PM EDT

Reading the patent - I remember this. My Amiga Computer did this type of

windowing - and used the exact same type of data structires to keep track of the

workspaces (you could have more than one and more than one screen - more than

one window - etc ..... )back in the 1980's .... Prior Art? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wethion on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:45 PM EDT

I think I know to what they are referring. It's not a GUI, but rather a

windowing GUI, i.e. having several graphically represented tasks 'on the screen'

at the same time and being able to manouver between them. E.g. windows.

Peace,

V



---

Jon Postel, you are missed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:47 PM EDT

Novell's patent portfolio is not something to trifle with.



And, since IBM made that statement a ways back about their patents



And, since IBM is a Novell partner in Linux,



And since IBM's is probably the largest on the planet



Let me just say this will be the result:



let's watch the big boys make this little patent troll go "squish"



I offer to clean the lawyers shoes for free! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: grouch on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:47 PM EDT

It's easy to find Microsoft, just follow the trail of buzzwords -- technology! innovation! intellectual property! licensing! The density of those buzzwords in any given paragraph is a good indicator of 'getting warm' in your quest for the secretive, shadowy Microsoft. Microsoft-speak spills over from the public side to the undercover side. The recent judgment of the European Court of First Instance against Microsoft is overflowing, throughout, with those buzzwords. Apart from the fact that Microsoft fails to explain what it means by technology in this context, it would be extremely difficult to draw a distinction between technological intellectual property rights and non-technological intellectual property rights. Nor is it certain that the interoperability information at issue constitutes such technology, in particular if it represents what is a purely arbitrary convention without any innovative character. -- JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Grand Chamber) 2007-09-17, paragraph 683 (If you read the entire judgment, you might get the impression that neither the Court nor the Commission were overly impressed with Microsoft endlessly chanting those words as if sacred). Every where Microsoft goes, it sprinkles liberal doses of those buzzwords as if they are magic fairy dust that will keep everyone who is exposed to them from noticing that (a) Microsoft doesn't innovate, except in licensing (b) even a hammer qualifies as "technology", (c) "intellectual property" is not a homestead, but rather castles built in air, and (d) ever more complex licensing schemes for the same old crusty code in new wrappers is not everyone's idea of rapture. IP Innovation LLC? Oh, come on! Surely there is someone left in the bowels of Microsoft who could fit "technology" and "licensing" into that name. Maybe there is a Surreptitious Evangelism Department in which heads are rolling over that slip-up even now. ---

-- grouch



"People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be."

--PJ, May 2007

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jjock on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:47 PM EDT

While people are looking for prior art, don't forget to look at the

Amiga operating system, and even the Atari operating system (

TOS) . They date back to 1984, and the Amiga operating

system made the windoze look like it was designed in

kindergarten by kids with one hand tied behind their back. It

was a real graphics based system with the GUI so well

integrated that a person never really thought about the

underlying Unix, or most likely, BSD code.

I suspect the MS killed the system by forcing Gateway, who

bought the rights to the system, to shelve it if they wanted to

continue selling windoze.

I still have working Amigas and lots of the original manuals and

will be happy to help if I can be pointed in the directions I need

to search.

Bob [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:48 PM EDT

SCO failed, so now they send in the A-Team, a patent troll. More of Steve

Ballmer's handiwork. Unfortunately patent troll's are virtually bulletproof

against a counter lawsuit, they never build anything of their own. However, I

think these lowlifes will end up on the same trash heap as SCO. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:58 PM EDT

Gentlemen (and ladies) start your search engines..... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Bill The Cat on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 10:59 PM EDT

Lets see about the patent... Issued 1991. Patents are good for a maximum of 12

years. Expired 2003. Infringement filed 2007 - 4 years after patent expired.



I didn't know you could do that.







---

Bill The Cat [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:01 PM EDT

This doesn't look like workspaces, on first read it's embedded components in a

single application window, or am I reading it incorrectly? Am I reading this

right that this is an OLE suit? If so, and frankly that seems more of a

Microsoft lawsuit than workspaces (Wouldn't apple and everybody else have to

pay? ). However, I would think this would play to IBM. Haven't they been doing

that forever? [ Reply to This | # ]



Wigets? - Authored by: mtew on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:08 AM EDT

Authored by: chaz_paw on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:08 PM EDT

I suppose the previous four years of learning about the law with PJ was/is? just

the beginning.



Hold on to your (Red)hats!



---

Proud Linux user since 07/26/04

Registered Linux user #422376



Charles [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tce on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:17 PM EDT

Tutorial from ACM SIGGRAPH 1984:



Bitmap Graphics

SIGGRAPH'84 Course Notes

Rob Pike

Leo Guibas

Dan Ingalls (From PARC)

Copyright 1984 AT&T Bell Laboratories



Lots on Bit-boundary block transfer (Bitblt), bit mapped graphics, *overlapping

windows*, and so on.



Twenty six references from the 1970's and early 1980's, including user manuals

from SUN, Apollo, Lisp Machine, etc.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kozmcrae on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:19 PM EDT

The way Microsoft used Novell and then cast them aside, makes Novell look like a

"gardening tool" (at least that's the way they pronounce it in

Virginia).



Richard



---

Coming soon: Signature 2.0 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:20 PM EDT

This is a very, very, very bad move for Microsoft.



There's plenty of patents that can be used against them in retaliation.





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:21 PM EDT

Call me stupid. I don't follow the legal arguements, but obviously, someone at

this picnic is full of it. Obviously, I think that FOSS is in the right.



So, what can I, an average guy with a fine sense of what's right versus what's

leagel to do? Who do I send a small but heartfelt check to so that this insanaty

can be fought?



Anyone? I'd be most comfortable with an answer from MathFox or PJ (obviously),

but other trusted sources would be welcome. AC's should be avoided in case they

are not fightings the good fight for what is right...

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: arthurpaliden on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:21 PM EDT

I seem to remember that some of the old,pre 1980,Digital VT series of terminals

used to allow you to switch between work spaces. You could plug in 2 or more

serial lines and from the keyboard switch between multiple displays or 'work

spaces' if you will. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:23 PM EDT

Nuclear war may not start with the first shots being between superpowers.



---

The price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:28 PM EDT

Yes, you can short this stock. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MrCharon on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:35 PM EDT

One case IP Innovation lost so far.

http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1571.pdf



---

MrCharon

~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]



Info finding. - Authored by: jimbudler on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:05 PM EDT

Authored by: kpl on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT

Here is a brief time line (probably bits missing)

of the gui:



GUI

KPL ---

---------------------------

Latine loqui coactus sum

--------------------------- [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:45 PM EDT

Linux is just a kernel ...

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:51 PM EDT

From the patent's abstract:- Single screen display system with multiple virtual display having prioritized service programs and dedicated memory stacks

System for electronically displaying portions of several different images on a CRT screen through respective prioritized viewports These capabilities are available from at least (AFAICT) 1989 on Microsoft's(TM) Windows(TM) operating system. AFAICT, again, the X windowing sytem (XFree86 and X.org) uses a different scheme from what is described in the patent abstract. I cannot say same about M$(TM) Windows(TM) coz I am not sure about its internals.... It is strange that the patent holder choose to remain silent though X code is available for public, unrestricted use for so long. They could have easily examined the X system and verified whether their patents were infringed. Clearly, this is a case of (at least) absence of due diligence and non-enforcement. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Marc Mengel on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:54 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 11:58 PM EDT

OLWM is the Open Look Window Manager and it supported a larger "virtual

workspace" long before this patent existed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:14 AM EDT

Hmm ... perhaps we're setting up a morality play here? Novell and Red Hat get

sued. White hatted Microsoft shows up with a web of IP agreements that bails

out the former, but not the latter. That would fit the FUD even better than

just the most recent threats.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:28 AM EDT

... Microsoft will be able to come forward and indemnify Novell due to their

patent agreement with each other. There will be behind-the-scenes negotiation

with IP Innovation and Novell will suddenly be dropped from the case, leaving

... Red Hat on its own. Microsoft will then hit the press with, "See how

our agreement with Novell protected them, you should all sign here now. This

case proves that companies must sign patent protection agreements with us or

else." It's just a big setup. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:30 AM EDT

The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tredman on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:33 AM EDT

Okay, I'm a little confused, being a novice to patent law. Their complaint

states that Red Hat and Novell have infringed on at least claim 1 of the '412

patent (62 claims total), at least claim 3 of the '183 patent (17 claims total),

and at least claim 1 of the '521 patent (27 claims total). To me, it doesn't

make sense that somebody could infringe on a patent just by infringing on 3

claims of 106 (between three patents). I always thought that the derivative

nature of most patents meant that some claims might naturally include pieces of

prior patents or other art, yet when considered as a whole, the patent was

unique and innovative in nature.



If I were to develop an invention made from Velcro that cures cancer and decodes

the human genome, my first claim might include "a system comprising two

pieces of fabric with hook and loop connectors". That doesn't mean that I

can go suing everybody that makes hook and loop fasteners for infringing my

patent, just because their respective products match claim 1. It's the totality

of the patent that defines my invention, so an infringing use should have to be

something that covers that totality.



Am I just completely ignorant of patent law, or am I just missing something

obvious?



---

Tim

"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:35 AM EDT



What about the Microsoft Virtual Desktop Manager:



Virtual Desktop Manager: Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar

with this PowerToy.



http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx



????



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:36 AM EDT

The year is 1948.



It's tax time. And on my wooden desktop, I have my tax form, my cheque book

stubs, my bank statement, my calculator, and my investment forms. The latter

are all "OPEN" at the same time - in order to do the tax calculations.





Hundreds of millions were doing the above in the USA in 1948. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tridge on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:41 AM EDT

Before everyone starts jumping on analyzing this patent, please be aware that

public analysis at this stage could be harmful to the defendents. The patent

troll has claimed that RedHat and Novell infringe this patent, but the complaint

does not give any justification at all for that claim.



At some stage IP innovation will have to specify very precisely what code

infringes, and exactly how it infringes. This is much harder than it may seem.

It is quite possible that their job will be a lot easier if they have a whole

lot of public analysis by members of the free software community to draw on.

That could, for example, allow them to tune their detailed complaint to avoid

any pitfalls that are found by public analysis.



So before we start on any detailed public analysis, we need some input from

RedHat/Novell on whether they actually need help with this analysis, or whether

they would prefer we all just bide our time.



It is quite possible that this troll doesn't have a watertight case, and they

filed this complaint hoping that the details of exactly what code infringes and

exactly how it infringes will be filled in by the free software community when

it goes public.



Anyone from RedHat/Novell like to comment? I'm sure the groklaw community can do

a really detailed word by word dissection and claim chart for you. Do you want

that help? Would it do more harm than good at this stage?



For those of you who haven't done patent analysis before, it is not a quick

process. It takes weeks of very careful work matching words to precise pieces of

code and functionality. A quick read and "that sounds like fooWM" is

not what is needed.



Cheers, Tridge

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:43 AM EDT

IIRC, this is the same patent that SGI defended for it's workspace

implementation way back in '95. If I recall correctly, it was never challenged

in court due to the difference in the way SGI had implemented it's system and

the way that the patent had described the invention. Once the differences were

noted, they just walked away. There have to be some old SGI'ers around that

remember that one ? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:56 AM EDT

Quarterdeck systems made a DOS based window switcher before the time of this

patent. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cmc on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:01 AM EDT

A cynical mind would point out that prior art *MAY* be meaningless, depending on

the judge. Let's not forget the judge in the RIM vs NTP case. The USPTO was

re-examining and had issued a non-formal rejection of NTP's patents (they had

not yet filed a formal rejection), and the judge *STILL* forced RIM to settle

because he was sick of the case. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: lannet on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:15 AM EDT

From what I am reading this is only a patent problem within the US, and it

certainly isn't a patent problem in the EU.



Now, the EU and other non-US markets are far bigger that the US market, so in my

mind, the best thing that RedHat and Novell could do would be to pack their bags

and leave the US and then work to set up their future where their true markets

are.



Sure, this leaves Microsoft owning the US market with little if any competition,

but if the US want to support Microsoft then they can own them and suffer the

consequences - the real future is elsewhere.





---

When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.

When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:17 AM EDT

The Apple II (1979) used three different workspaces aka RAM-areas to represent

one 'giant' screen. There already have been clipping areas, view ports etc. And

the user hasn't had the slightest clue about the complex internals. So what's

new? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:27 AM EDT

It would be real fun if someone discovered a money path from Ballmers pocket to

IP Innovation... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jacks4u on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:49 AM EDT

USPTO says IP Innovation LLC got these patents on 1-15-2005, from Xerox - is it

too late to file. And they had to know what they were buying. With due

diligence, these people should have known at the beginning there were

'infringements' - or perhaps, they acquired these patents because of this.

should they have filed suit at the time they first knew of this? can

redhat/Novel claim 'latches'? or similar?





---

I'm not a Lawyer, this is my opinion only. I may be wrong, but I don't think so! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:51 AM EDT

Case closed.



This patent requires computers and screens. The Supreme Court ruled that

software, in and of itself, was not a component of a patent in the recent MS v.

AT&T (I think) patent decision.



That should be a solid precedent for this case. If Red Hat and Novell are

shipping software that is not considered a component of the invention, they are

not infringing. Only their customers are by putting it on a computer, and

running it.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: AJWM on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:03 AM EDT

I'm curious - this patent was issued to Xerox, how and when did IP Innovations

acquire it? (They seem to have a collection of similar windowing/graphic

display patents, too.)



Don't big companies like Xerox usually hang on to their patents forever, and

just license or cross-license them? Why did Xerox sell them? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:49 AM EDT

Isn't there some legal objection to letting a patent sit for 16 years, during which time lots of people unwittingly develop "infringing" things and become dependent on them, before taking legal action? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:10 AM EDT

Where does it come from that Texas looks differently upon patent cases, compared

to other states?



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: iceworm on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:35 AM EDT

In this war for world domination, we have seen the beginning of combat with the Caldera/tSCOG litigation. Recently we have seen the end of the beginning with tSCOG filing for bankruptcy. There was an indication of the next field of action, namely software patents, reported here quite some time ago. Finally, the other shoe drops. We were expecting it. It is somewhat frightening, but I am delighted to see the beginning of the end of the war for world domination. Freedom will win. It always has, although the struggle may be long and arduous. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MDT on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:46 AM EDT

I've been thinking about this, and as much as I dislike M$, I have to admire the

chess-like strategy. Unless someone can directly (legally, criminally) link M$

to the Patent Troll, they can't lose. Here are the possibilities as I see them

:



1) Patent is Thrown Out for Obviousness -- Win M$, Redhat and Novell spent money

defending it. Roll out the next pawn.



2) RedHat & Novell win on Prior Art -- Win M$, RedHat and Novell spent even

more money defending it. Roll out the next pawn.



3) RedHat & Novell found guilty -- Win M$, RedHat and Novell spent money

defending, lost, paid up. FOSS Community gets a black eye, people rewrite the

code, roll out the next pawn.



4) RedHat & Novell fight based on Unpatentability of Software, and fail --

Win M$, RedHat and Novell spent a lot of money, Software Patents Validated by

Supreme Court, M$ still has enough money to buy off patent trolls ad infintum.

Roll out the next pawn.



5) RedHat & Novell fight based on Unpatentability of Software, and win --

Win M$, RedHat and Novell spent a lot of money, Software Patents invalidated

(which means no more Troll Headaches for M$). Roll out the next FUD idea.



It's sort of like locking your enemies in a room together and putting a bunch of

knives in there, and only one can of spam to eat. Eventually, one of them is

going to win, but either way it goes, you've managed to get one or both of your

enemies badly injured, if not completely eliminated. M$'s worse scenario is

status quo maintained.







---

MDT [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kawabago on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:47 AM EDT

We warned Novell not to trust Microsoft! Everyone at once on 3.

1.

2.

3.

WE TOLD YOU SO!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:51 AM EDT

Wouldn't the old Desqview program violate this patent? I can't remember the

dates but I know that Desqview was pretty early and the first task switcher

I played around with. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: N_au on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:58 AM EDT

There is one way to squash this. If you don't make a product yourself to protect

then you can't sue someone else that has made a product from it. This would stop

the patent trolls. They don't have a revenue stream to protect from it so there

is no reason that they should be able to sue. A patent was created to give the

inventor time to make money from his invention before someone else could. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:13 AM EDT

Is there a Red Hat fighting fund?



There's not much more I can help, but if a million more like me donate a few

dollars, then we can help fight it.



I'm willing and ready to donate. Where can I do it? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:25 AM EDT

I said it at the time, but I think it bears stating again:



NOVELL DIDN'T BUY WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY BOUGHT.



Now they get to find out the true cost of the deal; let's see how they react. I

think it's time for Novell to start shipping GPL3 stuff as part of SUSE, maybe.



I think this might be the beginning of WW1 (Web War 1). This is the cyberspace

equivalent of the invasion of Poland.



-cybervegan



---

Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in

public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:49 AM EDT



We need to track down the source for the following X11 window managers.



twm

vtwm ( twm with virtual desktops )

tvtwm ( another variant )



olwm ( sun's olgx based "openlook" window manager )

olvwm ( virtual desktop version of the same - sun had the concept of 'pinning'

items to the desktop. was my standard UI from 93 to 2003 when I gave up trying

to keep it compiling on modern distros. )



gwm ( lisp based virtual window manager )

dtwm ( digital ultrix window manager )



I used this in the early nineties - mostly all on ultrix

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:51 AM EDT

Back in the days of MS-DOS and DR-DOS, the video BIOS actually had space for 8

virtual text screens but this feature was rarely used.



I have details of the Phoenix BIOS dated 1987 if this will help.





[ Reply to This | # ]



Possible Prior Art - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:02 AM EDT

Authored by: emacsuser on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:54 AM EDT

It would be interesting to find out who exactly is 'investing' in these

companies ... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 05:02 AM EDT

It seems to me that there are more parties to this issue than just Novell and

Redhat (and, why Novell and not SUSE? Surely not because SUSE is European and it

would be considered an attack by Microsoft on European IT companies? Heaven

forfend). Anyway, I can see that joinder is necessary in this case because of

the widespread use of Linux and its windowing systems around the world. My

initial list is,



IBM, HP, Dell, Sun, Apple, Google, Yahoo, the State of Texas, the Ministry of

Defence and the Department of Homeland Security. If any of those are short of a

litigation penny or two I am sure those lovely FOSS folks would lend a lawyer.



I also have this nagging, worrying thought that the whole US legal system might

have to recuse itself from the case because of use of the litigated systems.



I was going to include SCOG for use of xwindows and windows managers in Unix,

but that would defeat the purpose by automatically staying the case for six

months and that would never do.







---

Regards

Ian Al



Linux: Genuine Advantage [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 05:40 AM EDT

Well done. I thought the Novell-M$ deal was to protect Novell from being sued by

M$. However M$ is going forward behind an ugly mask, and Novell gets sued

anyway. I hope the Novell guys will soon see their fault dealing with the devil.

For USA, one alternative : reform the patent law, or finish being stuck with

MS-only software, under the DOJ umbrella and away from any inovation. The Rome

empire ended when they where so proud of themselves that they didn't see the

danger coming from outside. Beware, USA, your end is coming ! In Europe, grass

grows greener. PS: appologies for the mistakes, I'm French [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 05:42 AM EDT

Dear Pam,

I would not worry about that since we all know you are a

dept at IBM and so consists of a number of ghost writers.

Judging from the volume that comes out there are probably

at least three of you. So just take turn... :)



Of course you could always get one of those laptops with

the free wireless adapter (after signing up for whatever

period with AT&T.) That would at least get you mobile. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 06:10 AM EDT

I am fairly certain that WordPerfect products prior to 1987 had the ability to

open a "Reveal Codes" window to show you an alternate view of the document. Is

this prior art or have we still misunderstood what was being patented? [ Reply to This | # ]



Nope. - Authored by: Cyberdog on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:15 AM EDT Re: Nope. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 01:10 AM EDT

- Authored by: Cyberdog on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:15 AM EDT

Authored by: Long time CNE on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 06:23 AM EDT

...to see how Novell reacts. According to their policy: http://www.novell.com/comp any/policies/patent/ "In the event of a patent claim against a Novell open source product, Novell would respond using the same measures generally used to defend proprietary software products accused of patent infringement. Among other things, Novell would seek to address the claim by identifying prior art that could invalidate the patent; demonstrating that the product does not infringe the patent; redesigning the product to avoid infringement; or pursuing a license with the patent owner. I've always kept the order of the alternatives as being relevant, meaning that pursuing a licence will only be used when all else have failed. In other words, they first have to defend the community from the aggregator. So this might be a good indication on Novells view of the Novell-MS deal. Weather they are puppets or actors. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Cyberdog on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 06:38 AM EDT

I have skimmed through the patent. I live and work in the UK and do not do

software development involving graphics or windowing, so I am unafeared.



Yes, this is a basic ancient patent involving placement and content of windows

in a graphical windowing system.



*Assuming* it is valid and defendable and worth money, which I personally find

very hard to believe, why are IP Innovation *not* going after an infringer with

a lot of money? Just to choose an example at random, how about Microsoft, the

largest purveyor of windowing systems with a graphical user interface?



This is the question which needs to be asked loudly as soon as this story gets

reported by the usual victims (News.com, VUnet, Enderle and so on and so on.)



Obviously the answer s to be found in the makeup of the board of directors, but

follow the money is a good rule. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:09 AM EDT

It's a direct response-to-response to Red Hat's "We are also aware of no patent lawsuit against Linux. Ever. Anywhere," ht tp://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/11/1934218 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jude on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:18 AM EDT

1) A means of generating a force to accelerate the vehicle.

2) A means of controlling the magnitude of the force in claim (1).

3) A means of controlling the direction of the force in claim (1).

4) A means of choosing appropriate values for the magnitude in claim (2) and the

direction in claim (3) so as to achieve a desired trajectory.

5) A means of calculating a trajectory in (4) that ends at a desired

destination.



Isaac Newton could have written this patent. I'm sure he was clever enough that

he could have added quite a few more claims. However, we'd have been no closer

to space travel even if he had written such a patent. The devil is in the

details.



The patent at issue in this case is just like the fictitious patent I described

above. It lists a bunch of things that are obviously necessary to achieve a

specified result, but it fails to say anything useful about how those things

might be constructed.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:19 AM EDT

There are two approaches that can be followed to defeat this, legal and

technical. For those legally inclined and not associated with the firms being

sued Groklaw is the place to organize a coherent response strategy but all

should realize a legal response is NOT going to defeat the monsters but simply

hold them at bay for some duration of time. Defeat can only come about by the

second strategy and that is technically.



Several days ago I posted that I had down loaded and installed OpenSuSE 10.3 in

one of my computer systems with the biggest problem encountered being that I

fell asleep during initial installation set up, it was late at night, and I woke

up to early in the morning, downloads were not finished but were finished by the

time I had finished coffee. Anyone with the least technical ability can now

install OpenSuSE. Fedora is slightly more difficult. I would have had to had my

second coup of coffee which puts it in about the same realm as Mandriva and

Sabasian. Sorry I have not tried every distribution so can not comment on

others.



From a desk top users point of view there is two potential hang up. First there

are different and in many cases inferior, sometimes drastically inferior or none

at all user programs. Apples Mac has the same issue. Many business programs are

written for MS Windows only. Second it is difficult to make Wine and its

derivatives work. That is difficult for the non technical inclined. For us non

geeks installation and operation of Wine is a !@#$%^ well lets just keep it

polite and call it difficult. If Wine is working correctly (set up by some geek)

most Windows users would find it impossible to install a program under Wine and

have it work. Hopeful this will shortly be corrected as this portion is really a

horrible experience.



For those of us that are neither legal or technical enough to be considered a

geek then all we can do is congratulate the geeks on the outstanding performance

hey have done. The very fact that Microsoft is stooping to this level to

maintain their world wide toleration monopoly is verification of the excellent

quality of Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Geek Response - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:11 AM EDT Geek Response - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:18 PM EDT Geek Response - Authored by: kjs on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 01:23 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:11 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:25 AM EDT



So, how long do patent cases last? Cam anyone familiar

with patent cases tell from the filing how long this one

will last?



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:30 AM EDT



Multilpe windows? My goodness, someone should also have

a patent for four-wheeled vehicles.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:32 AM EDT

Disclaimer: I be an IBMr

------------------------



That being said, IBM boths sells and supports Redhat Linux. This will NOT go

down without IBM, guarunteed. IBM is very good about helping out its friends. In

this case, I would say IP Innovation better have a good law firm, as I can

assure you that Cravath will come into play very early.



Also, keep in mind that when it comes to patent portfolios, IBMs is by far the

largest on the planet. When it comes to patents, IBM's is not a door you want to

knock on if you didnt come to play. With IBM, OIN, and the FSF all looking

closely, I can see no other outcome but victory for Redhat. The prior art on

this one is already coming out, and some of it appears to be very strong, though

I guess that really depends on how you read the patent.



Someone grab the popcorn, lets get a seat. One earlier poster talked about 300

and Sparta. I have a feeling, this could be just as bloody come the end(ask SCO

as their blood is currently flowing through the Bankruptcy court). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:36 AM EDT

i think the title is wrong and should have been "...Just Like Mark

Shuttleworth predicted".

He has been talking about this already on his blog months ago.

<a href="http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118"> link

</a> [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:46 AM EDT

All this has me wondering if MS has settled anything with IP Innovation

recently. I can see where they could cut a deal that MS would settle handsomely

if the next target was linux. It also leaves me wondering where Apple fits in

that puzzle. I don't see them as a friend of Linux either.



The other interesting thing I se is that it does not involve any of MS's

precious IP. Balmer must be clairvoyant.



;-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: schaste on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:01 AM EDT

Did anyone else notice the mis-spelling in the quote? Is that in the original,

or did it somehow find its way into the article? If it's in the original, it

seems to imply these folks don't even know who they are suing...



Steve S



---

- Still working on a signature... [ Reply to This | # ]



Linex? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:12 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:04 AM EDT

Just read the potential ban on HD imports

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071011-hard-times-for-hard-drives-us-may-

ban-popular-imports.html



The patent appears to be for the tools that make the drives, not the drives.

All this leads me to wonder how long it will take for the US to learn it no

longer wags the dog. wanna see real panic, let China shut off the shipping

pipeline for a week. About this time of year would be right. All that

Christmas stuff you know.



;-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: UncleVom on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:30 AM EDT

Novell, RedHat.

These are IBM's two Linux distribution partners.

Microsoft is using a proxy to attack IBM?

Ain't that kinda dumb?



Don't Nazgul eat a voles as a between meal snack.





UncleVom [ Reply to This | # ]



The problem with IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:19 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:00 AM EDT

In the article PJ wrote "And Novell. So much for being Microsoft's little

buddy."



Don't speak too soon.



I'm betting Novell will cave in and pay them off (with some of the cash

Microsoft gave them earlier in the year) - just so Novell salesguys can keep

spreading FUD about being the Linux who pays off the extortion rackets "for

you".



[ Reply to This | # ]



Novell and Microsoft's little buddy. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:17 PM EDT

Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:00 AM EDT

I see no Software Patents.



At least not on this side of the pond.



My I cordialyy invite you all to the UK, where we could do with more people to

buttress against the tide of MS beating against the Government.



PS to the Lawers. Move to Scotland. Scots law is fun. In Scotland you can be

Guilty, Not Guilty or the case can be Not Proven. [ Reply to This | # ]



thats not fair! - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:17 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:11 AM EDT

This lawsuit is ridiculous. It sounds more like they want to sue GNOME, KDE, or

one of the other 100 window managers that sit on top of X. The last time I

checked, neither Red Hat or Novell were selling these, since they are open

source, included for free, and are not necessary parts of the

"products" that either sell. In reality, Red Hat, Novell, or any of

the other distributions are just selling graphics, an open source programs

aggregation, and technical support. One can easily run a complete Red Hat or

Novell "system" without even using the windowing program that is

included with it for free.



Get a life M$. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:18 AM EDT

If you read this right, it means X-Windows violates this patent too.



and x-windows is OLD! definitely pre-dates this patent, probably by at least a

decade.



Heck, I think DEC and so forth technically violate this from the late 70s! They

had multiple workspaces back then.



An old DOS application called "Desqview" likely violates this patent

too, except, it too predates it (more than likely).



Ohh, what about the Amiga? It's desktop had this functionality too!



I'm pretty sure Q-Nix had this functionality that predates this patent.



ohh, let's go back to the 80s for something that predates this, something called

"GEOS" for the commodore 64



Apples OS will also predate this, as they had it.



I'll bet the Atari had something like it (though memory fails).



Oh, IBM definitely violates the patents from the mainframe days, except that too

predates the patent by decades. Ah I miss the 3270 emulations (not really)



So do the old (pre-70s) OS like "Sentry-70" violate this patent too? I

know the pdp-10's could give you multiple sessions, with graphics also from the

mid 70's.



Is prior art from the 70s good enough? or do we really need to go down the

"X-windows" road and IBM mainframe path? [ Reply to This | # ]



Even more obvious example of this - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:35 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:33 AM EDT

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001396



"A Republican lawyer claims she was told that Karl Rovewhile serving as

President Bushs top political adviserhad intervened in the Justice

Departments prosecution of Alabamas most prominent Democrat. Longtime Alabama

G.O.P. activist Dana Jill Simpson first made the allegation in June, but has now

provided new details in a lengthy sworn statement to the House Judiciary

Committee. The Committee is expected to hold public hearings on the Alabama case

next week as part of its investigation of possible political interference by the

Bush Administration in the activities of the Department of Justice. Simpson said

in June that she heard a close associate of Rove say that the White House

political adviser had spoken with the Department of Justice about pursuing

Don Siegelman, a former Democratic governor of Alabama, with help from two of

Alabamas U.S. attorneys." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:39 AM EDT

It's about time. I actually feel a bit of relief. Hey Ballmer, just keep it

coming. Will WILL get through all this and I expect your options will run out

just before Bill Gates retires next year.



You know, when Jim Allchin retired, he played it up like Vista was the next

killer OS. He went out in glory. Then Vista basically died.



And even if Linux dies, gears will shift and Free Software will continue. There

are plenty of reserve options.



Our gears are stronger than your Monkey wrenches and the Open Source movement

can dodge your flying-chairs.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:52 AM EDT

Since RedHat and Novell don't actually own the software, don't actually make

money on the software, is there any damage or liability?



RedHat makes money on service contracts, they NEVER transfer a license of the

software in question, the actual license comes from KDE, GNOME, Xorg, etc.



Can't RedHat say, "why are you suing us? It isn't our software!" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Alpha Prime on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:58 AM EDT

Didn't Windows 3.1 have a 3rd party desktop add-on that would allow users to

switch to multiple desktops. Seems like it was a very invasive piece of

software, but, as I recall it came out in 1987 or so. That would be good prior

art.



Plus it would be good to use a Windows feature as prior art against the company

funding the litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jude on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:05 AM EDT

Wasn't there a recent court ruling that merely using computers or electronics to

implement a known process did NOT constitute a new invention? If so, doesn't

this greatly expand the scope of what might be considered prior art for this

patent?



Here's an example. Many years ago, large advertisements were individually

hand-painted on billboards and other visible surfaces. If I wanted such ads for

my products, I might very well hire a sign-painter and provide:



1) The locations and dimensions of surfaces I had obtained rights to use (data

structures describing windows).



2) Pictures of my product(s) and the text I wanted displayed with the pictures

(data structures describing objects to be displayed).



3) Descriptions and sketches of how I wanted the pictures and text arranged in

the ads (data structures describing the mapping of objects into the window

display spaces).



Isn't this the essence of the patent that this lawsuit is all about?



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: StormReaver on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:07 AM EDT

This question is probably too obvious to have any merit, but in the interest of

leaving no stone unturned:



According to the link to the patent provided in the article, the assignee of the

patent is Xerox Corporation, not the company doing the suing (I don't want to

use the company name since it's an unbearably false oxymoron). Isn't the

assignee the owner of the patent, and therefore the only party with standing to

sue over it?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:30 AM EDT

I seem to remember a system like this (or a very very similar idea) ages ago on

UNIX workstations (1995).



This patent dates from 1987 and validated in 1991. The question has to be - why

are they suing now?



Hey - has anybody patented the recycle bin?!?!



Maybe I shouldn't mention that - might give somebody ideas.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tinkerghost on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:36 AM EDT

Build object off-screen Map object onto display buffer(1) with transform(1) Display buffer(1) Map object onto display buffer(2) with transform(2) Hide buffer(1) Display buffer(2) It's one of the basics of all graphical game programming. 1 Object mapped multiple times. I'm sure there are nuances in the patent claims that only a lawyer could love, but if it's a nuance - it's hardly innovative is it? As far as I can tell this is just combining basic graphical programing techniques with a 'desktop' & claiming innovation. I think Coliqueovision had a few games with split screens that might also be prior art, but it's been way too long since I've played any of them. ---

You patented WHAT?!?!?! [ Reply to This | # ]



Isn't this basic frame buffering? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 10:22 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT

Slipping into the "Gangster" mentality that Microsofts head bully

tends to have.



Wouldn't it be a lucky break if Microsoft just happened to walk in and

"save" Novell, thus showing the value in being a member of the

family.. Um.. I mean partner?



"We'z can protects youz from any 'accidents' in the future, just like our

little friend Novell"



Classic mob threat tactics..



Just a thought. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:42 AM EDT

So MS has been building an army of patentbots. And from the appearance of the

infiltration of MS personnel, Acacia/IP Innovation is a zombie in the MS

patentbot army. [p] The targeting of Novell *and* RedHat by the zombie could

serve to legitimize the Acacia/IP claim like this: Microsoft, shocked, shocked

that its New Best Little Buddy Novell has apparently stolen figs from the Nice

Man's tree, leans on Best Little Buddy to make nice with Acacia/IP. (Not too

soon--the more money drained from the coffers of FLOSS interests and the more

FUD generated, the better--but not too long from now, because having a big Linux

entity admit IPP "wrongdoing" and/or settling with Acacia/IP would be

the biggest FUD emission of all.) Any monies paid by Novell to Acacia/IP would

just be Microsoft paying itself to use its own IP, with the PR value of money

spent for such influence-laundering quite large. [p] Watch for other little

IP-as-product companies the likes of Eolas to suddenly turn on FLOSS interests

as well; Acacia/IP can't be the only zombie lined up in the MS patentbot army.

Don't think Vole, think Hydra. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT

Actually, the patent quoted was applied for in 1987. It was granted in 1991.

The earliest citation mentions the Xerox patent from 1984.





The patent in question is basically a computer system with two desktops that has

links to the same data on each desktop and that can exchange information across

the desktops where the desktops are separate and distinct from each other. It

actually looks to me to build on the 1984 patent (which looks to me to be

multiple desktops). I cant think of any prior art for the multiple desktops

patents, but the precursers of X might be able it be used as prior art for that

as well. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:08 AM EDT

Lets collect prior art in this wiki. This already worked great the last time

when RedHat faced a patent infringement lawsuit in 2006 (against Firestar for

those that do remember).



http://helpredhat.dyndns.org



cu,



Jan Kechel [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:10 AM EDT

Split screen is not that a novel thing. Convergent Technologies running their

CTOS operating system back then and perhaps before 1987 was using split screens

for their word processor called Write1 (IIRC the name).



And I'm sure the military in some of their communication/satellite comm systems

display units were using or could use split screens from the "big

iron" days. That I know from first hand experience and it was IBM via their

360 mainframe and 3270 terminals were doing it as far back as the late 70s'

(AFAIK).



This company seems nothing more than patent trolls. Odd they would pick on

Redhat and/or Novell, when Microsoft has a bank account worth billions more than

both these companies combined. And I'm, sure Microsoft makes use of the same

patent, if it is indeed valid.



---

You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:15 AM EDT

After examining the illustrations on the patent, I remembered where I saw

similar tabbing and displays - and it really looks like OS/2 Presentation

Manager. It's been quite a few years since I've worked with OS/2, but I can't

shake the feeling I've seen this before.



Ok, IBM. Dig deep into your treasure trove of patents and climb on board. It's

time to get to work.



PJ, if this patent violates an existing IBM patent, can IBM use it to

countersue? Or am I hoping for an 800 pound gorilla to step in to protect

Linux? :)



-dh [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:17 AM EDT

According to reports, Apple was approached over the same patents and rapidly chose to settle. It is my assumption Microsoft and its proxies wanted this done quickly, to aid in its FUD and allow the attack to start on the real targets, the business-oriented Linux distributors. Apple was offered a really sweet deal, surely less than the legal fees of fighting. It is my understanding (IANAL) that the Apple settlement establishes a reasonable ceiling on fair and equitable license fees on the patents. I think it should be a priority to find out just how favourable a settlement Apple received. Although it goes against the grain, if the answer was $0.10 a copy, perhaps the smart tactical move is to publicly offer a settlement on the same basis. The message would be that companies built around open source are just as pragmatic as their proprietary competitors when presented with a reasonable settlement of patent claims. A further message is that being sued for patent infringement is no big deal anyway. Remember this patent expires shortly so it is not a long-term problem. I confidently predict the offer to settle would be declined, but this would surely strengthen the position of Red Hat and Novell as the case moves forward. I fear most in the FOSS community is going to treat any proposal other than global thermonuclear war as some kind of surrender or establishment of precedent. I hope we can be smarter than that. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:20 AM EDT

Jacob Hawley, Vice-President of Engineering

Mr Hawley joins Acacia from Microsoft where he held the position of Architect. Link (PDF) Please note that Acacia Technologies and Acacia Research Corporation are part of the same holding. Acacia is still pursuing streaming providers who it claims violate its patents, going after small firms while leaving the "big three"Microsoft, Apple, and Realalone. Acacia's Robert Berman defended the company's actions, but didn't address some of the most pressing questions. Link Acacia is notorious for its pursuing of video streaming providers. Why didn't they go after Microsoft like Eolas did? This may be a topic for research. See here. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Liquor A. on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:27 AM EDT

I'm seeing all sorts of comments that complain that multiple desktops should affect this patent: The usual IANAL disclaimers all apply here, and I am probably reading it wrong, but to me, it seems to only apply to a single item: Multiple views of the same object, POTENTIALLY, but not necessarily, on multiple displays or desktops. Examples for this type of subject are things like: multiple editor windows (e.g. old EMACS, or most modern editors) Old AUTOCAD and even older CAD software that allowed multiple views of the same object from different angles Just about any MUD or MMORPG game (e.g. Everquest, World of Warcraft / Second Life) Possibly it applies to programs similar to MS NetMeeting - any software that allows multiple instances of the SAME desktop or program window. I'm remembering a CAD system I used in 1981 that had multiple workstations on a single machine, and could put use both stations to edit the same object. Unfortunately, this did not use a raster display, but instead had a vector graphic persistent display (i.e. the screen itself was the display memory, and making changes required a complete redraw, which took about 15 seconds) with a limited number of non-persistent lines for cursors, selection frames, and moved objects. I can't remember the name of the system, unfortunately, but some old SIGGRAPH docs might be useful here. I'm also getting the impression that this particular bullet (even if it is a dum-dum round) might be aimed at OpenOffice even more specifically than at linux in general. Especially since I believe that some new Microsoft functionality is associated with multiple simultaneous (remote) editors of a single document on a server. ---

Liquor A. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nonlinear on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:29 AM EDT

The Supreme Court has just agreed to look at a case that might be relevant. Even if not then its still interesting. The nature of the case is whether or not everybody in the supply chain from the manufacturer all the way down to the customer is liable for damages. In the case of Novell and RedHat it seems to me that they are in the middle of the supply chain since they didn't write the software and aren't the final user. See: ht tp://www.abajournal.com/news/court_accepts_supply_chain_patent_case [ Reply to This | # ]



Old Supreme Court case - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:35 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:30 AM EDT

Editors such as Xedit and the earlier (internal to IBM) Raleigh editor RED, in

the 1970s, allowed a split screen approach in which the same file could be

displayed in different ways (e.g. columns 1-80 of each line in text mode in one

"Window" and columns 40-45 in hex followed by columns 1-20 in text

mode in another "Window"). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:41 AM EDT

Didn't the Commodore C-64 have a GUI called GEOS, which

was released in 1985, and dealt with a very similar

windowed concept.



GUI's go a long way back, and it should be fairly obvious

to invalidate some of all of the patent due to prior art.



Here is an interesting site:



http://toastytech.com/guis/guitimeline.html



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 11:46 AM EDT

It merely describes normal programming practice. Nobody invented anything, nor

did they innovate in the creation of this so-called invention. It's a perfect

example of the junk you get when you pack the courts and patent office with

conservative wingnuts that break the law in order to issue patents to support

their ideological belief that patents are always good for the economy.

[ Reply to This | # ]



This patent's a joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:48 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:04 PM EDT

PJ, can you post a copy of the file wrapper for this patent, please? File

wrappers can be big and expensive to obtain, but perhaps you can get one as a

PDF file from someone involved in the case, if you know someone who is willing

to give you that information.



It is foolhardy to try to attack this patent's validity or even try to determine

how the claims are to be interpreted from the standpoint of an infringement

action without seeing the prosecution history in the file wrapper.



In particular, without examining the file wrapper, we do not know how the

examiner interpreted the patent claims to reach a conclusion as to their

validity, what, if anything, the applicant had to give up to allow the patent to

issue, what arguments the applicant had to make in order to overcome any

rejections the examiner may have made, and whether or not there are any unusual

events in the prosecution of the patent.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT



Thank You Pamela Jones for your continued groklaw reporting. The history of the

IT movement will have lots of your website in it.

Microsoft, SCO, etc, is really a form of 'legal' war not unlike terrorism.

Asymmetrical attacks, very expensive and unstable effects to society. When are

we going to grok the truth, that the biggest threat to USA image, productivity,

etc, is POGO's statement, ...ourselves?

The law in society is way past any good or common sense. I'm proud of those who

work to dismantle this system, its just like an OSS movement against Microsoft.

Punitive damages and other measures are not even enough to deter a Microsoft,

which swallowed competition and essentially taxed the industry to death, until

the OSS revolution came. What is needed, is the truth, of all the costs and

damages they bring to society, just like war and terrorism.

Perhaps society will understand than we must make things work, and better

society, otherwise we end up as Rome did.

USA, a lawless society, at war with itself, while the rest of the world laughs

and is preparing the leapfrog game.

Microsoft, etc, you are a clear and present danger to the USA stability. IT and

data is what makes everthing work. As Cosmo said in the movie Sneakers,

"Its all about the Information." People are starting to grok the

truth, anticompetition destroys life and society. The USA is in decline. You

do the math.

Well, the information is out and is somewhat in the free and clear, the IT OSS

movement has started and only gotten stronger, as self preservation now becomes

important.

Piss off Microsoft. Hard ball IT games might come your way sometime. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:10 PM EDT

Hey folks, Don't patents expire from the time they're filed? That was my understanding. If that's true, then it's already expired! Inventors: Henderson, Jr.; D. Austin (Palo Alto, CA), Card; Stuart K. (Los Altos Hills, CA), Maxwell, III; John T. (Sunnyvale, CA) Assignee: Xerox Corporation (Stamford, CT) Appl. No.: 07/030,766 Filed: March 25, 1987 --SYG [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:14 PM EDT

Ethical considerations about user interface patents aside, this patent doesn't

look all that bad for Redhat or Xorg.



The claims of the '412 Patent seem to be quite specific, as the patent seems to

have had to differentiate itself from a lot of prior art even back in 1987.



The patent doesn't claim the concept of workspaces. It claims an outlandish,

though specific implementation of that concept.



The independent claims, which I think are claims 1, 21, 24, 38, 44, 49, 53, 56

as well as 59 all refer to two "display objects", the second of which

is made to be "perceptible as the same tool as the first display

object".



As "display objects" - in the way they are defined in that patent -

are what a workspace is made of, and they are required to be spatially distinct,

the word in X11 terminology for them would be "windows".



So, this patent claims that two windows, each visible on two different

workspaces, are made to look like one another, so that you mistake them to be

one and the same Window if you switch between workspaces.



More specifically, they are made to automatically look like one another, so you

don't infringe if you just manually maximize two firefox instances (I'm not sure

about that).



This is not the way gnome or kde work. Basically, if you have two workspaces,

you have three groups of windows, one belonging to workspace 1, one belonging to

workspace 2 and one belonging to all workspaces, which your panels and transient

windows belong to.



So, when switching from workspace 1 to workspace 2, you hide windows belonging

to ws1 and unhide those belonging to ws2, but don't touch those remaining in

both workspaces.



Less popular window managers should be examined for infringement, though.

Perhaps some obscure, abandoned window-manager somewhere does something,

anything, that resembles what is claimed in that patent. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rdc3 on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:14 PM EDT

Did Xerox at any time provide a patent license to X-windows based implementations or make any statements implying non-assertion of this patent against such implementations? As noted previously, the patent is related to an article published in 1986. D. Austin Henderson, Jr. and Stuart K. Card, "Rooms: the use of multiple virtual workspaces to reduce space contention in a window-based graphical user interface," ACM Transactions on Graphics 5(3), July 1986, pp. 211-243. I assume that the article does not count as prior art against the patent because of the US rule that authors have one year after publication to make a patent filing. But I did a few searches to see if Xerox followed up in any way in possibly licensing or contributing technology to X-windows. It turns out that there is a helpful online bibliography of Xerox PARC publications that includes the following item among others. William C. Janssen. "xRooms: A multiple virtual workspaces window manager for the X Window System." In Proceedings of the 1990 X Window System Technical Conference, Boston, MA, January 1990. So my question is, what is the extent of Xerox contribution of this technology to X-windows and under what licenses or implied patent grant was the contribution made? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:24 PM EDT

IANAL, but as I read the patent I notice that it seems to define an extremely

narrow set of requirements that must be met in order for something to be said to

implement the patent.



Or does infringement on any single claim count?



If not, then we're all in the clear. A window in X, if it appears on multiple

desktops (is sticky), does not have desktop-dependent size and shape.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: CraigAgain on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:26 PM EDT

Had this come prior to SCO's attempt, they might have stood a chance. However,

anyone who reads the comments above mine will realize that the community's

muscle has increased geometrically from the spar with SCO. I suspect that open

source and linux will only grow stronger from this.



Thanks for giving me a front row seat, PJ!





---

Don't change your dreams to fit reality. Change reality to fit your dreams. [ Reply to This | # ]



Comeon.... bring it on...... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:43 PM EDT

Authored by: jbb on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:32 PM EDT

Sprites have been used in computer graphics (mostly video games) since the 1970's. MacroMedia's Director was using sprites and similar concepts since 1985. These might not count as prior art since they are not per se GUIs controlling other tasks. But they do a good job of showing how incredibly obvious the idea was. When you create a Graphical User Interface, it is only natural to take pre-existing graphics art and tack on a UI component. This patent could be the poster child for why software patents in general are bad. The main reason we have a free software movement and not a free mechanisms movement is that software inherently builds upon prior art, layer upon layer, much more so than would ever be physically possible with mechanisms. If people (corporations) are allowed to patent a single step in the process of software evolution, such as this case where a UI component is tacked on to the existing sprite framework, then almost no non-trivial piece of software will be free from multiple patent incumberances. Which seems to be exactly the situation we face today. ---

You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:34 PM EDT

The word 'computer' doesn't appear in the patent claims anywhere. Is there the

possibility of non-digital prior art?



For example, the 'display' might be a 'book', 'workspaces' might be 'pages',

'workspace data structures' might be sentences, words, letters...



I tried to read the first claim with this in mind, but my head hurts from the

language they used. Does anyone here have a thicker skull (or a higher pain

threashold)? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:35 PM EDT

It seems to me that this patent may have expired. [ Reply to This | # ]



Term of patent in the US - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:11 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:40 PM EDT

Hi Guys,



look at this US patent about "Graphical user interface" by Thomas C.

O'Rourke et al. This patent filed in 1991 and Issue date in 1994. what's worry

with the patent system of the US :)



http://www.google.com/patents?id=xoImAAAAEBAJ&dq=graphical+user+interface [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: vinea_mayhem on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 12:56 PM EDT

Contrary to popular groklaw belief, patent trolls are not a MS invention. In

fact, MS, Novell, Apple, etc. have been hit repeatedly by patent trolls.



So I view this as a validation of Red Hat as a company that has made enough

money selling Linux that they are worth trolling...and that is validation for

Linux itself in an oddball way.



Dell might get a letter to stop selling Ubuntu on their PCs which could be

potentially more annoying than RH getting sued. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:17 PM EDT

A rational question is to ask "why also Novell"? Yes, we all know

Novell and MS are buddies and all so this is a reason to think MS is not behind

this lawsuit.



Imho what's going to happen is that Novell will be VERY collaborative and

willing to accept to pay royalties for this BS patent, the game will be make Red

Hat play alone. The expected aftermath (for MS-Novell) would be to make Red Hat

look like a rogue company that does not respect IP. And yes, thanks to Novell

the case will be much harder to solve for Red Hat than before, probably Novell

will rush in making a deal so there's precedent...



Laugh at the ridiculous theory all you want, I just hope Novell does not prove

me right on this one. But if they do, then I hope nobody will argue to me whose

side Novell is playing for. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:34 PM EDT

What about SunView and NeWS windowing systems? If I remember correctly atleast

NeWS had multiple screens and there was someting for SunView. This should get

us to the mid 80's if my memory is correct. [ Reply to This | # ]



SunVIew and NeWS - Authored by: jbeale on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 12:13 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT

"X originated at MIT in 1984. The current protocol version, X11, appeared

in September 1987." Linux essentially uses the methods from X, protocol,

etc. So, either there was prior art (X11) that invalidates the patent, or only

non-essential minor refinements to X11 could be a violation of the patent.

Clearly the only point to this lawsuit is harassment. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Bas Burger on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT

What this all says is that the GNU/Linux has grownup economically to the point

where people are going to take this seriously.

There are 100000001 theories about economics but it all boils down to value

perception and trust.

Linux it's value was little mostly up till SCO started suing it by proxy against

certain Linux distributors and old clients.

This whole thing has caused a major overview by managers and clients that

started to ask them selfs "This Linux thing must be worth, why else would a

company like SCO wasting millions in litigation".

Now managers are standing in 2 queues, one as buyers of service that come with

Linux and the other as litigators.

We will see what the future brings.



---

No comments... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Sxooter on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:57 PM EDT

And Wanlass v. General Electric Company are both very interesting cases on patent law and laches. Link to article: Doctrine of Laches and Patent Infringement Litigation Basically, GE won because they made it quite clear that they were using Wanlass' design while Fedders lost because they tried to be sneaky and hide it. I.e. by being ballsy and basically telling Wanlass that they considered his patent invalid, and Wanlass taking > 6 years to take them to court, GE got a free ride. I think that definitely would apply here. Linux / Unix has hidden little or nothing, and the holder of this patent took too long to take anyone to court to enforce it. Plus the fact is that it's pretty much a worthless patent on something obvious and done with prior OSes at the time it was filed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Wanlass v. Fedders Corporation - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:10 PM EDT

Authored by: Bill The Cat on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 01:57 PM EDT

Hmmm I thought Linux was just an operating system. Distros come bundled with a

lot of utilities, applications and extensions (drivers, etc.) A lot of which is

not Linux.



Novell, Red Hat, Suse, etc. all sell bundles of software -- a package, that

includes the OS, extensions and such. You certainly don't need any windowing

system to run a server although, it is nice. TTY can do most of what's needed

to manage a web server, firewall, or print server.



This suit seems to be like suing a library because a single book may have a

copyright infringement. Wouldn't the proper approach be to sue the people who

supplied the package?



X11 came out a long time ago and even the early window managers had the

capabilities being described here so I'm sure there is prior art involved.

Patents need to list any other art that relates to them. A patent for a car

would need to include the patents for tires, seats, engines, ...



So, I'm confused. Isn't this suit like suing a library because a publisher put

out a book that infringes a copyright? Shouldn't the suit go after the party

that violated a patent and not the distributor?



If this is allowed, then even CompUSA or Fry's or any other retailer could be

sued for selling the software and the user for installing it. It would never

end. You could sue the world and collect more than the national debt.



Of course, we've seen weirder things happen with our legal system. It's a roll

of the dice for sure. The only consistent thing about our system is its

inconsistency ;)





---

Bill The Cat [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:07 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:41 PM EDT

Well, on the up side, PJ has job security! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:45 PM EDT

Enderle?

Didio?

OGara?

a new face? Who will be the first "independent" analyst or journalist to predict Linux's demise due to this patent suit? The winner who guesses correctly will win a hardy handshake! [ Reply to This | # ]



Enderle? Didio? OGara? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:48 PM EDT Enderle - Authored by: brooker on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 06:38 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:48 PM EDT Prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 06:29 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 02:55 PM EDT

The 'inventors' listed in the patent are:



D. Austin Henderson, Jr.,

Stuart K. Card,

John T. Maxwell, III



It would be interesting to hear what they have to say on the subject.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 03:19 PM EDT

vs Apple ---

There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:02 PM EDT

Interesting. Looks like Microsoft applied for a similar patent in 2004.



http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/02/25/1346201.shtml



Microsoft Seeks Patent On Virtual Desktop Pager

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:15 PM EDT



Google for: "window manager" "multiple desktops"



First hit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop



The article has had a lot of revisions over the summmer. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: minkwe on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:53 PM EDT

In my office I have three desks/workspaces corresponding to the three different

tasks that I perform everyday.



On each workspace, I have just the documents and folders that I'm using for the

specific task. In fact I have an additional workspace where I eat my lunch and

display my family's photos.



I can easily transfer documents and objects from one workspace to another as

needed.



If there is any patent that was actually violated here, it seems to be the

"idea of using a computer as a desktop replacement".



What exactly seems to be the invention here?



---

"Corporate views on IP law might be described as similar to a 2-year-old's

concept of who gets to play with all the toys regardless of who brought them" --

PJ [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:56 PM EDT

At some point in time, microsoft is going to upset the wrong people. Imagine if

IBM, Dell, HP, and Gateway reached a point where they would no longer sell

machines that included windows.... or any operating system for that matter. If

a swift move like that was organized. It would spell the doom of microsoft.

Sure, people would still purchase windows separately, but not in the numbers

they currently are. Pirating would go thru the roof, and MS would collapse. :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT

I'd like to review the patent, but am unsure exactly what constitutes tainting.



Does anyone have a reasonable explanation? Not looking for legal advice, just a

common-sense sumamry of the risks surrounding reading this (or other) patents. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT

I would like to see someone put together a list of every patent held by this company. I would like to see the community research every single one. I would like to see the community work together to get every single patent held by this company invalidated using the prior art produced by the community.



By engaging in total patent war we could teach a lesson the world won't forget about going after Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT

I'm sorry, but this was filed in May 1987. The patent should have expired May

2007. When did IP Innovation file suit?

Wouldn't it be a case of fraud or possibly extortion to try and sue now? This is

a pretty weak patent to sue from. Is this the best you got Microsoft? You know

back in the day, when I used Windows, I always ran Norton Desktop for Windows,

which gave Windows multiple desktops. It also did the same thing for DOS.



I know for a fact that NDW was in production prior to the granting of this

patent.



November 1991

Computers in Libraries archive

Volume 11 , Issue 10 (November 1991) table of contents

Pages: 27 - 28

Year of Publication: 1991

ISSN:1041-7915



NY Times August 1991

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DD1239F934A1575BC0A96795826

0



So, I think they're about 16 years late in sueing, don't you think?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT

I don't think this ip-holding company want a multi-million lawsuit they will

probably lose. Why did Apple pay them? To avoid the same. If Novell tough it

out they can scare these guys off. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT

An agreement that Microsoft wont sue Novell is only honored to the extent of the

literal words but not to the intent that Novell depended on. Microsoft wants to

destroy all linux based competition, including Novell. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 06:37 PM EDT

While running a search for the history of virtual desktops and such, I stumbled across this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1= PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5533183 .PN.&OS=PN/5533183&RS=PN/5533183 What is this? Why, it's the same patent, filed by the same group at Xerox, only in 1995. So it appears that one patent wasn't good enough; they filed the SAME APPLICATION multiple times, and so have the patent multiple times. Why in the world would you file the SAME PATENT TWICE? The best part, of course, is by 1995 the "Alternate implementations" section was out of date. Actually, it was out of date in 1987 (Amiga and MacOS both had something akin to multiple desktops), but by 1995 MOST UNIX systems had virtual desktops through X-Windows... ---

Please note that sections in quotes are NOT copied verbatim from articles, but are my interpretations of the articles. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT

Would 1990 be prior art? SWM had it in 1990 as per this pdf by Tom Strange who

wrote both twm and swm.



http://www.lastrange.com/work/swm.pdf [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 07:49 PM EDT

It must be so nice to be a self-fulfilling prophet.



Ballmer's pleasure never ends.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 09:07 PM EDT



OK, I read the patent, and my conclusion is that this "technology" is

present in products from every software company, and has been in common use

since 1980.



But IANAL. Nor am I a judge.







---

Wayne



http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 10:36 PM EDT

They will drop Novell to add value to the M$ deal. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Walter Dnes on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 12:06 AM EDT

OK, maybe I'm an old fogy, or maybe I still haven't shaken off "the

Microsoft way" of doing things. When I first tried linux, I had panic

attacks when all my icons and open apps occasionally disappeared. In response

to my emails, people asked me if this happenned when I pulled the cursor over to

the edge. Yes? But why?



That's when I found out about multiple desktops. So my next question was

"HOW DO I TURN THIS (expletive deleted) "FEATURE" OFF???"

Well, it turns out that WM's (Window Managers) usually have a setting somewhere

for the number of desktops. I set mine to 1 desktop, and all was well. My open

programs no longer disappeared when I moved the cursor out of the way at the

edge of the screen. Running with "only 1 desktop" is perfectly normal

for me.



So my question is... can Redhat etal simply default their distros to 1 desktop

on the gui, and tell the plaintiffs to pound sand? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 12:56 AM EDT

Ward and Smith is apparently a very small law firm in Longview, Texas with a seemingly limited scope of practice, curiously including patent infringement. (I say "curiously" considering that the attorneys I have met who have been active in this area have all had sound technical backgrounds, the sorts of backgrounds which this firm doesn't appear to possess at all.) T. John Ward Jr. (Johnny Ward) signed the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division as attorney for the plaintiff. Please understand that I am not implying any unethical behavior on the part of the court or officers of the court, but there is another point which strikes me as unusual. Namely, there is a T. John Ward who is a judge in the same U.S. District Court in which this action is filed, though this is clearly not assigned to his docket. Anyway, I have the impression that this little firm would not have the expertise and staying power to go through a long battle on its own. For this reason, it will be interesting to watch who else might come to bat should Red Hat and/or Novell choose to engage in an aggressive defense. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 01:38 AM EDT

I don't have citations, but didn't a court recently rule that you cannot patent

doing a real-world thing that cannot be patented for reasons of obviousness, if

the only thing that is different is that now you are using modern electronics?



Seriously, this patent is "having multiple workspaces" "on a

computer". I think any old movie with a guy who has more than one desk

would qualify as prior art.



Heck, isn't "having more than one workspace" the fundamental idea

behind the credenza? The little pull-out extra counter-thingy that desks have

had for centuries?



The very existence of the "innovation" as an "analogy" or

"metaphor" (e.g. multiple _desktops_ etc.) points to the nature of the

alleged innovation as falling into the direct realm of something un-patentable

having been patented by adding "on a computer" to it.



The other clear indicator is that it lists a bunch of things that exist and then

a "for the purpose of" clause. That is, you can't say that patenting

the building of a shelter for the purpose of keeping your bed dry is somehow

different than patenting a shelter built for the purpose of keeping your couch

dry.



The test that I would propose to the court for that a test for patentability is:

if you can cross out the things that the patent does NOT purport to invent, and

you are only left with conjunctions which combine (a) items performing their

existing and well understood purposes (which isn't patentable as of 1957 or so

q.v. putting a conveyor belt next to a cash register); or (b) statements of

purpose (such as "to allow the user to organize" or any mention of

"client" and "server" which is techno-geek for deviding an

application into two parts to get them on separate machines, which is the

division of labor, which is not patentable); or (c) words of metaphor; or (d)

"with a computer" or "on the internet"; then you have

something that is _NOT_ an innovation.



Consider the one-click shopping. The patent claims to allow the user to create a

relationship with the seller such that the seller knows how he will be paid and

how the item will be conveyed to the buyer once the buyer locates the item and

decides the price as offered is acceptable, and with this existing relationship

in place the user can perform a single understood action (e.g. click one button

on the web page) and the rest of the transaction will take place as understood.



Once you "cross out" all the normal non-innovative things (establish a

relationship, make standard arrangements for payment, make standard arrangements

for delivery, select the item to be conveyed, understand and accept the price as

offered) we are left with (a) the "single understood action" and (b) a

bunch of stuff about "pushing the button on the web page using a

computer."



Well, for centuries we have had the well-to-do "dispatching a boy" to

get something from a vendor, Mr. Engles from his little house on the prairie

walking into Lars' dry good, picking up an object, waving it and maybe even

saying aloud "put it on my tab" if Lars isn't talking to little Laura.

(interrupting them would be rude if they are talking 8-). and so on. In short,

once we all know each other and the rules of our agreement, we often do

"the short version" of the buying transaction.



So having dispatched everything else, we are left with the browser, the

computer, the world wide web, and indeed the "browser button" (none of

which we are not claiming to invent), we are left with the two more things the

test eliminates, the "obvious" "to make purchasing easier"

(e.g. the statement of purpose) and "on the computer, on the

internet."



we literally run out of words at that point.



See the problem with patenting software is _not_ that "software is

math", it is that software, by definition, is "mere aggregation".

That is, the software cannot make the computer do something beyond what it and

its aggregated components were designed to do. CPUs compute. Graphic

Subsystems draw. Memory remembers. Disks store. All the rest is "for a

particular purpose".



We propose using the disk store to store a database, or we propose using a

network to connect multiple machines.



The people who invented the hardware already got the patent for that function of

that device. The software is just saying "yah, do that thing you do, you

know, that thing... but like now" (again and again).



If I have a sweing machine that can automatically embroider a huge number of

things at the turn of a control and the push of a button, nobody would accept my

attempt to patent "using a sewing machine automatically embroider a pretty

flower on a tee-shirt to make people happy." The sewing machine already

does all the work and has the cams and patterns for the flower. Someone else

invented the tee-shirt. someone else invented putting things on tee-shirts.

someone else invented thread. All I am bringing to the table is the statement

of purpose "to make people happy".



Yea, that's all software is, mere aggregation, and all software patents are is

dressing up what the machine is designed to do behind a curtain of intent and

circumstance. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 01:41 AM EDT

Link to the Microsoft past.



It's all in the game. One object, different viewports and different views. Can we expect that Ballmer will sue them? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 01:44 AM EDT

Sleazeball company hires sleazeball executives from Microsoft. And Microsoft is

to blame for what the sleazeball company does.



There are idiots and assholes everywhere. Microsoft hires many assholes.

Apparently Groklaw has its share of idiots. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 02:16 AM EDT

Think of all of the Microsoft employees that could be deposed in a search for

prior art. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 02:20 AM EDT

How long have they known of this supposed infringement? Why have they waited so

long to make a claim? I say they lost their chance years ago if they truly felt

their patent was bing infringed. The court should throw it out.

The first change in patent law should be that a patent infringement should be

dealt with immediately. If someone sits on a patent waiting for the offender to

make money then the patent is forfeit. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 02:52 AM EDT

So can we have a jury trial on this next week ?



This case is like a piece of 'unsolicited commercial email', or 'spam'. The

sooner we finish it ,the sooner we can see what wreckage we have to cope with,

and the sooner we can get on with the serious business of providing service to

clients.



Surely Acacia do not intend to develop and market a product based on the patent

they hold. Their customers would just go for Microsoft Windows or Apple OSX

instead. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 03:41 AM EDT

Surely (although a patent has been granted) this is a concept rather than an

actual piece of code?



Can you patent an idea and thus any implementation of an idea?



Seems overbroad as a "patent" to me. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: zander on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 07:02 AM EDT

I'm wondering if companies in Europe or Asia / Oceania are

currently immune to this kind of attack do to their

resitence to software patents in lawmaking.



If so, then can we expect companies to move out of the USA

(or at minimum Texas) to avoid frivolous stuff like this?



And repeat that question for open source development;

should projects put up a banner at their downloads "this

product is illegal in the USA, you are only allowed to

download this from other places."



---

Thomas Zander [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 07:40 AM EDT

Am I the only one who sees in this a very opportune timing to silence Red Hat's

call for calm? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 08:56 AM EDT

This is Microsoft's doing without a shadow of a doubt. In this news pick there is a relevant quote

On Oct. 1, Acacia Research announced that it had hired Brad Brunell as a senior VP. Brunell joined the company from Microsoft, where he was previously the software maker's general manager for intellectual-property licensing. When will everyone else in the software industry realize that Microsoft is not to be trusted. They will do anything to try and safeguard their monopoly on PC software. Perhaps this will start to persuade the doubters that GPL V3 is the best license for all open source software if you want to help safeguard Linux against patents.



Ironically the fact that Microsoft have allowed Acacia (and there must have been collusion) to attack Novell as well as Red Hat might help to cement closer relationships between the two companies and perhaps now the senior management of Novell (and possibly Linspire and Xandros) might not start to see the error of their ways (but I won't hold my breath).



What is needed (perhaps) is some sort of punitive patent attack by companies that use Linux against Microsoft perhaps against one of their flagship products (perhaps a temporary injunction preventing sales of Vista, Office or SQL Server). It would be poetic justice to see Microsoft in court trying to argue against software patents but obviously this is just speculation.



I do not think there is any real danger with this patent attack as there is so much (obvious) prior art but the very fact that Microsoft (via their proxy) are keeping the open source community busy in the courts is slowing down Linux adoption (which is obviously what they want).



What do other people think?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 10:40 AM EDT

It might appear that Apple has licensed this patent in settlement of the suit brought against them earlier in the same District Court. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2007 @ 10:55 AM EDT

I state nothing here as being 100%, only my opinion

based on my own knowledge:



This lawsuit, it is ver